New OC Transpo best practice???

[lrt's friend]

As a result of route optimization, buses are running more crowded than they have ever been likely since World War II.

I have made the observation that OC Transpo appears to have implemented a new practice in order to deal with crowding. Maybe I am wrong but I am seeing this far too often lately.

What I am observing is the running of buses in tandem in the suburbs, including the inner suburbs. What I am referring to is running local and express buses essentially at the same time, so that OC Transpo can manipulate passenger loads to minimize overcrowding. From the perspective of vehicle useage, this is highly desireable. However, from the passenger's perspective, running two buses every half hour is much less desireable than having a bus every 15 minutes.

OC Transpo would get fewer complaints by making passengers wait at the bus stop substantially longer than having a bus pass them by overcrowded. Unfortunately, in the long run, this also makes trip times longer and the transit system less desireable and will drive passengers away.

I have observed this in the southeast repeatedly, on Routes 8 and 41, Routes 98 and 114 and Routes 144 and 40. On one occasion in the past week, the 98 waited 3 or 4 minutes at Greenboro during the evening rush hour until the 114 departed ahead of it. I was incredulous watching this happen. I kept asking myself, why is that full bus waiting and waiting? And then 114 appeared, and the 98 left immediately afterwards.

Maybe it is pure coincidence but I have seen it over and over again. Even at night, I have seen the 98 and 114 leave about the same time, whereas in the past they were designed to run at alternate times.

[Luker]

I have no idea, but you've got my spidey senses tingling... In all seriousness though you are most likely accurate considering what you've seen and your knowledge of the system, it's unfortunate..

[Deez]

As a result of route optimization, buses are running more crowded than they have ever been likely since World War II.

I have made the observation that OC Transpo appears to have implemented a new practice in order to deal with crowding. Maybe I am wrong but I am seeing this far too often lately.

What I am observing is the running of buses in tandem in the suburbs, including the inner suburbs. What I am referring to is running local and express buses essentially at the same time, so that OC Transpo can manipulate passenger loads to minimize overcrowding. From the perspective of vehicle useage, this is highly desireable. However, from the passenger's perspective, running two buses every half hour is much less desireable than having a bus every 15 minutes.

OC Transpo would get fewer complaints by making passengers wait at the bus stop substantially longer than having a bus pass them by overcrowded. Unfortunately, in the long run, this also makes trip times longer and the transit system less desireable and will drive passengers away.

I have observed this in the southeast repeatedly, on Routes 8 and 41, Routes 98 and 114 and Routes 144 and 40. On one occasion in the past week, the 98 waited 3 or 4 minutes at Greenboro during the evening rush hour until the 114 departed ahead of it. I was incredulous watching this happen. I kept asking myself, why is that full bus waiting and waiting? And then 114 appeared, and the 98 left immediately afterwards.

Maybe it is pure coincidence but I have seen it over and over again. Even at night, I have seen the 98 and 114 leave about the same time, whereas in the past they were designed to run at alternate times.

What does the schedule say? Might shed some light on whether this is a coincidence or not.

Regardless, there is no advantage (vehicle usage or otherwise) to running two vehicles every thirty minutes vs. one vehicle every 15 minutes. In the short run, demand is fixed so you'll end up with the same average load on each bus.

[eternallyme]

As a result of route optimization, buses are running more crowded than they have ever been likely since World War II.

I have made the observation that OC Transpo appears to have implemented a new practice in order to deal with crowding. Maybe I am wrong but I am seeing this far too often lately.

What I am observing is the running of buses in tandem in the suburbs, including the inner suburbs. What I am referring to is running local and express buses essentially at the same time, so that OC Transpo can manipulate passenger loads to minimize overcrowding. From the perspective of vehicle useage, this is highly desireable. However, from the passenger's perspective, running two buses every half hour is much less desireable than having a bus every 15 minutes.

OC Transpo would get fewer complaints by making passengers wait at the bus stop substantially longer than having a bus pass them by overcrowded. Unfortunately, in the long run, this also makes trip times longer and the transit system less desireable and will drive passengers away.

I have observed this in the southeast repeatedly, on Routes 8 and 41, Routes 98 and 114 and Routes 144 and 40. On one occasion in the past week, the 98 waited 3 or 4 minutes at Greenboro during the evening rush hour until the 114 departed ahead of it. I was incredulous watching this happen. I kept asking myself, why is that full bus waiting and waiting? And then 114 appeared, and the 98 left immediately afterwards.

