Grand River Transit

[Pheidippides]

How far out will Ion trigger the rail crossing arms at the transit plaza crossing?

For example, when north bound, will the crossing arms come down as it approaches UW station and remain down while it loads/unloads and only go back up when it is well clear of the crossing near Columbia or will they only come down as it pulls out of the station.

If it is the former then there's going to be very little time for buses, or people for that matter to cross, before the next northbound or southbound train comes (and bells ringing unrelentingly most of the day).

The example southbound would be if the crossing arms and bells and lights will remain engaged while Ion is in the UW station even though the train will have already passed the crossing but is still close enough to trigger warnings because the station is close to the crossing.

[KevinL]

I doubt either of your scenarios where the arm stays down in 'dwell time' is correct. The systems are made well enough these days that a train should only trigger them on departure; and it should certainly retract after the train has passed.

[Pheidippides]

I doubt either of your scenarios where the arm stays down in 'dwell time' is correct. The systems are made well enough these days that a train should only trigger them on departure; and it should certainly retract after the train has passed.

You are correct according to the Transport Canada Grade Crossing Standards for circuitry:

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/railsafety/grade...ds-312.htm
16.3.1  Where railway equipment regularly stops, or railway equipment is left standing, within the activating limits of a warning system, the warning system must be equipped with a control feature to minimize the operation of the warning system.


My point about the crossing being a bit of a bottleneck for buses remains though because of other standards:

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/railsafety/grade...ds-313.htm
15.2.2  The descent of the gate arm must take 10 to 15 seconds and its ascent must take 6 to 12 seconds.
15.2.3  The gate arm must begin its decent once the gate arm clearance time has elapsed, calculated in accordance with article 10.4.
15.2.4  For a grade crossing where railway equipment enters the grade crossing at more than 25 km/h (15 mph), the gate arm must rest in the horizontal position not less than 5 seconds before the arrival at the crossing surface of railway equipment.

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/railsafety/grade...ds-312.htm
16.1.1 The time during which the warning system must operate, before the arrival of railway equipment at the crossing surface, must be the greatest of:
• 20 seconds, unless the grade crossing clearance distance (Figure 10-1) is more than 11 m (35 ft), in which case, the 20 seconds must be increased by one second for each additional 3 m (10 ft), or fraction thereof;
• the Departure Time for the design vehicle (article 10.3.2);
• the Departure Time for pedestrians, cyclists, and persons using assistive devices (article 10.3.3);
• the gate arm clearance time, plus the time to complete the gate arm descent, plus 5 seconds;
• the minimum warning time required for traffic signal interconnection as referred to in article 19.3(a);
• the time for the design vehicle to travel from the stopping sight distance, and pass completely through the clearance distance.


That means in a typical 60min period at peak frequency, with trains every 8min or 7.5 trains per hour (x2 for both directions), there will on average 15 trains crossing per hour. The crossing will be at least 13m wide (2x3.5m lane + 2x3m trail) which means the signalling must be on for 20.7 seconds before the train arrives plus a minimum of 6 seconds for the gate arms to go up again or about 27 seconds per train crossing or a minimum total of 6min 45sec (11%) of every hour. Granted that is still far less than a regular road intersection which is probably red 50% of the time in a given hour, but the nature of the set-up will be a bit of a domino effect in that busses waiting to turn from ring road to the new transit plaza will be either blocking active users on the Laurel Trail and/or ring road users while waiting for the all clear from the signals to pass; especially when there will be upwards of 30(?) busses per hour using the crossing.

In addition, the staff member I spoke to tonight at the PCC indicated that there maybe additional barriers/signalling to limit access to the transit road to busses only that would be triggered by the signal priority system on the bus; but perhaps I misunderstood his comment.

[knlr]

Notice of Proposed Procurement:

"Grand River Transit Fairway Road Satellite Terminal

The Region Municipality of Waterloo wishes to engage the services of a Consultant to provide architectural and engineering services for Grand River Transit’s Fairway Road Satellite Terminal including design, tender, contract
administration, field inspection services and coordination with a third party commissioning agent."

[Markster]

In the wake of the public infosession regarding the new UW bus mall, TriTAG has a new post:

Missing the connection: Will the University iXpress bypass ION?

Grand River Transit is investing in a new transit plaza next to the University of Waterloo’s ION station. But they have no stated plan to connect the 202 University iXpress with this location. In fact, they propose to have the 202 drive over the tracks and not stop near ION at all. How could this be? See the plans yourself, and then tell GRT you want the 202 to connect with ION.

Basically, it seems that UW doesn't want GRT running buses from University Ave up to the bus mall between Ring Road and Philip.
And in response, GRT has... well, done nothing.  None of the routes on University Ave will connect with ION.  A stop at University and the Laurel Trail to allow a walking transfer hasn't even been considered.



TriTAG is proposing that, while connecting to the bus mall is preferred, but UW simply won't allow it, then the 202 should be rerouted to Seagram to connect with the Laurier stop.  But GRT's current plan, which is to do absolutely nothing, is not acceptable, if we're supposed to be building a transit network.

Considering that it is at the behest of UW that the Region chose to build a mid-block station, as opposed to ones at University and Columbia, it is unacceptable that UW should refuse the operational consequences of this decision.

[KevinL]

Considering that it is at the behest of UW that the Region chose to build a mid-block station, as opposed to ones at University and Columbia, it is unacceptable that UW should refuse the operational consequences of this decision.

That's the true upshot of this - the University made this bed, they had best be prepared to lie in it.

