Grand River Transit

[ac3r]

I can't remember, are there sections of the Ion route where the LRVs can be sped up without any engineering changes?

Thanks to a really, really, really stupid design that has it interacting with roads, driveways, sidewalks, pathways and the nonsensical signal priorities they can't safely speed it up for a lot of sections. It's not really about engineering challenges (though there are some, like the rdiculous turns near Hayward) or having passengers jerked around (which happens anyway...it can be going in a straight line and suddenly the thing feels like one of the wheelsets derailed, then the operator has to slow down for a second) and more due to a tiny budget.

Like across intersections is one thing (it's not ideal, but trains have done that for a century now), but that they thought it would be a good idea to run a rapid transit system across private single family home driveways is unbelievable. That would be like running Line 4 Sheppard down the middle of Sheppard Road rather than underground so that an entire subway was flying past driveways every 2-5 minutes and it doesn't take a transit engineer to tell you that would be a stupid idea. Or putting centre island platforms in the middle of a road...like what the hell is that?

Any issues with our system is due to us seeking to spend as little money as possible. It was cheaper for us to risk perpetual crashes into cars or literally running children over than it was to make a rapid transit system that doesn't risk, say, a little kid playing on a scooter in their driveway suddenly getting pulverized by a train.

Here's a funny YouTube comment I came across recently where someone was just as perplexed by the weird design choices:

This is the strangest rail line I've ever seen. First going next to the street against traffic with no guard rails then ''on'' the street against the curb, station stops on an island in the middle of the street? Some  intersections the train has to stop, others it don't? Who designed this anyway?  Some 9 year old?

[danbrotherston]

I can't remember, are there sections of the Ion route where the LRVs can be sped up without any engineering changes? Or would it result in uncomfortable speed changes for passengers whenever the LRV hits a tight curve?

How easily could GRT achieve 15-minute service on all of its routes? What kind of a budget increase would that represent?

There are three classes of places where the ION could speed up:

1) Near Hayward the limit for no reason goes down to 15 km/h for like 300 meters (over one minute). This is an off road segment, with no road conflicts, no bridges, nothing...I have seen no technical reason for this slow down...it seems...insane.

2) The segments where the LRV runs in the median could be faster, it is sometimes the car limit (but I think it could be higher still given the extra separation) and on Northfield it is below the car limit (50km/h instead of 60km/h and traffic speeds are 70-90km/h) for no reason (except possibly over the bridge where it was suggested there were engineering limits on the speed on the bridge...that should be fixed if there are however.

This could arguably increase the risk, these segments are very prone to crashes, with 100% of crashes being the result of a driver disobeying a traffic signal. Still, vehicle occupants would be in more danger being hit by an LRV going faster.

3) The side running segments, the trains go extremely slowly here, often 30km/h. This is because of the safety risk to pedestrians who are nearby. FWIW I would trade some low impact fencing (or shrubbery) here in order to improve the margins of safety so that the trains can go faster on these segments...of course that would take some space, which we should take from drivers...except that ship has sailed.

As for 15 minute service, I have no idea...it's pretty easy to determine the extra cost...I'd surmise it would be a significant increase in costs say 50-100% more (as well as massive capital expenses, it might not even be possible immediately because we'd have to buy new buses and build places to park them).

But the bigger problem is knowing what effect that would have on ridership...this is hard to predict and is likely to be highly inaccuarate...despite how confidently staff will put a number on it.

[ijmorlan]

3) The side running segments, the trains go extremely slowly here, often 30km/h. This is because of the safety risk to pedestrians who are nearby. FWIW I would trade some low impact fencing (or shrubbery) here in order to improve the margins of safety so that the trains can go faster on these segments...of course that would take some space, which we should take from drivers...except that ship has sailed.

If this is OK:

https://goo.gl/maps/N8kVSHrAXLD4NrADA

… then there is no reason for an LRT limit below maybe 65km/h immediately adjacent to a sidewalk. An LRT lane has vehicles driven by trained operators at the specified speed that do not deviate from their planned path and come once every few minutes; a regular traffic lane has vehicles driven by whatever random idiots passed a driving test at whatever speed they feel like that occasionally mount the curb and come several per minute.

Now of course the example I gave is not OK, but I don’t think it’s that unreasonable to expect our transportation engineers to show some sign of consistency.

