Grand River Transit

[Markster]

Seattle's downtown transit tunnel is served by both LRT and buses, so there's no operational reason why it can't happen.
But they don't seem to be interested in doing that kind of operation here.
It's also likely they would have done the concrete in shared sections to a higher standard (i.e. using the extra thick rebar used in intersections)

Of course, the ION stops at Borden/Ottawa are not actually on Borden and Ottawa, so there's not much to be gained. Some of us had imagined a shared platform at King/Victoria.

[MidTowner]

The 4 is intended to connect with Ion at Grand River Hospital, so that's their connection with the LRT (or the 6 or the 18, depending on who specifically we're talking about). But, as proposed, the 4 is proposed to terminate there, rather than connecting the Midtown neighbourhoods on either side of King. I don't see the sense: it could be turned into a crosstown route providing connection to Ion at GRH, and also direct connections between those neighbourhoods.

So it is still useful, then?  But it would be better if it connected across to the other side King St?  Do I understand your post correctly?

Is which still useful? The 4 or the 28? Both are probably useful for some people. I think the 4 would be a lot more useful as a crosstown route, offering connection to the GRH station as proposed.

You asked "Why would Midtowners prefer to take the bus to Lancaster, rather than connecting with the LRT?" It's not a choice between the two. I don't understand why the 4 would terminate at GRH instead of continuing east (similar to how it does now, or ideally even further).

[jamincan]

I definitely get the impression that GRT is pushing people to use the LRT with a lot of these changes. I'm not sure that making all of these neighbourhood feeder routes connecting to ION is necessarily improving the network, though. Both Blockline Station and Northfield Station seem to be set up as fairly major nodes in the transit network when the reality is that neither are important nodes in the city. This means a lot of people will be forced to take a single-station hop on the LRT, which seems a little bit inefficient and susceptible to delays.

[KevinL]

Also, why end the 205 ixpress at Sunrise Centre, when ending it at Windflower Dr or Prosperity Dr (and using the neighbourhood streets as a loop to turn around) would provide service to the residential community west of Sunrise Centre?

Likely there is a stop available at Sunrise that allows the bus to stand there until the scheduled departure.  This is usually not possible on neighbourhood streets.

Also, the drivers will want to layover and would like a convenient washroom - likely GRT will arrange for those amenities with one of the retailers there.

[YKF]

Likely there is a stop available at Sunrise that allows the bus to stand there until the scheduled departure.  This is usually not possible on neighbourhood streets.

Also, the drivers will want to layover and would like a convenient washroom - likely GRT will arrange for those amenities with one of the retailers there.

I get what you're saying, and it makes sense. I'm just seeing a missed opportunity here. I wonder whether the following would be operationally feasible: Run the westbound trip straight through to either Windflower Dr or Prosperity Dr., and then layover at Sunrise for the eastbound trip, as per schedule requirements. IMO, extending the service 1km west of sunrise to service that residential community and have passengers encounter a layover at Sustar Sunrise Centre is better than not providing any service at all.

[tomh009]

So it is still useful, then?  But it would be better if it connected across to the other side King St?  Do I understand your post correctly?

Is which still useful? The 4 or the 28? Both are probably useful for some people. I think the 4 would be a lot more useful as a crosstown route, offering connection to the GRH station as proposed.

You asked "Why would Midtowners prefer to take the bus to Lancaster, rather than connecting with the LRT?" It's not a choice between the two. I don't understand why the 4 would terminate at GRH instead of continuing east (similar to how it does now, or ideally even further).

Your answer implied that none of the changes are useful at all, and the routes are just as bad as before, from a midtown perspective.  And what I'm hearing from your replies is that midtowners want to get to midtown on the other side of King, or to Lancaster.  But not to other places.

[MidTowner]

Your answer implied that none of the changes are useful at all, and the routes are just as bad as before, from a midtown perspective.  And what I'm hearing from your replies is that midtowners want to get to midtown on the other side of King, or to Lancaster.  But not to other places.

I can't see what in what I said could have implied that people want to get to "Lancaster but not to other places"? Viewfromthe42 asked about the 28 specifically- I don't understand the introduction of that, nor why the 4 would be truncated at King Street, rather than continuing east. That's what I said: that the 4 ought to continue as a crosstown route. Nothing about that precludes its use to connect to Ion: it will connect to Ion. It seems to me that the 28's primary purpose is not connection to Ion, anyway.

For the record, it's probably wrong to say that service in Midtown is "bad." There has been an abundance of service on King, obviously, and service apart from that. It's a hard area to serve because of the street network, and I expect that's why Viewfromthe42 was asking about whether the proposed 28 is a good way to serve it.

[Pheidippides]

 So your comment seems to single out students for no good reason, I'm sorry to say.

