Grand River Transit

[BuildingScout]

No branching 7s!

If I remember correctly this was the original intention with the 92 all along. I guess with the introduction of the ION they felt they could finally kibosh the UW routes.

[YKF]

My thoughts on the proposed 2018 service changes:

Route 9: leave the route on Hazel, considering it has the residential density to support the service, vs the employment uses along Albert, north of Columbia.

Route 12: Good on GRT for eliminating the segment east of King St. Not exactly sure how the interlining will work with the 18 (does the bus turn into the 18 once it gets to Philip? King St would make more sense for an interlining location, IMO. Also, I'm a bit worried about removing the local service along Block Line Road and shifting it to Bleams. Block Line has better coverage of residential neighbourhoods.

Route 2: Seems like this route, as a whole is try to do everything by itself. I'd like to see the 23 take over the Franklin Rd/Wilson Ave component and have the 2 terminate at Stanley Park Mall.

Route 22: This route seems geared entirely to captive riders. I'm not a fan of the circuitous loop design proposed by GRT.

I'm still trying to digest all of the proposed changes. I think it looks good overall, I'd just like GRT to re-examine southwest Kitchener, particularly routes 3, 22 and 16.


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?

[KevinL]

Route 22: This route seems geared entirely to captive riders. I'm not a fan of the circuitous loop design proposed by GRT.

Yup. This is pretty much completely composed of loopy, smaller-road bits of the current 3, 11, 22, and 78, with some minor tweaks and tucks. It's to avoid having too many people lose their accustomed local service during the overhaul.

I'm not against it, for the record; I just hope schedule timing allows easy transfer to the heavier routes (3, 12, 201, 205).

[tomh009]

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.

[MidTowner]

No. I’m not really sure what that loop is supposed to do for whom. Better would be if the 4 was a crosstown, continuing along Union and Margaret as now and then continuing east on Guelph to Lancaster or beyond. I admit I’m not sure what would be the best way to serve Belmont Ave in that case, though.

Why would Midtowners prefer to take the bus to Lancaster, rather than connecting with the LRT?

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.

[tomh009]

Why would Midtowners prefer to take the bus to Lancaster, rather than connecting with the LRT?

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?

[DKsan]

A question:

Can buses fit on the embedded ION right-of-way?

I know we probably don't want them to, but could, say, the Ottawa iXpress split at Borden/Ottawa, and use the ION stops?

[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!