[tomh009]

If this is OK:

https://goo.gl/maps/N8kVSHrAXLD4NrADA

… then there is no reason for an LRT limit below maybe 65km/h immediately adjacent to a sidewalk. An LRT lane has vehicles driven by trained operators at the specified speed that do not deviate from their planned path and come once every few minutes; a regular traffic lane has vehicles driven by whatever random idiots passed a driving test at whatever speed they feel like that occasionally mount the curb and come several per minute.

The one mitigating factor for cars is that they can stop much more quickly than an LRT.

Still, I agree that the LRT should be able to drive at least at 50 km/h, the same (theoretical) speed as the vehicle traffic.

[ZEBuilder]

If this is OK:

https://goo.gl/maps/N8kVSHrAXLD4NrADA

… then there is no reason for an LRT limit below maybe 65km/h immediately adjacent to a sidewalk. An LRT lane has vehicles driven by trained operators at the specified speed that do not deviate from their planned path and come once every few minutes; a regular traffic lane has vehicles driven by whatever random idiots passed a driving test at whatever speed they feel like that occasionally mount the curb and come several per minute.

The one mitigating factor for cars is that they can stop much more quickly than an LRT.

Still, I agree that the LRT should be able to drive at least at 50 km/h, the same (theoretical) speed as the vehicle traffic.

Okay but if a transport truck can drive the speed limit or faster why can the LRT not go the speed limit or faster? A transport truck can't stop as quick as a car either yet it can go the speed limit so there isn't exactly a good justification on why the LRT can't go at least the speed limit if not faster.

[ijmorlan]

If this is OK:

https://goo.gl/maps/N8kVSHrAXLD4NrADA

… then there is no reason for an LRT limit below maybe 65km/h immediately adjacent to a sidewalk. An LRT lane has vehicles driven by trained operators at the specified speed that do not deviate from their planned path and come once every few minutes; a regular traffic lane has vehicles driven by whatever random idiots passed a driving test at whatever speed they feel like that occasionally mount the curb and come several per minute.

The one mitigating factor for cars is that they can stop much more quickly than an LRT.

Still, I agree that the LRT should be able to drive at least at 50 km/h, the same (theoretical) speed as the vehicle traffic.

How fast do you think transport trucks go there? Now explain why the LRT should be required to go more slowly than that speed.

[dtkvictim]

The one mitigating factor for cars is that they can stop much more quickly than an LRT.

Still, I agree that the LRT should be able to drive at least at 50 km/h, the same (theoretical) speed as the vehicle traffic.

How fast do you think transport trucks go there? Now explain why the LRT should be required to go more slowly than that speed.

I mean, half of his post is agreeing that he doesn't think they should be required to go slower.

And I know this discussion is mostly about the inconsistencies of engineers/planners, but it's really not useful to use transport trucks (or even personal vehicles) driving 50+km/h less than a meter away from pedestrians as a justification. It's an unacceptable arrangement.

Personally I have no issue with any speed for the train because it's on rails, and I don't step out into the street at random (those I suppose anything could happen by accident or emergency).

[danbrotherston]

How fast do you think transport trucks go there? Now explain why the LRT should be required to go more slowly than that speed.

I mean, half of his post is agreeing that he doesn't think they should be required to go slower.

And I know this discussion is mostly about the inconsistencies of engineers/planners, but it's really not useful to use transport trucks (or even personal vehicles) driving 50+km/h less than a meter away from pedestrians as a justification. It's an unacceptable arrangement.

Personally I have no issue with any speed for the train because it's on rails, and I don't step out into the street at random (those I suppose anything could happen by accident or emergency).

FWIW...I think all traffic should be moving more slowly in congested pedestrian areas.

If we want to increase speeds, we must increase separation.

(LRVs also cannot swerve, but also, LRVs cannot swerve ONTO sidewalks as drivers sometimes do).

That being said, the problem is that slowing LRVs below the speed of traffic again prioritizes driving over transit. It's harmful to pedestrians for the knockon effect of encouraging more driving.

But as far as I remember, most collisions have happened in areas where the LRVs run central...this has been surprising to me as those segments are fully controlled, every driver who has hit an LRV in this area has disobeyed a sign or a light. I don't know how to fix that...certainly if we actually enforced our traffic laws ever that would help, but given that they are now enforced, not by police, but by occasionally being run over by a train, I'm not sure how effective that would be. Probably consistency is more important than the severity of punishment though.

