Grand River Transit

[Viewfromthe42]

We could move towards a system where we considered boardings a per-use cost (punishing those who don't live on direct routes based on their transportation needs), on a distance cost (punishing those who live farther from their destinations), on a time cost (punishing those who aren't able to use express buses and have to take milk run routes), (...)

Punishing?  Based on this argument, the current system punishes those who live on direct routes, and those who don't make stopovers, and those who only take the bus (or LRT) for a short distance.

Seriously, in my mind a distance-based cost is the most fair (you are effectively paying by distance when you drive (gas/wear and tear), bicycle (effort/wear and tear) or walk (effort/shoes).

Or make the entire system free of charge.  But I don't think there is much support for that.

In my example, "punishing" would mean that the "punished" situation involved having to use more fares than someone else (e.g. if you couldn't transfer and needed 4 buses to make a return trip to work, you would pay 4 times for potentially a shorter commute than someone who lived and worked on opposite ends of a long route and only needed to pay 2 fares to get to and from work). Indeed, few people do short hop bus jaunts because they are paying a full fare for a very short distance/time savings, whereas these are extremely popular for U-pass holders since there is no disincentive to hop on a bus and ride 1 or 2 stops to class to save a tiny bit of time and effort.

Distance-based could be argued to be a less optimal solution in some ways. If I ride a bus from Conestoga to Galt, I've gone ~40km(?), but I've only required one boarding, only taken up one seat on a single route. If my journey requires 3 boardings because I transfer twice, I've slowed down that bus and all its occupants (especially if I'm the only person getting on/off each of the three buses, now it's 6 boarding/disembarcation cycles). Additionally, if the short distance I'm on each bus (let's say 1km) happens to have a very high boarding area right after I get on, I might have displaced 3 people on 3 separate bus routes who each might have wanted to use the full length of the system, but my being on that bus prevented them from getting on. In this case, I would suggest that the "short" 3km jaunt on 3 buses used far more resources and inconvenienced far more people than someone sitting on the 200 end-to-end.

Also, I think you mean to say you are paying by distance when you use a car/bike/walk, but you are not paying a cost of those systems. As we all know, no amount of walking or cycling pays any direct fee into sidewalks or bike infrastructure, and certainly someone using a hybrid for an all-electric trip or an electric car for any trip pays no gas tax (if you believe that to be any kind of fee for road use, which I do not), just as someone using the 401 during rush hour isn't imposing the same cost on our highway system as a trucker who flies through Toronto at 3am, since we built the system to accommodate the commuters of rush hour and have no problem accommodating the users of seldom-used times of day.

[Elmira Guy]

In my opinion, the current system of being able to travel as far as you want, on as many buses as is necessary within 90 (or 99 as seems to be the case of late) minutes works very well.

[KevinL]

Demolition has begun at the Fairway Crabby Joe's, to make room for the new terminal.

[yige_t]

Service Changes effective September 2017: http://www.grt.ca/en/service-updates/ser...dates.aspx

No surprises (everything on the list has been previously announced).

[Pheidippides]

I was curious about how well the 204 has been doing so I requested the monthly ridership from GRT a while ago. They finally got back to me today.
   

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think that is about 1/2 of what the 200 (3,200 in 2005), 201 (3,600 in 2013), and 202 (3,400 in 2013) were each their first few years.

[Andy]

That's a pretty misleading statistic in the title. A majority of that increase wouldn't be due to lifestyle changes or any approval of the service itself. It would just be people learning that the route started running. I mean, it's increased infinite percentage if we start tracking at August instead. Or only ~35% if you start at October.

[Markster]

Was the chart supplied by GRT? Or was that your work, Pheidippides?

Comparing to the first month of service, after major route restructuring is indeed... not ideal.

[tomh009]

But it's still up 20% in the last 12 months, which is not bad. And 12 months ago it was no longer new.

[Pheidippides]

Was the chart supplied by GRT?  Or was that your work, Pheidippides?

Comparing to the first month of service, after major route restructuring is indeed... not ideal.

The chart and headline were mine.

They also told me in the response that my local 204 stop would get its real-time display by the end of the year which was thoughtful, but not really specific.

[chutten]

Ah, multi-axes plots. Lies, damn lies, and statistics. :D

Looking forward to the service changes in September. It's always nice to get 100% of our transit system back after a few months' suffering its suppressed levels.

[KevinL]

I was just reminded this morning that the 11 and 22 are still not back on their Charles routing this fall, and may never return before the reorganization at Ion launch. -sad face-

[dunkalunk]

I was just reminded this morning that the 11 and 22 are still not back on their Charles routing this fall, and may never return before the reorganization at Ion launch. -sad face-

I'm actually quite happy with this arrangement, especially regarding the 22. I use the 22 as an express connection to Forest Glen to connect with the 12 to get to/from work. This will closely mirror Route 3 post-ION, following Mill, Ottawa, and Strasburg out to Huron Heights after Forest Glen Terminal is replaced by the Block Line ION station and platforms at the Sunrise Centre.
[/url]
[url=http://www.grt.ca/en/about-grt/2018-transit-network.aspx]link to 2018 network

I had always considered the Charles St. route for the 11/22 Route complex to be circuitous, although I understood its purpose in serving Cameron Heights School and Pool. It also doesn't help that the Ottawa iXpress isn't starting this year.

[KevinL]

I relied on the Charles routing particularly on Saturdays to easily reach the market from where I live in Country Hills. I still take the route, but I have to get off at Courtland and hike over Cedar Hill.

[MidTowner]

It looks like the 200 will not be using Park Street after all, at least not on September 4. The fall schedule shows it remaining on Weber.

I think the current routing would be a lot faster than Park Street, so I think that's good, but the communication is kind of poor- the July 28 news release is still on the web site, contradicting the new schedule that has been posted.

[goggolor]

The online schedule on the Route Planner tool shows the 200 stopping at Grand River Hospital - Mount Hope Street.

On Twitter someone pointed out to GRT that the map on the cover of the schedule still showed the 200 on Weber and their response was "We're waiting for the final confirmation of stop locations on Park". But GRT forgetting to update the cover of their schedule is not unexpected, that was a constant source of confusion when they started adjusting the 200 schedule and adding/removing stops on Weber but not changing the map on the front of the schedule to match.