05-05-2015, 01:43 PM
(This post was last modified: 05-05-2015, 03:18 PM by BuildingScout.)
I think we need to evaluate the introduction of the iXpress in context. Back then there were active groups who opposed the removal of stops: mostly parents and seniors who would make enough of a raucous every time the issue came up to make it a non-starter. So the GRT people came with this idea of introducing a new service with the rational amount of stops that should have been in place to begin with. They called it 101 Express to emphasize that it wasn't competing with regular service.
Then a funny thing happened: Everyone started taking the iXpress, often bypassing local stops to take the faster bus as people came to realize the benefits of a faster bus service. This allowed GRT to finally reduce the number of stops on regular routes while slowing down the iXpress.
If we had designed the system from scratch there would be likely no iXpress while regular routes through main streets (King, Weber, Erb, Fischer Halman, Victoria, Ottawa, etc) would have iXpress-like separations between stops.
Then a funny thing happened: Everyone started taking the iXpress, often bypassing local stops to take the faster bus as people came to realize the benefits of a faster bus service. This allowed GRT to finally reduce the number of stops on regular routes while slowing down the iXpress.
If we had designed the system from scratch there would be likely no iXpress while regular routes through main streets (King, Weber, Erb, Fischer Halman, Victoria, Ottawa, etc) would have iXpress-like separations between stops.