Grand River Transit - Printable Version +- Waterloo Region Connected (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com) +-- Forum: Waterloo Region Works (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=14) +--- Forum: Transportation and Infrastructure (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=25) +--- Thread: Grand River Transit (/showthread.php?tid=13) Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
|
RE: Grand River Transit - Pheidippides - 08-07-2016 I didn't realize it was already time for this semi-annual discussion again. :-) Could we at least move it to the Ion thread or link it back to GRT discussion? RE: Grand River Transit - dunkalunk - 08-07-2016 Back on topic, with the introduction of ION, the routing of the 201 iXpress between UW Station and Conestoga Mall becomes somewhat duplicative. To encourage those already on the 201 bus to transfer to ION, as well as facilitate trips between WLU and Conestoga Mall, I'd suggest shifting the 201 to University Ave between Philip and King to serve the existing 202 stops at Phillip and Hazel. RE: Grand River Transit - MidTowner - 08-07-2016 (08-06-2016, 02:28 PM)dunkalunk Wrote: I have mixed feelings about deadending Route 4 at Grand River Hospital. All good points. I want more service in the midtown neighbourhoods, but realistically a crosstown route through this part of town would probably not attract a lot of ridership in the short term. 4 doesn't now, like you say, and I don't think it's just its frequency that's the reason. Very frequent crosstown service on Victoria should be the focus. RE: Grand River Transit - dunkalunk - 08-07-2016 Some thoughts on how to make Route 4 more useful at the start of ION service. In order of least to most optimistic: 1) Change the Routing of Route 4 so it follows Park and Victoria to serve Cherry Hill as well as connect to Central Station to connect with GO/VIA/Greyhound etc. 2) Combine Routes 4 and 34 into one route. 3) Extend Route 4 to Breslau and then down Woolwich/Fountain to Sportsworld to connect with various iXpress routes and GO/Greyhound. The route would initially serve the airport and Cambridge Industrial Park as well as eventually serve the Breslau GO/RER station. At the very least, even if the route is only extended down Park St and terminates downtown, it already provides a more-useful connection and improves service coverage more than having it loop around the hospital. RE: Grand River Transit - MidTowner - 08-07-2016 That is extremely optimistic (by which I mean maybe not entirely realistic), and awesome! As far as Breslau, without your extension to Sportsworld, would be great, but the way you have it would be really excellent. RE: Grand River Transit - KevinL - 08-08-2016 A user on the Facebook Light Rail group has put together a quite well-made unofficial render of the proposed routes. Route numbers are just a guess, in many cases. Facebook post Full render on Dropbox RE: Grand River Transit - chutten - 08-08-2016 (08-05-2016, 05:06 PM)Markster Wrote:(08-05-2016, 04:38 PM)chutten Wrote: I'm not liking the short-turn of the 92 at UW. It was the only local service along Fischer-Hallman that could connect with ION. Sadly, the 201 isn't local service. I'm in one of those pockets of white in the blue coverage map. I successfully petitioned for a new 92 stop (F-H @ Craigleath/Roxton) so that my neighbourhood could be covered. Maybe I can get them to upgrade it to a 201 stop before the route change? The density really doesn't warrant it. At all. But I'm getting tired of seeing my bus skip my stop as its estimated arrival time takes a delta of 3min over the 11min it takes to walk there. As for the positioning of the UW-adjacent stops... that stop in the middle of UW originally seemed ludicrous to me, too. However, I can now see a few reasons why it's better than having stops at University and/or Columbia. No pedestrian actually wants to be at University @ Seagram, dozens or hundreds of metres from anywhere, stranded in that sea of asphalt. We've done too good of a job tailoring these streets to cars that there's little a pedestrian could possibly want at those bus stops, except to leave (unless waiting for a connection). And all the while, buses are clogging up the right-hand lane. Push the bus stop into UW's East Campus, though, and the buses are only clogging up other buses on that East Campus