Maybe it is pure coincidence but I have seen it over and over again. Even at night, I have seen the 98 and 114 leave about the same time, whereas in the past they were designed to run at alternate times.

On less-frequent corridors, there should not be two routes running like that. In those cases:

8/41 - The 41 only runs during peak periods, and the 8 is fairly frequent, so scheduling is difficult especially since they operate to downtown from different directions. My proposal was to combine the southern part of the 8, the 41(82), the 141 and the 192 all into a single route 110 from Hurdman/Billings Bridge to Herongate on the 41 routing (all day), and on to Hawthorne during peak periods. That probably would have been easier to understand (and no need for all the 112 branches), but it would force a transfer to go downtown.

98/114 - The 143 nearby should have been eliminated and the 114 moved onto a large part of that routing, separating the two routes. There would need to be extra 98's during low periods, but the savings from the removal of the 143 would pay for that - at most other times, the 98 is frequent enough that it would be able to carry the load.

40/144 - Again, the 40 is peak periods only. That one is tough due to the large-scale situation, and the whole area as a whole needs to be considered. To move the 144 off its current routing and separate them, another route would need to be introduced (such as extending the 1 allowing for a straighter 144, or shortening the 144 and giving Findlay Creek a separate route, such as a 99F branch).

In the outer suburbs: it might be time to combine the local and express routes, meaning put them on the same routing. Such would create a single route during peak periods in the peak direction for all uses, but would only charge the express fare once it crosses the Greenbelt (at the last stop, passengers would have to show proof of express fare paid - either an express transfer or express pass). My 2011 proposals redrew the suburban local routes to effectively match the expresses, but using two separate numbers (i.e. 61 and 161, 70 and 170).

[lrt's friend]

What does the schedule say? Might shed some light on whether this is a coincidence or not.

Regardless, there is no advantage (vehicle usage or otherwise) to running two vehicles every thirty minutes vs. one vehicle every 15 minutes. In the short run, demand is fixed so you'll end up with the same average load on each bus.

But there is an advantage. See, I am talking about different bus routes in pairs and demand naturally varies because of this. For example, the 98 runs downtown in most hours so demand will naturally be higher compared to the 114. Let's say 50% of people will get on a 114 and remaining 50% will wait for the 98 but 100% will get on the 98 when it comes because you are avoiding a transfer. Let's say there 100 passengers waiting along the 98/114 route every 10 minutes. If we run the 114 at 5 minutes, 50% of the first 50 passengers will get on it or 25 passengers. When the 98 comes at 10 minutes, the remaining 75 passengers will get on it. But if you run 114 just ahead of the 98 at 10 minutes, 50% will get on it or 50 passengers and the remaining 50 passengers will get on the 98. See the operational advantage of running bus routes in tandem?

Likewise, outbound the 98 picks up passengers all the way from downtown, whereas the 114 only picks up passenger starting at Greenboro. So let's say 50% of passengers will travel to Greenboro to catch the first available bus but the remaining will wait for the 98 somewhere between downtown and Greenboro. It amounts to the same thing. Using the same count of 100 passengers every 10 minutes, you end up with 25 passengers on the 114 and 75 on the 98 if you run the 114 midway between 98s and 50 passengers on the 114 and 50 on the 98 if you run the 114 immediately in front of the 98.

You can see this passenger load variation between local and express routes, so running buses in tandem as I have described and have observed means that if passenger demand increases you do not have to add extra runs on the express route as soon.

Unfortunately, running buses in tandem means longer waiting times. For example, the other morning two buses went by my house at 8:25 am, one local and one express and then this repeated again at 8:55 am.

[lrt's friend]

8/41 - The 41 only runs during peak periods, and the 8 is fairly frequent, so scheduling is difficult especially since they operate to downtown from different directions. My proposal was to combine the southern part of the 8, the 41(82), the 141 and the 192 all into a single route 110 from Hurdman/Billings Bridge to Herongate on the 41 routing (all day), and on to Hawthorne during peak periods. That probably would have been easier to understand (and no need for all the 112 branches), but it would force a transfer to go downtown.

You would never get away with this because the demand varies so much in the areas that you are combining. Also, the Heatherington/Heron Gate area is a rental/lower income area where transit use is very high and there is high demand for transit service in both directions. OC Transpo has a major problem already because it is difficult to maintain existing schedules and keep up with passenger demand. You will often see buses marked 8X in the afternoon peak period which are unscheduled extras and they are running standing room only in the off-peak direction. Cutting service and connections in this neighbourhood would be a big mistake.

