Grand River Transit

[ac3r]

Both can be bad. The planning sucks here, but it has always sucked and that isn't going to change for a long time. The Region of Waterloo - should be and always have been considering how to improve transit now rather than later...and I mean actual transit. Buses are fast, safe, sheltered and attract a very wide range of demographics which is important. 65+ year old women aren't going to be cycling or scootering around the city like a child, they want a bus and that's what needs the most drastic improvement. They can allow a young office worker to work dry and warm, rather than wet or sweaty. They allow you to carry home your groceries or haul on a stroller. There's so much more versatility and I wish we would see more money put into that instead of bullshit like downtown cycling grids and other novelties for the extremely tiny minority of Lycra wearing dorks who make cycling their entire personality.

That they didn't really improve anything after the launch of the LRT is a real shame. But I guess that whole project just showed how little our leaders understand what they're doing. Trip times for buses barely changed. Routes were cut. They pivoted away from the central terminal which I suppose is mostly fine, but they didn't really improve the rest of the bus network...I mean good luck finding a bench or trash can at many bus stops or knowing when the next bus will come unless you happen to have enough money for a smartphone and data connection.

The RoW also did nothing with this new transit hub, which although it wouldn't have had much to do with buses (or even the LRT since the station is outside...on a sidewalk...it's not even possible to integrate into the building lmao, like why? If you knew you had plans for an amazing new station why the hell not make it so the LRT could actually be part of it?!?). They should have forgot that whole nonsensical idea because the estimated cost was something like 100 or 150 million dollars, put that money into GRT improvements and simply let Metrolinx handle the construction and operation of the entire station. Unfortunately the region was selfish and wanted to create a centerpiece downtown with this project. Metrolinx stations are usually just a basic platform, building, the usual station things (bike racks, machines, shelters) and that's all they really need although some of the newer ones are larger - Mont Dennis, St. Clair-Old Weston etc. It was the region who decided that they wanted this new grand "transit hub". Only it has been a grass lot for how many years now? That they had to put metal fences around to prevent it from becoming a homeless encampment.

The decision makers here are just awful.

[KevinL]

I think the Region's approach had some merit, pre-pandemic, but given how things are going now it's probably best for a rethink. We'd probably get a decent station from Metrolinx alone, on the stipulation they put it in a minimal footprint to allow surrounding development. Then, we get the incoming developer to ensure there's public access to the various transit platforms and that those are connected to commercial space. Job done.

[Bytor]

Recently, my car broke down (long story short, the last oil change I had, dealership put too much oil in, being this car is a Plug-In Hybrid, I hadn't used the engine until a longer trip that I took), and realized quickly that a bus was not an option - involving about 30 minutes of walk, and 60 minutes of bus, for a relatively short distance. So I took my kids scooter. Also took the scooter to the dealership, as that was going to be a 2 hour affair, but took 20 minutes on the scooter.

Two hour trips on GRT are the anomaly, not the regular.

White I hear people talking about how trips on GRT take two hours, in my experience they generally fall into three groups:

This first are the people who live on the edge of town and are going to another place 180° around the other side, like Doon South to RIM Park. And also on a Sunday, because even Doon South to RIM Park still only takes about an hour thirty to an hour forty during peak times, depending on how many transfers you want to bother with.

The second group is the people who relate a 20 year old experience and assume that nothing has changed.

The third group are the people who it turns out have never actually bothered so see what their trip would be like via GRT and just assumed.

Years ago, when transit was more centralized, most trips could be done within 60 minutes or so. Now it's disorganized and takes a lot long longer, making it useless for day-to-day life.

The opposite, actually. First iXpress routes then ION have reduced average trip times on GRT noticeably over the past 15 years.

For example, Williamsburg to DTK is now 5 minutes faster than it was before ION service, even though there was no transfer before ION.

