Grand River Transit

[ijmorlan]

I suspect the Ion had to be at the curb because of the minimum turning radius to make the left into Waterloo town square.  We have a minimum radius of 25 metres, not the TTC's super slow and squealing 11 metres.

That’s a bit hard to believe. The route isn’t tight up against a building there. Just shift the entire curve one lanewidth to the west. It would impinge on the public square a tiny bit more than it actually does but other than that it would be exactly the same as it actually is.

Also, a pedestrian island could exist north of the spur line in the “lee” of the LRT track.

[kps]

We have a minimum radius of 25 metres, not the TTC's super slow and squealing 11 metres.

Yeah, Ion shouldn't squeal.

[Canard]

Ion won't squeal (very much) thanks to the track lubricators. There will still certainly be noise and vibration.

[urbd]

100% confirmed that it will be a permanent stop of the 7, even after ION starts operating. The 7 will go right on William, then Regina for one block, then back onto King. I know, annoying.

Now that I've collected my senses, can you tell us how it is that you know this "100% confirmed"?

I talked to someone at the Region and they confirmed this will be the new 7 northbound route.

[Markster]

I talked to someone at the Region and they confirmed this will be the new 7 northbound route.

Well that's exceedingly disappointing.
Yet another chapter in the ongoing saga of rapid transit design decisions that are made out of convenience for the Rapid Transit team, without properly analyzing downstream impacts.

[Canard]

Well that's exceedingly disappointing.  
Yet another chapter in the ongoing saga of rapid transit design decisions that are made out of convenience for the Rapid Transit team, without properly analyzing downstream impacts.

Do we know that that's the reason? Or are we just speculating? Perhaps there are other factors at play, here, that we may be unaware of?

(ie, Transport Canada?)

[Markster]

Regardless of why the bus bay was deleted, which may or may not be Transport Canada, it's clear that when they decided to delete the bus stop, they did not take any actions to accommodate it in any other way.  This is an intersection where there are absolutely no space constraints.  There is parkland on either side.  There were multiple solutions to install a bus stop island.  Shifting the LRT east. Shifting the roadway west.  In the end they did nothing except delete the bus bay. The easy solution.

Rapid Transit made a decision that the bus stop had to go and there would be no accommodation, and GRT has to come in after the fact and work around decisions that are harmful to bus transit. (See also: UW Station contorting all bus routes through campus)

[Canard]

Right, I get all that. What I'm saying is: We don't know WHEN the problem came to light.

Transport Canada may have seen what we were BUILDING, already in-progress, and then said 2 months ago "Wait, you can't do that." Or maybe a GRT driver said "Wait, you're expecting us to drive across the tracks at a shallow angle, unsignalized? That's not safe" and they decided against it.

Sheesh, sorry for suggesting something!

[ijmorlan]

Right, I get all that.  What I'm saying is:  We don't know WHEN the problem came to light.

Transport Canada may have seen what we were BUILDING, already in-progress, and then said 2 months ago "Wait, you can't do that."  Or maybe a GRT driver said "Wait, you're expecting us to drive across the tracks at a shallow angle, unsignalized? That's not safe" and they decided against it.

Sheesh, sorry for suggesting something!

We don’t even know if what happened was that a problem appeared. There are relatively minor adjustments made to the plans all over the place.

I would say that if crossing at a shallow angle unsignalized is a problem, the solution is a signal. Buses already cross the tracks right-to-left at Allen St. northbound. But I don’t know if that was the concern in the first place.

[Canard]

That's right - key being we don't know - but we're jumping down the throats of the engineers and decision makers and saying they're bad. Which, I think, is disrespectful and wrong.

[KevinL]

I don't know who made the decision or when or how, but I'm not accustomed to a change without public consultation. That's where my indignation is based.

[Canard]

What's the point of a consultation if there is no other reasonable course of action?

It would kind of be a waste of money to have a public consultation to just say "...here's what we're stuck doing". You can't have a public consultation about every single little thing.

[MidTowner]

I wouldn't characterise this one as "little." It impacts a great number of riders. It's a permanent change to a route, in no way for the better.

There is never only one course of action. At minimum, not having the detour and having a large stop spacing is an alternative. Consultation is best practice for a change like this.

[creative]

It never ceases to amaze me how people are so quick to jump all over something without knowing the facts. We are quick to criticize decisions made by those in the know and with the expertise and experience. Everyone is entitled to their opinion but to continually blast decisions on this forum may make you feel better, it will do nothing to find out why a decision was made. Reach out to those in the know for an explanation. Ask your local councillor for clarification. They are in a position to find answers to your concerns and possibly make changes if other suggestions or solutions are brought forward.

[MidTowner]

I've e-mailed GRT to confirm that that's the plan. It'll take them time to get back. Others are doing the same.

What you have is people expressing disappointment that no consultation was made (which also would have served to educate us beforehand), and a bus driver who likewise is disappointed that he wasn't asked. Maybe he'll make his suggestion internally. I hope so. But I don't think he or anyone else has "blasted" anything.