Grand River Transit

[Pheidippides]

The intersection of King/Queen on Queen is too difficult to navigate for the buses. It's one of the many no-go zones downtown.

Thanks. I figured it was something like that. It still seems strange that the buses couldn't handle the little jog in Queen going straight through King.

[Canard]

It is likely that the clearance envelope of the bus encroaches on the adjacent lane too much when navigating the S-bend.

[danbrotherston]

The intersection of King/Queen on Queen is too difficult to navigate for the buses. It's one of the many no-go zones downtown.

Thanks. I figured it was something like that. It still seems strange that the buses couldn't handle the little jog in Queen going straight through King.

Many drivers of cars cannot navigate that particular intersection.

[Markster]

Try to imagine two buses passing each other as they navigate the S-bend. It would not be an easy maneuver.

[Pheidippides]

GRT Business Plan 2017-2021 Interim Report is now posted in the planning and works agenda for Tuesday's meeting:
http://www.regionofwaterloo.ca/en/region...df#page=34

Includes a draft 2021 transit network map.

[Waterlooer]

I'm loving the proposed 10 minute peak frequency on the 201 and 202 for Fall 2017.

[chutten]

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.

[Markster]

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.

The 201 will connect with ION

[KevinL]

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.

The 201 will connect with ION

That's planned to be via the new UW station terminal road, yes?

[KevinL]

Some very clever stuff here, like having the 2 extend past Borden station then replace the Franklin loop of the 8, and the loops that D40LF mentioned (I do not share his fears of one-way operation). Country Hills will be losing a bit of local service (Wilderness where the 22 runs now, Williamsburg and Dunsmere for the 3); but that's what the community consultations are for.

[MidTowner]

I can't say Im the least bit fond of the proposed Belmont -Margaret and Laurentian West - Country Hills routes, which they will inevitably run in one direction off peak or something...

Is the 4 supposed to run between The Boardwalk and Grand River Hospital, and a separate service run Belmont-Union-Margaret? If so, I agree that the latter will inevitably have pretty poor frequency, and not a lot of utility for many people. I guess there's a lot of argument for Belmont having a service, but a 4 service going all the way down Union (or Guelph or Wellington or whatever) would probably be more useful for Breithaupt Park than what this 'Belmont-Margaret' service likely will be.

[KevinL]

Is the 4 supposed to run between The Boardwalk and Grand River Hospital, and a separate service run Belmont-Union-Margaret?

Yes. The latter loop connects to Ion in two places - GRH and Frederick/Benton. It's basically designed as an easy connector for those neighbourhoods to Ion and the 204 (and the 4, 1, 7, Weber route, Courtland route...).

[timc]

I'm glad to see that service will continue to the R&T Park in the form of a revised Route 9. I remain disappointed that there is no GRT connection to ION at Seagram.

[dunkalunk]

Segram is a bit of a ridiculous stop location to begin with, so I'm OK with a walking transfer if it means not slowing down crosstown trips.

On one of the maps, there appears to be a shot-turn of Route 7 in Uptown using William, Regina, and Willis Way. Could this feasibly mean more service on King bewteen Uptown and Conestoga Mall?

I would expect the Margaret-Belmont loop to have 15 minute frequency for most of the day. The loop covers most of the heavily-used portions of Route 8's north loop and was supposed to get 15 minute frequency in the last major service change until Route 7 streamlining was delayed due to LRT construction.

I have mixed feelings about deadending Route 4 at Grand River Hospital.

On one hand, it would be shame to get rid of a potential crosstown route.
On the other, Route 4 isn't all that well-used between Downtown and King-Union except by local residents.
On the third, this may be a function of Route 4's poor frequency and better, straighter alternatives.

Ending Route 4 at Grand River Hospital also seems like a missed opportunity to serve the Cherry Park neighbourhood.

I was also kind of hoping for some sort of Belmont-King route to help improve service frequency on King between Conestoga Mall and Uptown. Here's what I'd do:
   

There is still plenty of time for public feedback. Route consultations haven't begin yet and it's important we get routes in the CTC right the first time.

[Pheidippides]

Having read the entire report finally (it is a long one!) I am pretty pleased with the overall changes. I found it hard to separate my feelings for how the changes will affect my options personally vs. what I know will be best for the greater good/network. I'm sure any flaws will be spotted amongst this group and brought to GRT's attention; still lots of time for feedback.

As for the 8's frequency and direction, from the report:
"operate as a smaller two-way loop connecting"
"Both the Belmont-Margaret and Westmount-Weber routes would have 15-minute frequency during weekday peak periods with 30-minute frequency at other times."

One brave admission in the report is that "the Region has endeavoured to provide fixed-route transit service within 450 metres to 95% of residents and jobs in the urban municipalities. This target has not been met." and that "The current network provides service coverage for 87.5% of residents in the urban area. There are several reasons why achieving 95% service coverage with fixed-routes is challenging and not necessarily desirable."

"implementation of iXpress routes on major corridors and streamlining of local routes to travel more directly and frequently on arterial and collector roads has proven to be a more effective ridership growth strategy than trying to increase service coverage by deviating routes on local neighbourhood roads."

"focusing service on existing high-ridership corridors and areas with high transit propensity results in higher ridership. This strategy is proposed to continue in the implementation of the draft 2021 Transit Network. However, this would have the impact of introducing longer walks to service in certain pockets of the Region"


So basically moving away from one long-standing goal in favour of another knowing full well it may mean longer walks from some people.