[ijmorlan]

Both can be bad. The planning sucks here, but it has always sucked and that isn't going to change for a long time. The Region of Waterloo - should be and always have been considering how to improve transit now rather than later...and I mean actual transit. Buses are fast, safe, sheltered and attract a very wide range of demographics which is important. 65+ year old women aren't going to be cycling or scootering around the city like a child, they want a bus and that's what needs the most drastic improvement. They can allow a young office worker to work dry and warm, rather than wet or sweaty. They allow you to carry home your groceries or haul on a stroller. There's so much more versatility and I wish we would see more money put into that instead of bullshit like downtown cycling grids and other novelties for the extremely tiny minority of Lycra wearing dorks who make cycling their entire personality.

This is mostly just a bunch of BS stereotypes. “like a child”? “Lycra wearing dorks”?

This is the kind of stuff that makes it hard to take some people seriously.

[danbrotherston]

Both can be bad. The planning sucks here, but it has always sucked and that isn't going to change for a long time. The Region of Waterloo - should be and always have been considering how to improve transit now rather than later...and I mean actual transit. Buses are fast, safe, sheltered and attract a very wide range of demographics which is important. 65+ year old women aren't going to be cycling or scootering around the city like a child, they want a bus and that's what needs the most drastic improvement. They can allow a young office worker to work dry and warm, rather than wet or sweaty. They allow you to carry home your groceries or haul on a stroller. There's so much more versatility and I wish we would see more money put into that instead of bullshit like downtown cycling grids and other novelties for the extremely tiny minority of Lycra wearing dorks who make cycling their entire personality.

This is mostly just a bunch of BS stereotypes. “like a child”? “Lycra wearing dorks”?

This is the kind of stuff that makes it hard to take some people seriously.

*sigh* yeah, this is a tired old trope from ac3r. I can tell you every example he gives is directly contradicted by the Netherlands. 65 year olds riding their bikes, check, young office workers, obviously check, people with groceries, kids, check check.

Bikes are much more versatile for the same reason cars are versatile. Buses here are not…underinvested (see my article) but they have low frequency and low ridership compared with other European nations.

The only difference is our infrastructure.  65 year olds, people with kids, people getting groceries, they don’t mind biking, they do mind having their lives threatened. Sadly people with an attitude like ac3r are all too common.

[bravado]

If there’s anything to say about the “Lycra dorks”, it’s that the bike infrastructure that they advocate for in council is usually the sort of thing that regular people who just want to bike for groceries don’t want to use - but those are exactly the kind of car trips we would like to replace.

[Bytor]

65+ year old women aren't going to be cycling or scootering around the city like a child, they want a bus and that's what needs the most drastic improvement.

You show your contempt of cycling with this ignorant use of stereotypes.

They can allow a young office worker to work dry and warm, rather than wet or sweaty.

It is perfectly possoble to cycle to work without getting sweaty.

They allow you to carry home your groceries or haul on a stroller.

You do know what panniers and bike baskets are? Or bike trailers? Or maybe not, as that ignorant statement suggests.

There's so much more versatility and I wish we would see more money put into that instead of bullshit like downtown cycling grids and other novelties for the extremely tiny minority of Lycra wearing dorks who make cycling their entire personality.

Ah yes, the insults of the confidently ignorant who can't argue with facts and logic.

That they didn't really improve anything after the launch of the LRT is a real shame.

Somehow you were blind to the whole realignment of routes once ION service started? Because how else would you make that ignorant statement?

But I guess that whole project just showed how little our leaders understand what they're doing. Trip times for buses barely changed.

Average trip times dropped. The example I always give is Williamsburg to Downtown. Even with a transfer at Block Line station the trip to DTK is five minute shorter than it used to be with no transfer.

Routes were cut.

Which ones?

or knowing when the next bus will come unless you happen to have enough money for a smartphone and data connection.

Because you and only you know how to solve the age-old problem of transit scheduling with chaotic variables like traffic congestion and boardings such that busses always arrive when a paper schedule says they will. LOL.

What a bunch of horse puckey.

[ijmorlan]

[…]
What a bunch of horse puckey.

Thanks for the detailed refutation, followed by the terse summary. I’m glad somebody felt up to it.

[ac3r]

Fares are going up...again. No service improvements of course. This is the sort of crap that makes people just buy a car.

