Grand River Transit

[KevinL]

I imagine they'll label it different - the route south of Ottawa will be 'Strasburg', north will be 'Belmont'.

[Elmira Guy]

Just looking at the new routes for 2018 and can't seem to find anything pertaining to the existing route 12 that goes from Weber, along Lincoln, and then to Conestoga Mall via Bridge et AL. Is this route going to be dropped? If so, that sucks as it will now mean it will take two buses to get to the mall to catch the 21 to Elmira.

Please tell me I'm wrong, and how.

[dunkalunk]

Just looking at the new routes for 2018 and can't seem to find anything pertaining to the existing route 12 that goes from Weber, along Lincoln, and then to Conestoga Mall via Bridge et AL. Is this route going to be dropped? If so, that sucks as it will now mean it will take two buses to get to the mall to catch the 21 to Elmira.

Please tell me I'm wrong, and how.

Route 29 Keats Way is being extended to become a crosstown route following the path of Route 12 East of King Street.


Further details here: http://www.grt.ca/en/about-grt/2018-tran...twork.aspx

[Elmira Guy]

Thank you, dunkalunk! One time I'm very pleased to be proven wrong.

Cheers!

[dunkalunk]

Wow that new #16 is convoluted.

Route 16 makes sense as two separate sections; The section from Ottawa Street to Uptown (Highland/Belmont), and the section form Ottawa to Conestoga College (Strasburg). While there are certainly longer routes in the newly proposed system, this one is only every half-hour (not including peak 15 minute weekday service north of GRT's garage at Ottawa/Strasburg). I am not entirely sure how Route 16 is supposed to maintain a schedule running that sort of distance without a significant layover somewhere in the middle. I'd much prefer this be broken into two routes in order to maintain schedule adherence.

So they have a #30 circular on ring road but they won't let the 202 on ring road?

I know this isn't how transit is funded in this region, but presenting Route 30 Ring Road as a separate route makes it a very easy target for the Region/Record Letter Writers/Internet Activists to point at and say that if UW wants transit on their campus, they should wholly pay the operating expenses of a route that runs entirely within their campus.

It looks like they've finally added iXpress stop at University @ King, but they have left the stop at University @ Hazel.

Why not move the Hazel stop to Albert then there is a stop at both ends of the WLU campus.

Politics and intertia mostly. GO just sunk a bunch of money into building shelters and a ticket vending machine at Hazel. There are departure display boards installed at hazel too. Hazel is also closer to the middle of Laurier's Campus (although arguably, a stop at Albert would place it closer to a doorway to enter the buildings)

Plus, if they can't the 202 to the UW transit station then why not adjust the iXpress stops to be at near university@westmount/Waterloo Park station/Albert/King then if you need to get to all the shops on University or the east side of campus you just walk the 500m or transfer to the NB Ion.

I will miss my direct/one bus (#8) to UW, but I guess it is better for the good of the "network."

University/Westmount is in the laurel creek watershed and nothing of significance can/will exist at this intersection

Waterloo Park station's location is problematic to running direct service. I have no firm opinion about whether 202 should divert to serve it apart from that Laurier-Waterloo Park station only exists in its current location because of politics and doesn't actually serve WLU effectively. Sort of a tangent, but I worry that people walking along this stretch of Seagram at night will be victims of crime (drunk students, and pretty much no eyes on the street compared to University Ave).

I do think that the location of the 202 stop at Philip makes sense, given the plazas and residences, but there should be a stop at Albert in addition for all routes running the length of University. Sunview/Hemlock are horrible stop locations in terms of being able to actually cross University Ave. I hope that stop locations will be addressed in the University Ave Gateway project.

[Pheidippides]

University/Westmount is in the laurel creek watershed and nothing of significance can/will exist at this intersection

I guess I don't understand the limitation. They won't build bus shelters or run wires for real-time displays because of the watershed? There are already two stops right at the corner of University and Westmount (#29 EB and WB) and a #8 stop 60m from the corner. The WB #29 stop is literally on the culvert that passes under University.


I am beginning to question if the UW transit terminal is still worth it or would it be better to have GRT stops near the Laurel Trail on Columbia and University and the out-of-town buses on ring road near DC?