98/114 - The 143 nearby should have been eliminated and the 114 moved onto a large part of that routing, separating the two routes. There would need to be extra 98's during low periods, but the savings from the removal of the 143 would pay for that - at most other times, the 98 is frequent enough that it would be able to carry the load.

This is a very logical move and the current lousy service on Tapiola cannot be justified. The area has similar density to the rest of the Greenboro and low demand is more a reflection of long standing lousy service than anything else.

40/144 - Again, the 40 is peak periods only. That one is tough due to the large-scale situation, and the whole area as a whole needs to be considered. To move the 144 off its current routing and separate them, another route would need to be introduced (such as extending the 1 allowing for a straighter 144, or shortening the 144 and giving Findlay Creek a separate route, such as a 99F branch).

There is really a complicated mishmash of service here. Trying to follow a schedule almost needs a law degree because there are so many variations in service depending on where you live. Many buses don't follow the entire route and as a result, it must be considered the poster child of route optimization. Provide the absolute minimum number of buses to meet the passenger demand and during peak periods the buses are crowded, often very crowded. And I notice that OC Transpo is planning more partial runs on yet another section of the route. OC Transpo only wants to provide milk run service to Findlay Creek and consequently demand is low. No wonder we will soon be spending countless millions to expand Bank Street.

Findlay Creek is facing exactly the same situation as Beacon Hill did at the start of the 1970s. The then OTC only wanted to provide Beacon Hill with slow milk run service as well but because Beacon Hill was in Gloucester and beyond the OTC service area, its proactive community association took the bull by the horns and delivered much faster private express service. Unfortunately, Findlay Creek has no options to its current milk run service as it is within OC Transpo's (monopoly) urban transit area.

[eternallyme]

You would never get away with this because the demand varies so much in the areas that you are combining. Also, the Heatherington/Heron Gate area is a rental/lower income area where transit use is very high and there is high demand for transit service in both directions. OC Transpo has a major problem already because it is difficult to maintain existing schedules and keep up with passenger demand. You will often see buses marked 8X in the afternoon peak period which are unscheduled extras and they are running standing room only in the off-peak direction. Cutting service and connections in this neighbourhood would be a big mistake.



This is a very logical move and the current lousy service on Tapiola cannot be justified. The area has similar density to the rest of the Greenboro and low demand is more a reflection of long standing lousy service than anything else.



There is really a complicated mishmash of service here. Trying to follow a schedule almost needs a law degree because there are so many variations in service depending on where you live. Many buses don't follow the entire route and as a result, it must be considered the poster child of route optimization. Provide the absolute minimum number of buses to meet the passenger demand and during peak periods the buses are crowded, often very crowded. And I notice that OC Transpo is planning more partial runs on yet another section of the route. OC Transpo only wants to provide milk run service to Findlay Creek and consequently demand is low. No wonder we will soon be spending countless millions to expand Bank Street.

Findlay Creek is facing exactly the same situation as Beacon Hill did at the start of the 1970s. The then OTC only wanted to provide Beacon Hill with slow milk run service as well but because Beacon Hill was in Gloucester and beyond the OTC service area, its proactive community association took the bull by the horns and delivered much faster private express service. Unfortunately, Findlay Creek has no options to its current milk run service as it is within OC Transpo's (monopoly) urban transit area.

Given the road network in the whole far south end, the best pattern IMO is:

1 - Remove from Hunt Club and the Transitway (something I have long suggested), extend along Bank to Queensdale. Ridership is low on the double-back section, and a lot of them are actually going from Greenboro or South Keys to Bridle Path or Bank/Hunt Club, which the 98 and 114 would still provide.

40 - No change in the local routing. Due to the reduction in the 144, three additional morning trips and four additional afternoon trips would be added. If the O-Train is extended to Gatineau, the route would be cut back to LeBreton.

99 - During peak periods, a new branch - 99F Findlay Creek - would be created to provide direct service to downtown in peak periods with six trips in each direction. It would start at Leitrim/Bank and operate the local routing to Leitrim Station, then along the same route as the 99 from Riverside South to downtown in the morning (reverse in the afternoon).