I am all for building future transit users by developing transit use habits and putting off car ownership through incentives, but in this case it seems as though a premium service (15min service on a local route) is being provided at a discount price (26% of the cost of a monthly pass) to a very distinct set of users; so yes, I was singling out students.
 
The 92 has 15min service (bi-directional) when most “local” routes like the 3, 22, etc. are limited to 30min service and unlike other local routes the 92 only runs September to April thus not serving the greater community the rest of the year. Also, the current route 92 has greater reach into the greater community because it uses mostly regional roads and connects to more useful destinations (e.g. full grocery stores). The proposed route uses a largely “private” road (ring road and its connectors) for 44% of the route and really doesn’t connect to anything that isn’t already walkable from campus (e.g. fast food). With the new routing around ring road you will see a large number of people using it as a circular to avoid walking across campus which makes it seem as though the revised route is solution in need of a problem to solve; especially when there are so many other options along or near the 92’s route that are going to the same places at high frequency. With the proposed increased frequencies of a lot of the university area’s routes I think a lot of the overcrowding issues the 92 was implemented to alleviate will be largely resolved and remove the need for the 92 since there will be >20 trips per hour across University at peak times (without counting the 92’s trips). At least the BusPlus routes funnel users from low walkability/lower serviced areas to higher walkability and serviced areas; this route does neither.
 
Obviously GRT has data that shows that the stops along the University/Westmount/Erb/Fischer-Hallman/Columbia leg of the route were not as well used and that it is still needed to alleviate the overcrowding on the remaining part of the route, but I wish they would provide that type evidence as rationale when proposing their changes each year. I would love to see the boarding/alighting data for all routes become open data, but especially this one pre and post route changes.
 
At least with the proposed shorter loop not as many resources will be needed and can be reallocated to other parts of the system, but it would better if all of the 92’s resources could be redirected elsewhere.
 
I don’t know what a proper analogy would be, but maybe imagine the outrage that would be generated if that school bus shuttling drivers from the parking lot on Dominion to Sunlife/GRH were a GRT route that parking lot users got to use for a fraction of the full GRT fare and only operated at shift change times.

I am interested to see TriTAG’s further take on the proposed changes.
 
Thanks again for the always interesting discussion and ideas!
 
Don’t forget to actually fill out the feedback form too so GRT can hear so of these great suggestions!

[timc]

I agree that the routing of 92 is less than ideal for the general public. It looks mostly like they took the end of 7D/E and made it the University Loop. I agree that there will definitely be students who take the bus to get around to the other side of campus, and we are now losing this root that goes to other places that people want to go besides UW.

I'm only one person, but I have wanted to use the University Loop in the past. Since it has been a peak service only it does not fit my schedule. Now when it becomes a high frequency all-day service, it won't be useful to me either.

I do not agree with the economic argument, and I think that if you do the math you will find that students are not paying 26% of the cost, and that the students who pay and do not ride the bus mostly offset the discount that is enjoyed by those who do ride the bus.

[BuildingScout]

 So your comment seems to single out students for no good reason, I'm sorry to say.

 
I don’t know what a proper analogy would be, but maybe imagine the outrage that would be generated if that school bus shuttling drivers from the parking lot on Dominion to Sunlife/GRH were a GRT route that parking lot users got to use for a fraction of the full GRT fare and only operated at shift change times.

I don't agree that the services are provided at a fraction of the cost. Every student pays for the bus pass including those who use it not at all. My guess would be that the price paid per trip is not that different from a corporate pass in which only interested employees sign up for it..

[DKsan]

Every students pays for a bus pass + 75% of them live off campus and hence pay property tax through their rent.

[darts]

 
I don’t know what a proper analogy would be, but maybe imagine the outrage that would be generated if that school bus shuttling drivers from the parking lot on Dominion to Sunlife/GRH were a GRT route that parking lot users got to use for a fraction of the full GRT fare and only operated at shift change times.

I don't agree that the services are provided at a fraction of the cost. Every student pays for the bus pass including those who use it not at all. My guess would be that the price paid per trip is not that different from a corporate pass in which only interested employees sign up for it..

The corporate pass is also paid by the employers, the amount GRT gets for a corporate pass is more than what the employee pays.

[Pheidippides]

Lots of GRT related reports in the planning and works agenda for next week:
http://www.regionofwaterloo.ca/en/region...6-1004.pdf

Included are some rough timelines of some of the federal projects that recently got funding.

[KevinL]

Why is the new Fairway terminal only $2 million and the University hub $4 million? There's more demolition involved at Fairway...

[tomh009]

Why is the new Fairway terminal only $2 million and the University hub $4 million? There's more demolition involved at Fairway...

Demolition is cheap, though.