(03-10-2022, 09:55 PM)nms Wrote:

(03-10-2022, 05:59 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: Do you mean Map 5 on Page 23?

I guess is depends on how your PDF reader works.  It's page 23 in the document, but page 25 when the cover pages are included.

(03-12-2022, 01:14 PM)the_conestoga_guy Wrote: I personally think that Victoria North/Highland would be better served by installing BRT corridors with proper traffic signal priority measures than by adding LRT. I'm no traffic planner, but I think the benefits that could be achieved by moving our buses more efficiently along these corridors would be more meaningful than losing right-of-way space to an LRT and squishing the local bus routes into the remaining single lane with personal vehicles. Then maybe after 50-75 years or so, we could revisit the corridor and install a raised platform for an LRT or equivalent if necessitated.

Of course, this is (probably) moot until the new highway 7 is installed. I can't see the Region giving up road space in this corridor to transit projects until that happens. In the short term, I think the priority should be to efficiently move buses through the congested stretch of Victoria, in and out of the transit terminal once it's built.

(03-12-2022, 01:52 PM)Bytor Wrote:

(03-12-2022, 01:14 PM)the_conestoga_guy Wrote: I personally think that Victoria North/Highland would be better served by installing BRT corridors with proper traffic signal priority measures than by adding LRT. I'm no traffic planner, but I think the benefits that could be achieved by moving our buses more efficiently along these corridors would be more meaningful than losing right-of-way space to an LRT and squishing the local bus routes into the remaining single lane with personal vehicles. Then maybe after 50-75 years or so, we could revisit the corridor and install a raised platform for an LRT or equivalent if necessitated.

Of course, this is (probably) moot until the new highway 7 is installed. I can't see the Region giving up road space in this corridor to transit projects until that happens. In the short term, I think the priority should be to efficiently move buses through the congested stretch of Victoria, in and out of the transit terminal once it's built.

If you want efficiency then you want an LRT instead of a BRT. The only place that BRTs make sense is routes where you know it's going to take a route a really, really long time to get over that tipping point where LRTs become cheaper per passenger ride than BRTs.

In the fall of 2019 after ION started running with it's 25,000 average weekday riders was running at (by my calculations dividing operating costs by known ridership) $3.10/ride compared to the GRT bus average of $4.75/ride.

1. Cancel the highway 7 project; re-invest some of this money into the existing highway.
   
2. Start AD2W GO with 15-min headways
   
3. Install LRT along Highland/Victoria N corridor, raised through King/Victoria intersection to allow for bus-only lanes through downtown.
   
4. Install bus priority signals along the entirety of the corridor.
   

(03-11-2022, 09:35 PM)jwilliamson Wrote: What's the ridership like on the 204? I wouldn't have expected that corridor to have anywhere near the numbers as University Ave.

(03-11-2022, 02:08 PM)Rainrider22 Wrote: For me the Victoria / Highland should be the next stage 3...  This route would service the transit hub as well.  If it ended at the Boardwalk, then the next natural progression would be that Waterloo route.

(03-12-2022, 01:14 PM)the_conestoga_guy Wrote: I personally think that Victoria North/Highland would be better served by installing BRT corridors with proper traffic signal priority measures than by adding LRT. I'm no traffic planner, but I think the benefits that could be achieved by moving our buses more efficiently along these corridors would be more meaningful than losing right-of-way space to an LRT and squishing the local bus routes into the remaining single lane with personal vehicles. Then maybe after 50-75 years or so, we could revisit the corridor and install a raised platform for an LRT or equivalent if necessitated.

(03-12-2022, 01:14 PM)the_conestoga_guy Wrote: I personally think that Victoria North/Highland would be better served by installing BRT corridors with proper traffic signal priority measures than by adding LRT. I'm no traffic planner, but I think the benefits that could be achieved by moving our buses more efficiently along these corridors would be more meaningful than losing right-of-way space to an LRT and squishing the local bus routes into the remaining single lane with personal vehicles. Then maybe after 50-75 years or so, we could revisit the corridor and install a raised platform for an LRT or equivalent if necessitated.

Of course, this is (probably) moot until the new highway 7 is installed. I can't see the Region giving up road space in this corridor to transit projects until that happens. In the short term, I think the priority should be to efficiently move buses through the congested stretch of Victoria, in and out of the transit terminal once it's built.

(03-12-2022, 01:52 PM)Bytor Wrote:

(03-12-2022, 01:14 PM)the_conestoga_guy Wrote: I personally think that Victoria North/Highland would be better served by installing BRT corridors with proper traffic signal priority measures than by adding LRT. I'm no traffic planner, but I think the benefits that could be achieved by moving our buses more efficiently along these corridors would be more meaningful than losing right-of-way space to an LRT and squishing the local bus routes into the remaining single lane with personal vehicles. Then maybe after 50-75 years or so, we could revisit the corridor and install a raised platform for an LRT or equivalent if necessitated.

Of course, this is (probably) moot until the new highway 7 is installed. I can't see the Region giving up road space in this corridor to transit projects until that happens. In the short term, I think the priority should be to efficiently move buses through the congested stretch of Victoria, in and out of the transit terminal once it's built.

If you want efficiency then you want an LRT instead of a BRT. The only place that BRTs make sense is routes where you know it's going to take a route a really, really long time to get over that tipping point where LRTs become cheaper per passenger ride than BRTs.

In the fall of 2019 after ION started running with it's 25,000 average weekday riders was running at (by my calculations dividing operating costs by known ridership) $3.10/ride compared to the GRT bus average of $4.75/ride.

(03-12-2022, 03:18 PM)Bytor Wrote:

(03-11-2022, 02:08 PM)Rainrider22 Wrote: For me the Victoria / Highland should be the next stage 3...  This route would service the transit hub as well.  If it ended at the Boardwalk, then the next natural progression would be that Waterloo route.

204  pre-pandemic was stagnated at roughly 2,250 weekday riders on average since at least 2016, maybe before, so no where near needing an LRT. Also, it was the only existing iXpress route that did not a see a bump in ridership when LRT service started in 2019.

Given that both Highland and Victoria terminate well south of the south end of the Boardwalk, I'm not sure that the Victoria/Highland route is the best one to get LRT access to The Boardwalk. The King/University/Erb route at least terminates at the north end of The Boardwalk, even i fthat isn't ideal.

Not turning onto Erb and just continuing down University Ave W to Ira Needles would get you to a central part of The Boardwalk, but there's that big gap ith no good destinations from Erb to Fischer-Hallman.

Unless one could build both Victoria/Highland and King/University/Erb routes and connect their tails via Ira Needles?

(03-11-2022, 02:08 PM)Rainrider22 Wrote: For me the Victoria / Highland should be the next stage 3...  This route would service the transit hub as well.  If it ended at the Boardwalk, then the next natural progression would be that Waterloo route.