144 - Reduce during peak periods from every 15 to every 30 minutes on the whole route. Remove from Bank, Athans and Sixth for a straighter trip (those areas would have the 1 nearby - which would require some walking but would be more frequent with service at least every 15 minutes most of the day).

[lrt's friend]

Given the road network in the whole far south end, the best pattern IMO is:

1 - Remove from Hunt Club and the Transitway (something I have long suggested), extend along Bank to Queensdale. Ridership is low on the double-back section, and a lot of them are actually going from Greenboro or South Keys to Bridle Path or Bank/Hunt Club, which the 98 and 114 would still provide.

40 - No change in the local routing. Due to the reduction in the 144, three additional morning trips and four additional afternoon trips would be added. If the O-Train is extended to Gatineau, the route would be cut back to LeBreton.

99 - During peak periods, a new branch - 99F Findlay Creek - would be created to provide direct service to downtown in peak periods with six trips in each direction. It would start at Leitrim/Bank and operate the local routing to Leitrim Station, then along the same route as the 99 from Riverside South to downtown in the morning (reverse in the afternoon).

144 - Reduce during peak periods from every 15 to every 30 minutes on the whole route. Remove from Bank, Athans and Sixth for a straighter trip (those areas would have the 1 nearby - which would require some walking but would be more frequent with service at least every 15 minutes most of the day).

Most of that was already suggested as part of the route optimization process last year and turned down. OC Transpo likes to run only one route through a community otherwise it is considered a duplication in service. In this case, the result is a milk run.

It is interesting to note that some of the 144 trips only serve 6 stops within the community and take no more than 5 minutes to complete from end to end. It is example of offering the absolute minimum extra service to deal with overcrowding. And we see that one of those trips will be soon be cancelled. Surprise, surprise. Only 6 stops. When the schedules were first published, their was only one time showing, at Greenboro. It was like the phantom buses that started in the clouds and ended at Greenboro.

[TransitZilla]

Most of that was already suggested as part of the route optimization process last year and turned down. OC Transpo likes to run only one route through a community otherwise it is considered a duplication in service. In this case, the result is a milk run.

It is interesting to note that some of the 144 trips only serve 6 stops within the community and take no more than 5 minutes to complete from end to end. It is example of offering the absolute minimum extra service to deal with overcrowding. And we see that one of those trips will be soon be cancelled. Surprise, surprise. Only 6 stops. When the schedules were first published, their was only one time showing, at Greenboro. It was like the phantom buses that started in the clouds and ended at Greenboro.

There are extra 144's in the AM that start at Albion & Bridlepath, to serve the high-density area there.

There are also extra 144's in the PM rush that start at Greenboro and end at Queensdale/Conroy- providing 15-minute service in the peak direction to Blossom Park, in addition to the 40.

I live in Findlay Creek and take the 144 fairly often. From my experience, the northbound 144 is already essentially full at rush hour once it passes Bank & Leitrim. What usually ends up happening is that since most everyone in Blossom Park prefers to wait for the 40, no one boards the 144 in Blossom Park. The result is that the 144 eventually catches up to the 40 (since they follow the exact same route) and is unable to pass. That is the bunching that you are seeing.

Personally, I think that the local route in Blossom Park should be a separate route from the one going to Leitrim. Since that is unlikely to happen, I've suggested to OC (via Councillor Desroches) that they should at least be separated at rush hours, like this:

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-u0Ee_PoE-JA/T32oM1fffoI/AAAAAAAAAI0/TdlXM6ntipI/s800/144map%2520direct%2520peak%2520periods.gif

I realize this does make the 144 timetable more complicated, but it would speed up service from Findlay Creek and eliminate the bunching problem. If more capacity is required in Blossom Park, it should be addressed by adding more 40s, since that is the route people want to take anyway.

In terms of having direct-to-downtown service from Findlay Creek, we have to remember that in 5 years from now, when the LRT opens, no suburban neighbourhood will have direct-to-downtown service. I would prefer that service between Findlay Creek and Leitrim Park & Ride be made more frequent, along with better service on the 99 and (hopefully) an O-Train extension.

[TransitZilla]

Given the road network in the whole far south end, the best pattern IMO is:

1 - Remove from Hunt Club and the Transitway (something I have long suggested), extend along Bank to Queensdale. Ridership is low on the double-back section, and a lot of them are actually going from Greenboro or South Keys to Bridle Path or Bank/Hunt Club, which the 98 and 114 would still provide.

