+- 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
RE: Grand River Transit - Viewfromthe42 - 10-28-2016
The extra bureaucracy seems like such a waste, and wasted opportunity. In Ottawa, I had a pass throughout high school. Used it to do a lot of things outside of school, freeing up my parents to do other things rather than drive me, and helped to make me a transit user instead of car driver to this day.
RE: Grand River Transit - Pheidippides - 10-28-2016
The planning and works agenda for next week says there will be a public consultation at UW on November 16 about the UW transit plaza.
Lots of other information related to other threads in that agenda too.
RE: Grand River Transit - KevinL - 10-29-2016
Just realized tonight - for the first time in over a year, the 3 is COMPLETELY off detour. It's taking Ontario-Charles-Benton-Courtland again!
RE: Grand River Transit - Markster - 10-30-2016
Nice to hear that buses are finally using Charles/Benton again!
RE: Grand River Transit - dunkalunk - 10-31-2016
(10-30-2016, 07:38 PM)Markster Wrote: Nice to hear that buses are finally using Charles/Benton again!
I know not directly related, but has anyone heard word when GO will begin using their platform at Charles St Terminal?
RE: Grand River Transit - KevinL - 11-16-2016
Just tweeted by GRT: a fresh diagram of the UW terminal layout.
![[Image: CxZDeo6WQAAsqlh.jpg:large]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CxZDeo6WQAAsqlh.jpg:large)
RE: Grand River Transit - Markster - 11-16-2016
There's also a public info session about it at the Davis Centre Library, from 2pm-8pm today.
RE: Grand River Transit - D40LF - 11-16-2016
I can't get over how redundant the proposed 92 is.
http://www.grt.ca/en/aboutus/uwaterloo-transit-station.asp
RE: Grand River Transit - timc - 11-16-2016
From what I can tell, the best thing that 92 has going for it is it is a way to get from University to Columbia or vice versa, which I have often found to be quite difficult.
RE: Grand River Transit - KevinL - 11-16-2016
It's the planners feeling that there has to be a replacement for the 7D and 7E loops, and seeing the current 92 as an easy substitute. Not saying they're wrong, but that's the thought process.
RE: Grand River Transit - danbrotherston - 11-16-2016
(11-16-2016, 01:42 PM)KevinL Wrote: It's the planners feeling that there has to be a replacement for the 7D and 7E loops, and seeing the current 92 as an easy substitute. Not saying they're wrong, but that's the thought process.
It's also worth noting that the 92 was introduced specifically to address crowding on the 7D/E routes which ran with half the seats empty all the way up to University, then were crush load and leaving people behind after the turn onto Columbia or University with students trying to get to campus.
That demand probably still exists.
RE: Grand River Transit - Markster - 11-16-2016
(11-16-2016, 02:00 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: It's also worth noting that the 92 was introduced specifically to address crowding on the 7D/E routes which ran with half the seats empty all the way up to University, then were crush load and leaving people behind after the turn onto Columbia or University with students trying to get to campus.
The crowding on the 201 and 202 were also part of it. Those routes will see an increase in service (10 minute service at rush hour) to compensate the loss of 92.
The 92 is to replace the 7 on Ring Road, because when GRT proposed removing the 7 entirely from west Ring Road, there was a lot of public pushback about the loss of transit to the colleges. The 92 is going to be purely an accessibility measure.
RE: Grand River Transit - Pheidippides - 11-16-2016
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.
RE: Grand River Transit - KevinL - 11-16-2016
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.
RE: Grand River Transit - Pheidippides - 11-17-2016
(11-16-2016, 06:50 PM)KevinL Wrote: 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-crossings-standards-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-crossings-standards-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-crossings-standards-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.