It is about 350m from Columbia or University to the UW Ion station and it would be about 250m from the farthest GRT platform at the UW bus terminal to the UW Ion station. It will be quite the time penalty for buses to get off of Columbia/University, around ring road, across two sets of Ion tracks, and park in a bus bay. In many cases, although inconvenient and uncomfortable (wind, rain, snow) walking the extra 100m will be faster and your crosstown trip times on the bus are shorter too.

It is unfortunate that is the kind of choice users are faced with.

[KevinL]

The Ion buses had their launch at Ainslie this morning. My favourite unexpected feature: white LEDs on the route sign.

https://twitter.com/GRT_ROW/status/975774620606328832

[timc]

It will be quite the time penalty for buses to get off of Columbia/University, around ring road, across two sets of Ion tracks, and park in a bus bay.

They don't go around ring road and across ION tracks to park in a bus bay. The buses will access the transit plaza via Phillip Street.

Edit: Er, I guess it might matter which direction you're coming from. I'm on the east side.

[Pheidippides]

It will be quite the time penalty for buses to get off of Columbia/University, around ring road, across two sets of Ion tracks, and park in a bus bay.

They don't go around ring road and across ION tracks to park in a bus bay. The buses will access the transit plaza via Phillip Street.

Edit: Er, I guess it might matter which direction you're coming from. I'm on the east side.

That is true, the time penalty from the east won't be as great, but even the 9, which is planned to enter via Phillip still has to cross the Ion tracks on EB on Columbia.

If there were a stop right near the Laurel Trail you could probably get to the UW Ion station well before someone who stayed on the 9 to the UW transit terminal, especially if the #9 gets held up by an Ion passing by.

I've seen a few people praising the #30 route, but I am having trouble understanding what problem it is trying to solve; can someone explain why it is a good route? I guess the buses need to turn around anyway so why not send them around ring road, and it adds a bit of service to the middle of campus, but it's maximum frequency is 15min and a walk across campus is maybe 12min.

[KevinL]

Not everyone has the mobility for that 12m walk. If your destination is one of the church colleges, it's even farther.

[Bob_McBob]

Outhit on the new ION buses and ridership in the region, with quote from Doug Craig claiming Stage 2 is "decades away".

https://www.therecord.com/news-story/833...y-to-roll/

[bgb_ca]

God that was an awful article.

Costing $5.4 million, the buses come with USB charging stations, free Wi-Fi after more testing concludes, headrests and tinted windows. They look a bit different, painted in Ion colours and with aluminum rims.

But otherwise they are regular Grand River Transit buses. When trains launch later this year, the new buses will follow the same route as current iExpress 200 buses, with the same travel time but possibly with greater frequency.

What is the iExpress?

At the unveiling politicians touted rail transit, which cost over $1 billion to build and finance. The launch date remains uncertain due to the delayed delivery of Bombardier-built streetcars.

Streetcars???

Planning is underway to extend rail transit into Cambridge but the route is not finalized and there's no money to launch trains. Craig figures such trains remain decades away.

Yea, decades away as long as people like him keep resisting change...

[ijmorlan]

Planning is underway to extend rail transit into Cambridge but the route is not finalized and there's no money to launch trains. Craig figures such trains remain decades away.

Yea, decades away as long as people like him keep resisting change...

At least it’s closer than it would have been if he had had his way with Stage 1.

[danbrotherston]

Ahh Outhit, I've not missed his misinformation about transit. But this article seems unusually poorly written. Maybe someone was in a hurry.

As a bonus, there's this little gem:

"The ridership plunge after 2013 erased — per cent of transit gains made when rail transit was planned and approved between 2006 and 2013."

I'm assuming the em (or en) dash is supposed to be a blank that should have been filled in before publishing.

[MidTowner]

It reads "erased almost 40 per cent" now.

I resent that article being filed under "News." It is not written neutrally. There are numerous instances of editorializing in the article. Even the caption to the chart is not neutral: no reasonable human being could look at that chart, and conclude that ridership "surged like a rocket" until 2013, and then "fell like a stone."

Anyway, it's no real skin off my back. I haven't subscribed since 2012, for these reasons.