40 - No change in the local routing. Due to the reduction in the 144, three additional morning trips and four additional afternoon trips would be added. If the O-Train is extended to Gatineau, the route would be cut back to LeBreton.

99 - During peak periods, a new branch - 99F Findlay Creek - would be created to provide direct service to downtown in peak periods with six trips in each direction. It would start at Leitrim/Bank and operate the local routing to Leitrim Station, then along the same route as the 99 from Riverside South to downtown in the morning (reverse in the afternoon).

144 - Reduce during peak periods from every 15 to every 30 minutes on the whole route. Remove from Bank, Athans and Sixth for a straighter trip (those areas would have the 1 nearby - which would require some walking but would be more frequent with service at least every 15 minutes most of the day).

I think these are good ideas as well. I suggested the idea of extending the #1 during last spring's "network optimization" consultations, and was told that it was not workable because ridership was likely to be far less south of Hunt Club, and therefore it would be wasteful to have such a high frequency route continuing past Hunt Club.

Also I think there is a contractual requirement to have washrooms/rest facilities at route termini; these are available at Greenboro but not at Bank/Queensdale. Because the #1 does not have a northern terminus (it just loops), these facilities are required to be at the southern end of the route.

[eternallyme]

The ideas there are fairly revenue-neutral too - it is likely the cost for running the 1 would not change, it would just not duplicate anything. The 144 would see cost reductions with a shorter route and fewer trips during peak periods, which would offset the cost of the extra 40s and 99F.

[lrt's friend]

I live in Findlay Creek and take the 144 fairly often. From my experience, the northbound 144 is already essentially full at rush hour once it passes Bank & Leitrim. What usually ends up happening is that since most everyone in Blossom Park prefers to wait for the 40, no one boards the 144 in Blossom Park. The result is that the 144 eventually catches up to the 40 (since they follow the exact same route) and is unable to pass. That is the bunching that you are seeing.

The bunching is being created by schedule design, at least to some degree. As you say, the 144 is full before it hits Blossom Park. The only way to prevent overcrowding, is to run the 40 immediately before the 144. It doesn't matter that there hasn't been a bus for 30 minutes. It is really confusing and frustrating that there are so many different starting and ending points on the 40/144 already and then they deliberately bunch the buses. The same happens in the reverse direction. They have to run a 40 just before a departing 144 at Greenboro to make sure that the only bus to Findlay Creek doesn't get filled up by Blossom Park passengers. It's like they are trying to run a train through the area by running multiple buses more or less at the same time. But yes, there isn't enough ridership to extend Route 1 to Bank and Queensdale.

What really needs to happen is that there needs to be a peak period bus running between Findlay Creek and Hurdman via Albion Road and it should skip the Leitrim Park n Ride as it is out of the way and just would slow down service. If we don't want to continue to surpress ridership in the area, more direct service is needed. No sense in a new express to downtown when that is going to be gone soon but you don't want to create a double transfer service either when LRT is finally started.

Why does Stittsville deserve multiple direct services to downtown while Findlay Creek gets milk run service to nowhere? Findlay Creek has always paid the full transit tax levy unlike Stittsville residents.

[toaster]

Findlay Creek is nowhere near the size of Stittsville. Plus, Stittsville is now basically becoming part of Kanata, as there is hardly much left between to two. Findlay Creek is in the middle of nowhere.

[Ottawan]

Findlay Creek is nowhere near the size of Stittsville. Plus, Stittsville is now basically becoming part of Kanata, as there is hardly much left between to two. Findlay Creek is in the middle of nowhere.

All true until that last sentence. Findlay Creek is far closer to downtown than Stittsville is - even that Kanata is for that matter. It may be alone to the south of the city, but it is in a nowhere that is closer to what matters (downtown), rather than simply being part of a larger sprawl.

[TransitZilla]

All true until that last sentence. Finley Creek is far closer to downtown than Stittsville is - even that Kanata is for that matter. It may be alone to the south of the city, but it is in a nowhere that is closer to what matters (downtown), rather than simply being part of a larger sprawl.

Other than the spelling of Findlay, you're bang on. As the crow flies, Findlay Creek is about as far from downtown as the old Nortel campus on Moodie Dr.

That said, while it's growing rapidly, the population of Findlay Creek is still fairly small (only about 1,200-1,400 homes at present). As it continues to grow, transit service will (hopefully) grow along with it.