[rangersfan]

That is absolutely absurd, the lack of coordination between UW and GRT (on purpose or not) .
As mentioned above especially since the stops at University Ave and Columbia were nixed in favor of the one right near this proposed bus terminal.

Crazy, good on Tritag for raising awareness to this lack of cooperation.

[Pheidippides]

This entire exercise reminds me how much I really regret not being more vocal about the Ion station placement earlier.

Redirecting to the 202 to the Laurier stop seems like a reasonable accommodation without adding too much travel time/distance to to 202. My only critique would be that there are more people and places around the current 202 stop at Phillip that might drive 202 use.

Failing that adjustment, if the 202 cannot go to the new terminal than even moving the current 202 stops to university at the tracks would probably take a similar amount of time or less than having the 202 go to the proposed terminal.

Consider the EB case of the 202 travelling from University at Seagram to the proposed transit terminal and then having to walk to the UW Ion station:
850m drive (one left, two rights) from University at Seagram to the transit terminal + 150m walk "back" to the UW Ion station = 4min + 2min = 6min travel time (not accounting for potential bus and pedestrian stoppages at the tracks) 

Now consider the EB case of the 202 travelling from University at Seagram to a new iXpress stop just before the tracks and then walking up the trail to the UW Ion station:
250m drive (no turns) + 400m walk = 5min + 1min = 6min travel time (not accounting for pedestrian crossing street)

So the travel time is about the same at 6min albeit most would feel like the stop at the tracks is more travel time because of a higher proportion of the time is spent walking.

The case going WB is similar. Imagine a 202 travelling from University at Phillip to the proposed transit terminal and then having to walk to the UW Ion station:
600m drive (one right, one left) from University + 130m walk = 3min + 2min = 5min travel time (not accounting for potential pedestrian stoppage at the tracks)

Now imagine a 202 travelling from University at Phillip to a stop just before or after the tracks and then walking up the trail to the UW Ion station:
180m drive (no turns) + 400m walk = 1min + 5min = 6min travel time (not accounting for potential bus/pedestrian stoppages at the tracks)

You can do the same exercise for the 201 on Columbia and the results are similar whether you are comparing EB or WB trips. Travel times for bussing to a transit terminal and walking to the Ion station or bussing to where the trail meets Columbia and walking down the trail are about the same (4-5min either method).


Can UW actually restrict bus flow on Ring Road? I guess it is technically a "private" road, but it is a public institution. Perhaps UW won't get such a good U-pass deal next time around or they should have converted the campus to a proper transportation grid? :-)

[MidTowner]

It seems like your solution to route 202 down Seagram to the Waterloo Park station makes sense, if UW won't accommodate the 202 going through campus to the plaza. It's six and one half dozen, anyway- those taking the 202 would still have a direction connection to Ion, and UW would still be served by the 202.

Actually, I can think of one benefit of this plan over routing the 202 to the UW transit plaza. Although it would mean riders can't connect directly from the 202 to other bus routes, it would mean a connection at an Ion station that is likely to be a lot less busy.

[plam]

I've sent an email to the chairs of the UW sustainability committee asking if they know whether UW is asking GRT to not have the 202 go through campus. Note that the 201 is supposed to go through campus.

[plam]

TriTAG is proposing that, while connecting to the bus mall is preferred, but UW simply won't allow it, then the 202 should be rerouted to Seagram to connect with the Laurier stop.  But GRT's current plan, which is to do absolutely nothing, is not acceptable, if we're supposed to be building a transit network.

Considering that it is at the behest of UW that the Region chose to build a mid-block station, as opposed to ones at University and Columbia, it is unacceptable that UW should refuse the operational consequences of this decision.

I've been told that the negotiation between GRT and UW resulted in an agreement to not increase the number of buses going through Ring Road, which sounds reasonable considering the number of people on foot on Ring Road. (There are some other people-friendly conditions in the agreement as well). So I'm guessing that routing the 201 through the plaza offsets the elimination of the 200, but that adding 201 and 202 would constitute an increase. Probably the best thing is to route the 202 through Seagram station.

[ijmorlan]

I've been told that the negotiation between GRT and UW resulted in an agreement to not increase the number of buses going through Ring Road, which sounds reasonable considering the number of people on foot on Ring Road. (There are some other people-friendly conditions in the agreement as well). So I'm guessing that routing the 201 through the plaza offsets the elimination of the 200, but that adding 201 and 202 would constitute an increase. Probably the best thing is to route the 202 through Seagram station.

But isn’t actually reasonable, given that a much larger reduction in use of Ring Road with an impact on fewer people could be obtained by restricting non-bus traffic. Imagine if the space in front of DC was two culs-de-sac, with a bus-only link running through. Then there would be no through traffic other than buses, just people doing drop-offs and pick-ups in that area. This reminds me a bit of the ridiculous opposition to running the iXpress down Central St. which didn’t say anything about non-bus traffic.

[timc]

I have often advocated moving one or more bus routes to Seagram. The ION station that is being built there currently has zero connections to GRT. Sending a bus down there would also allow a better connection between ION and Laurier.

[Pheidippides]

COR-TRY-16-112
Grand River Transit Bus Purchases (P2012-22)

Recommendation: That the Regional Municipality of Waterloo accept the proposal from New Flyer Bus Industries Canada ULC for the 2017 delivery of fifty seven (57) diesel transit buses at a cost of $27,006,477.93 plus applicable taxes; And that the Regional Municipality of Waterloo grant pre-budget approval for this expenditure prior to approval of the 2017 budget as set out in report COR-TRY-16-112 dated November 30, 2016.

[chutten]

Diesel? In this day and age?