[dtkvictim]

I don't know how to fix that...certainly if we actually enforced our traffic laws ever that would help, but given that they are now enforced, not by police, but by occasionally being run over by a train, I'm not sure how effective that would be.

Perhaps we ought to award the LRVs with an honourary Constable title.

[ac3r]

I've got a question about one part of the upcoming GRT fleet of buses.

They've ordered some Nova Bus LFS Artic buses set to enter service next year so maybe this hasn't been answered by GRT yet, but do we know whether or not they will be allowing rear door boarding? Or are they just going to have people enter by the front, then wander 60 feet to the back? They'll be running these on the busiest lines to start so to me it would make sense to allow passengers to enter in through the back doors and tap their card on a machine by the door (or wander to the front to pay with coins, if needed).

This is how many cities around the world who have busy routes and articulated buses work. In fact there are even some out there where you are allowed to board via the back door on a regular old bus as well. Of course allowing this would operate on trust...does our region trust us enough, I wonder? I just kind of hope you can hop on via the back door and tap your card once you're in there, rather than a slow ass single file line. Even now on regular buses, you can get held up a good while if you've got someone who has a card that barely works or an old lady paying entirely in nickles. Allowing more people to board at once and validate the payment after the bus is moving would allow for much greater headways, since you wouldn't have a line of people on the sidewalk all taking turns tapping their card while the bus driver waits to for everyone to get in so they can move.

[ijmorlan]

Trust, and enforcement. And a social understanding that for a fare inspection agent to demand proof of payment is not, in fact, an infringement of any rights.

[KevinT]

It would be nice to see the fare inspectors on vehicles other than ION, I'm totally in favour of all-door boarding on the artics.

[ac3r]

You know...I'm surprised there aren't companies trying to do for transit payments what Amazon Go did for shopping. If there was a way to just board a bus or train with your card in your pocket/bag/whatever and it would deduct the appropriate fare or confirm the presence of a pass as you walked in the doors, that would be pretty nice. Of course it wouldn't fully be able to stop fare evasion, it could at least make people pay so long as they had their card on them even if they had no intent to be honest and pay. The way we handle it now just feels so archaic.

[KevinL]

It's a neat proposal, but you would need to designate only one (no more, no less) of the RF-capable devices (credit cards, transit cards, smartphones/watches) on your person as identifying yourself for transit usage; otherwise it might over- or under-charge users. That would not be easy to explain or enforce to the general user base.

The standard that I believe the better agencies are striving for is 'open payment'; you do need to tap one of the above noted devices, but there's a large selection of such options and you're free to use whichever suits you.

[taylortbb]

You know...I'm surprised there aren't companies trying to do for transit payments what Amazon Go did for shopping. If there was a way to just board a bus or train with your card in your pocket/bag/whatever and it would deduct the appropriate fare or confirm the presence of a pass as you walked in the doors, that would be pretty nice. Of course it wouldn't fully be able to stop fare evasion, it could at least make people pay so long as they had their card on them even if they had no intent to be honest and pay. The way we handle it now just feels so archaic.

I believe Amazon Go stores effectively have "fare gates" where you have to scan the app before entering the store, so that they have payment information for you. Everything you take after then is automated, but you still had to tap/swipe/etc in.

Reading a fare card as you walked through the door would be challenging, the range on one of our fare cards is generally only considered to be a couple inches. The systems which scan inventory just by passing it through a frame use a much simpler read-only RFID technology, not one that requires bi-directional communication with the card being read. If we made our fare cards more like 407 transponders that would work, but those are bulky as they have a battery in them. No longer a card form-factor.

I can only think of two ways to implement what you suggest, that are realistic with current technology. 

1. Use facial recognition. GRT could have a facial database tied to accounts, and automatically recognize people as they boarded and deduct from their account balance. However, such a solution would be quite expensive, and unpopular for a number of (legitimate) privacy reasons. It also doesn't help with first-time riders.
   
2. Use a smartphone app. The BLE (Bluetooth low energy) signal from a phone would be strong enough to be reliably picked up by a reader on the bus, and there wouldn't be the bulk associated with a dedicated device containing a battery. The app could run always-on in the background, similar to how Tesla implements their phone key technology. However, one could just turn off Bluetooth on their phone and ride for free. Also, not everyone has smartphones, and sometimes people run out of battery.
   

I think open payment systems, letting people just tap their credit/debit card, would the logical evolution. Anything else has too many issues.