laneway (and even then, not much given the dedicated bus bays). Riders will come and go in all directions (except perhaps into the old RIM campus buildings, though I expect decent foot traffic during rush) as there are campus buildings, the plaza, and high density residential all around. To say nothing of an ION stop. In short, I've done a full heel-face-turn from derision to appreciation. RE: Grand River Transit - danbrotherston - 08-08-2016 I don't know the numbers but University/Seagram (well really, University and the railway tracks) is a huge pedestrian/transit user corridor. And as for "what a pedestrian could want", there's the UW residences, UW, and the UW Plaza. At least as much if not more than there is at the UW stop. I think your argument holds far better with Columbia and the tracks, but I still would argue that for better or worse, Columbia and University are major pedestrian corridors. Yeah, it's a shame, and yeah, they're terribly unpleasant places to walk, but they are nonetheless very busy. That being said, if the city/university had the initiative, they could fix (or rather could have fixed, boat's kinda sailed already) the whole mess, by turning development inwards towards Hickory, extending Hickory through to Ring Rd., making it a large pedestrian plaza, and turning that into the entrance to campus. Then you'd have a centralized dense pedestrian area. Of course, now there's a switching box directly in that pathway, and there's a fence forcing pedestrians to take a circuitous route to anywhere on campus. I am not in the slightest impressed with how the UW station area has been put together. RE: Grand River Transit - yige_t - 08-11-2016 Fall Schedules are out! New route - 78 Hanson - http://www.grt.ca/en/routesSchedules/resources/PTT_RT_078-20160802-web.pdf New route names: 12 Westmount 16 Strasburg 52 Coronation 61 Fountain Good to see GRT start standardizing route names. RE: Grand River Transit - timc - 08-11-2016 What was the old name for route 12? RE: Grand River Transit - YKF - 08-11-2016 (08-11-2016, 10:35 AM)timc Wrote: What was the old name for route 12? I believe it was just Conestoga Mall/Fairview Mall. Didn't really provide a lot of information. RE: Grand River Transit - Markster - 08-11-2016 All three of those routes used to be named simply after malls that they terminated at. 12 Conestoga Mall – Fairview Park 52 Fairview Park – Ainslie Terminal 16 Forest Glen In the case of the 12 and 52, there are other bus routes that serve the pairs, making the names particularly useless. RE: Grand River Transit - kitborn - 08-12-2016 In my days as a driver there were two legs to a route with the same number. i.e. 2 Stanley Park, 2 Forest Hill. After many years of passenger frustration of getting on the wrong leg, they finally changed it so that each direction had a different number. RE: Grand River Transit - Markster - 08-12-2016 (08-12-2016, 08:41 AM)kitborn Wrote: In my days as a driver there were two legs to a route with the same number. i.e. 2 Stanley Park, 2 Forest Hill. After many years of passenger frustration of getting on the wrong leg, they finally changed it so that each direction had a different number.Presumably that was back when the 2 did that jog down Stirling to Avalon Pl? Yeah, I can believe people would be getting on the wrong way when both directions of bus run the same way along a road! There's some discussion to be had regarding bus route naming: http://humantransit.org/2009/07/legibility-as-marketing-and-the-tovia-problem.html What's most important in a name? The direction? The end of the line? The places it actually serves in the middle? Ideally, the name includes both features, the "To" and the "Via", but the finer point is which one is paramount? As we move away from circuitous routes, and on to more grid-like routes, the direction of the bus is more an inherent feature of "which side of the road is it on?" in a way that isn't always obvious for buses snaking around cul-de-sacs. This means we can move away from names that emphasize direction, and toward names that tell you what variety of places you can get to (going to somewhere on Westmount Rd? Take the Westmount bus!). RE: Grand River Transit - Smore - 08-15-2016 (08-11-2016, 11:43 AM)Markster Wrote: All three of those routes used to be named simply after malls that they terminated at. A bunch of "mall-to-mall" shuttles!! |