Details here as of July 1st: https://www.grt.ca/en/fares-passes/fares.aspx

[tomh009]

Fares are going up...again. No service improvements of course. This is the sort of crap that makes people just buy a car.

Details here as of July 1st: https://www.grt.ca/en/fares-passes/fares.aspx

About a 2% increase to both monthly passes and EasyGO fare payments, well below inflation.

Have you noticed how much car, car insurance and gasoline prices have gone up in the past few years?

[ac3r]

About a 2% increase to both monthly passes and EasyGO fare payments, well below inflation.

Have you noticed how much car, car insurance and gasoline prices have gone up in the past few years?

Whether or not it is below inflation doesn't matter. People are still struggling to afford life. Sure a mere 24 extra dollars on a transit pass per year may not be a lot of money to someone like you or I, but for others any sort of cost increase can be extremely hard. The elderly with low pensions, students, those on ODSP or even just people making minimum wage (or hell even low 20s) feel every little cost increase they are faced with. They only just recently increased the fares and if you followed the public reaction to that online, people were pretty upset with that. Now they want to raise them even more.

Granted, I realize the fares have on average been lower here in Waterloo Region than elsewhere which is great for people. But the cost increases are going to make people start to struggle. Worse, it'll make people start to pivot away from transit use (even if that will ultimately cost them more). Time is an extremely valuable commodity, so buying an old beater can often much more useful to someone if it means they don't have to spend 2+ hours taking an unreliable bus around the city all day or have to worry about having a bicycle regularly stolen or showing up to work smelling and having your hair screwed up from a helmet.

GRT could easily save money too. How many tens of thousands of dollars did they just burn wrapping buses in stupid pride flags, silk screening shirts and getting rainblow sunglasses with the GRT logo made? Just for empty virtue signaling. I can't speak for all people obviously, but I'm not even heterosexual myself and I don't feel like I need a "Ride with Pride" rainbow sticker by the door to let me know I can be comfortable riding the bus. Serves no purpose other than to burn tax dollars.

[ac3r]

*sigh* yeah, this is a tired old trope from ac3r. I can tell you every example he gives is directly contradicted by the Netherlands. 65 year olds riding their bikes, check, young office workers, obviously check, people with groceries, kids, check check.

Bikes are much more versatile for the same reason cars are versatile. Buses here are not…underinvested (see my article) but they have low frequency and low ridership compared with other European nations.

The only difference is our infrastructure.  65 year olds, people with kids, people getting groceries, they don’t mind biking, they do mind having their lives threatened. Sadly people with an attitude like ac3r are all too common.

We're not the Netherlands, though. Cycling happens to the extent it happens there because of the differences in cultural attitudes towards it...but most of all, the urban design of cities. And by that, I don't just mean bike lanes and stuff. The cities are dense because they are historically built that way. We have a continent that - outside of a tiny handful of old metropolitan areas - has been designed for car use for roughly a century, unfortunately. From where I am currently writing this post, there are only 2 small convenience stores within a 10-15 minute walk. There's a Zehrs about 20 minutes away, but the walk is annoying. Cycling to it would be actually suicidal. But from my home in Toronto, there is more around me in a 10 minute walk than there is in entire wards of Kitchener. Understand? The structure of these cities is different. Cycling works in some, but not in others. It barely works here.

More people would bike here if Waterloo Region felt like any other European city. That is to say, having things close enough that it's easy to cycle to, having the infrastructure, having fewer cars that will murder you around and so on. But we don't. Even if we put bike lanes all over the region from downtown to the townships, everything is still extremely spread apart. It's just a huge pain in the ass to take cycling seriously as a main form of transportation, which is why I mention Lycra. Most people just want to get around, they don't make cycling their entire personality like an annoying vegan nor do they have any desire to become cycling militants that advocate for turning everything into a bike lane.

