Grand River Transit

[Canard]

Well that's exceedingly disappointing.  
Yet another chapter in the ongoing saga of rapid transit design decisions that are made out of convenience for the Rapid Transit team, without properly analyzing downstream impacts.

Do we know that that's the reason? Or are we just speculating? Perhaps there are other factors at play, here, that we may be unaware of?

(ie, Transport Canada?)

[Markster]

Regardless of why the bus bay was deleted, which may or may not be Transport Canada, it's clear that when they decided to delete the bus stop, they did not take any actions to accommodate it in any other way.  This is an intersection where there are absolutely no space constraints.  There is parkland on either side.  There were multiple solutions to install a bus stop island.  Shifting the LRT east. Shifting the roadway west.  In the end they did nothing except delete the bus bay. The easy solution.

Rapid Transit made a decision that the bus stop had to go and there would be no accommodation, and GRT has to come in after the fact and work around decisions that are harmful to bus transit. (See also: UW Station contorting all bus routes through campus)

[Canard]

Right, I get all that. What I'm saying is: We don't know WHEN the problem came to light.

Transport Canada may have seen what we were BUILDING, already in-progress, and then said 2 months ago "Wait, you can't do that." Or maybe a GRT driver said "Wait, you're expecting us to drive across the tracks at a shallow angle, unsignalized? That's not safe" and they decided against it.

Sheesh, sorry for suggesting something!

[ijmorlan]

Right, I get all that.  What I'm saying is:  We don't know WHEN the problem came to light.

Transport Canada may have seen what we were BUILDING, already in-progress, and then said 2 months ago "Wait, you can't do that."  Or maybe a GRT driver said "Wait, you're expecting us to drive across the tracks at a shallow angle, unsignalized? That's not safe" and they decided against it.

Sheesh, sorry for suggesting something!

We don’t even know if what happened was that a problem appeared. There are relatively minor adjustments made to the plans all over the place.

I would say that if crossing at a shallow angle unsignalized is a problem, the solution is a signal. Buses already cross the tracks right-to-left at Allen St. northbound. But I don’t know if that was the concern in the first place.

[Canard]

That's right - key being we don't know - but we're jumping down the throats of the engineers and decision makers and saying they're bad. Which, I think, is disrespectful and wrong.

[KevinL]

I don't know who made the decision or when or how, but I'm not accustomed to a change without public consultation. That's where my indignation is based.

[Canard]

What's the point of a consultation if there is no other reasonable course of action?

It would kind of be a waste of money to have a public consultation to just say "...here's what we're stuck doing". You can't have a public consultation about every single little thing.

[MidTowner]

I wouldn't characterise this one as "little." It impacts a great number of riders. It's a permanent change to a route, in no way for the better.

There is never only one course of action. At minimum, not having the detour and having a large stop spacing is an alternative. Consultation is best practice for a change like this.

[creative]

It never ceases to amaze me how people are so quick to jump all over something without knowing the facts. We are quick to criticize decisions made by those in the know and with the expertise and experience. Everyone is entitled to their opinion but to continually blast decisions on this forum may make you feel better, it will do nothing to find out why a decision was made. Reach out to those in the know for an explanation. Ask your local councillor for clarification. They are in a position to find answers to your concerns and possibly make changes if other suggestions or solutions are brought forward.

[MidTowner]

I've e-mailed GRT to confirm that that's the plan. It'll take them time to get back. Others are doing the same.

What you have is people expressing disappointment that no consultation was made (which also would have served to educate us beforehand), and a bus driver who likewise is disappointed that he wasn't asked. Maybe he'll make his suggestion internally. I hope so. But I don't think he or anyone else has "blasted" anything.

[Markster]

But I don't think he or anyone else has "blasted" anything.

Oh I definitely qualify as having "blasted".
I have no regrets!

[mpd618]

It never ceases to amaze me how people are so quick to jump all over something without knowing the facts. We are quick to criticize decisions made by those in the know and with the expertise and experience.

Sometimes "those in the know" have good reasons for making a decision that seems, on its face, to not make sense. Other times they don't, and their decision can be a consequence of poor planning, questionable cost/benefit analysis, insufficient oversight, turf wars, political pressure, or all kinds of other reasons. Observers can be quite well informed as to the way those issues can contribute to an outcome, and have reasonable grounds to say that a bad outcome was probably avoidable. Certainly you can ask to try to find out the rationale, but how do you know whether you would get a rationale or an after-the-fact rationalization? 

It's the responsibility of the government to make good, sensible decisions and to communicate those decisions along with appropriate context. It's the responsibility of the citizenry to hold them to account, supporting good outcomes and calling out poor ones.

[tomh009]

It's the responsibility of the government to make good, sensible decisions and to communicate those decisions along with appropriate context. It's the responsibility of the citizenry to hold them to account, supporting good outcomes and calling out poor ones.

Agreed.  Not everything can go to a public consultation or a referendum.  We elect people (to the various levels of government) to make responsible, reasoned decisions for us.

[Pheidippides]

The irony of a new routing that would involve Regina is that Regina, having taken additional traffic from all the King and Caroline closures, has rapidly deteriorated in the last few years and will likely need to be at least resurfaced in the near-term. Meaning, the 7 would once again be on "detour" likely straight up King as before and by-passing the newly re-located stop.

[Pheidippides]

New bus shelters popping up all around uptown this morning, including the William stop between king and Regina.

Looks like stops along the ion rails are getting flat slanted roofs and stops else where are getting the arched/domed roofs.