This is why I think it makes more sense to spend money on more transit improvements - at the present moment, at least. Yes, build more bike lanes and MUTs of course because we still need those, but they need to be built strategically. We spent about 6+ million on this cycling grid alone. Was it necessary? Not really, I think. You have always been able to bike around downtown just fine. It's not like cars were flying down Ontario Street at 50 kilometers an hour. It has always been a place where cars, cyclists and pedestrians have been able to share just fine. I tend to see more actual vehicles mistakenly driving down these bike lanes than I do actual bikes (though yes I realize cyclists do use them).

At present and in the short term, all that money could have gone into improving bus services which benefit a hell of a lot more people than they do bike lanes. 6 million could have paid for a lot more drivers. Bus stop improvements (seats, shelters, displays, trash cans). More frequent service on routes. 6 million is a good chunk of money. In the meantime, slowly densify the city and yes absolutely invest in MUTs and such and put them in strategically useful areas so that people can in fact get between more distant places with ease. Then as the population density and building density increases, put more money into adapting roads with bike lanes, wider sidewalks etc. I mean when I lived in Kreuzberg, Berlin the population density was a shocking 15,000 per square kilometer. Transit and bike infrastructure makes total sense there. But here? The entirety of Waterloo Region doesn't even have 400 people per square kilometer.

[plam]

You've seen the pictures of car-choked Amsterdam in the 70s, yes?

[ac3r]

Yes, but that's still not a good comparison. Amsterdam has always been a dense city with or without cars. It's also extremely small. You can walk from one end of Amsterdam to the other in just over an hour. It is much easier to transform the infrastructure of a city when the city itself is tiny and not even 1 million people live in it. They had the benefit of being dense, very small and having a government willing to figure out how to fully maximize its land use because, well, the country itself doesn't have a lot of useful land. Bike usage is high there because the country/cities are tiny, they have fairly mild weather year round and they really could not afford to waste space on roads.

It's a much different story to transform a North American city in this way. We are doing it, thankfully, but it'll be a slow process...especially since we had a century of oil company propaganda that created a generation of room temperature IQ carbrained fools, which in turn created more and more demand for roads and parking and perpetuated it for an entire generation and beyond.

Anyway this is less about cars or bikes and more about terrible local transit in an extremely car centric urban area. Regardless of what you believe, more people would benefit in the immediate term from improved bus services than they are going to benefit from a bunch of novelty bike lanes because we are currently and will remain for many decades, a car centric place. It will take time for denser development to catch up. There are not going to be any true 15 minute neighbourhoods in Waterloo Region for a long time. As such, we are still going to need investments in transit improvements but unfortunately GRT doesn't really do that.

That's my point, not that bikes suck and we shouldn't care about them. It's that local transit sucks. We are not the Netherlands or Finland, we are Waterloo Region and so we should be trying to develop our services in a way that maximize benefit for the greatest number of people right now...and for us, that means improved buses and light rail prioritized rather than bike lanes. I mean yeah build those too, but build them intelligently. Since this forum loves to use Amsterdam as an example of an apparent utopia, I must ask, how well do you guys actually know about the urban history of that city, beyond what Not Just Bikes and other YouTubers waffle on about? Before there were bike lanes all over the place, Amsterdam invested very heavily into both rapid transit and bus improvements to get people around. It got people from A to B very fast and reliably. They began to build a metro system in the 1970s. Trams were expanded and improved. Buses also saw investment. The city has always been dense, so walking the last mile to work/school/shops/back home and so on was easy enough. Over time, bike use grew because it was handy, so people advocated for more improvements to that infrastructure. They didn't just start turning roads into bike lanes, they improved higher order transit first and then evolved the rest. Doing that is especially important in Waterloo Region since we're already car centric and it can take a long time to go anywhere and it'll take a long time before you get your average car user to be able to make biking anything more than an exercise hobby.

[jeffster]

Yet, Canada has a car ownership of 790 vehicles per 1,000 people.

Finland, well, they are also 790 vehicles per 1,000 people.

Netherlands, they are a little lower, at 588 per 1,000 people (still more than one per family).

Should also be noted, the Netherlands are roughly 200km by 200km in size (41,000 km2). That's it. And yet you still have 588 cars per 100k. For comparison, Southern Ontario is 114,000 km2, almost 3x the size, with about 4.5 million less people.