OC Transpo

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Why would OC think it is a good idea to advertise frequent service and then not provide it?

They advertise frequent service, and then they provide frequent service... the trick is that the word "frequent" means different things to them than it does to most everyone else.

[CityTech]

I think it would have good for the Frequent buses to not be a service category at all. Instead routes should have been divided into 4 categories based on their fundamental route pattern:
-Rapid
-Connexion
-Arterial: routes other than Rapid or Connexion that mostly stick to the major street grid (this is most of the "Frequent" routes)
-Local: everything else

I would have "Frequent" be a separate thing altogether, denoting any Rapid, Connexion, Arterial, or Local route that meets the frequent service standard. On the map, I'd have Rapid, Connexion, Arterial, and Local be colour-coded (as they are now), but with the route number bolded if it's frequent, and the line on the map being made thicker. So by looking at the map, you could tell if a route is Rapid, Connexion, Arterial, or Local by the colour of the line on the map, and then whether its Frequent or not based on how thick the line is. On stop flags, you could tell Rapid/Connexion/Arterial/Local by the colour of the box surrounding the route, and then whether its Frequent or not by whether the number inside the box is bolded or not.

In situations where part of a route meets the frequent service standard, I would use route letters as clarification. So for example, if the 40 was frequent between St. Laurent and Elmvale only (I disagree and think it should be frequent the whole way, but that's another topic), you would implement that by classifying 40 trips leaving St. Laurent as either 40A Elmvale or 40B Greenboro/Hurdman. The understanding in these cases would be that while a route itself may be frequent, the frequent service standard may not necessarily apply to every lettered branch individually: it would only be guaranteed to apply to segments of a route that are serviced by all letters.

I'd also change the frequent service standard to actually mean frequent (instead of the current system where 30 minute service on weekends counts as "frequent"), specifically having this be the minimum for "frequent":
-10 minutes or better Monday-Friday 6am-7pm and Saturday-Sunday 12pm-6pm
-15 minutes or better at all other times Line 1 is operating (maybe with an exception allowing drop downs to 20-30 minutes after midnight)

I would have also kept the 86B and 86C rather than separating out the latter as the 89, using this same method.

[lrt's friend]

In reflection to everything that has happened over the last few months, I believe the problems are not all OC Transpo's fault. I think the overriding issue is that the City budget has been the overall dictator on how LRT was launched.

We have a funding cap for transit and regardless of the massive changes that were going to happen, OC Transpo had to provide service within that budget cap. Because the LRT savings were not as high as hoped, it was necessary to cut bus service, the number of drivers and buses available.

The budget constraints explain why we didn't see even a weekend of free service.

Even though this was known to be the biggest change in Ottawa transit history, we had not enough flexibility built into the plans. If there were, we would have had enough buses and drivers available.

Only when this became a political issue, was the budget increased. But that cannot immediately deal with a bus and driver shortage.

As we are now seeing, we are robbing Peter to pay Paul. Buses idling to fill in for LRT failures are buses and drivers not available either for suburban service or for weekend service.

We plug one hole in the dike and another leak appears.

This is going to take a lot of time to fully resolve. But the bus problem all appears to go back to budget restrictions, which is a decision made by City Council.

The city budget was a major factor in why our LRT launch has not gone well.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by CityTech

I think it would have good for the Frequent buses to not be a service category at all. Instead routes should have been divided into 4 categories based on their fundamental route pattern:
-Rapid
-Connexion
-Arterial: routes other than Rapid or Connexion that mostly stick to the major street grid (this is most of the "Frequent" routes)
-Local: everything else

I would have "Frequent" be a separate thing altogether, denoting any Rapid, Connexion, Arterial, or Local route that meets the frequent service standard. On the map, I'd have Rapid, Connexion, Arterial, and Local be colour-coded (as they are now), but with the route number bolded if it's frequent, and the line on the map being made thicker. So by looking at the map, you could tell if a route is Rapid, Connexion, Arterial, or Local by the colour of the line on the map, and then whether its Frequent or not based on how thick the line is. On stop flags, you could tell Rapid/Connexion/Arterial/Local by the colour of the box surrounding the route, and then whether its Frequent or not by whether the number inside the box is bolded or not.

In situations where part of a route meets the frequent service standard, I would use route letters as clarification. So for example, if the 40 was frequent between St. Laurent and Elmvale only (I disagree and think it should be frequent the whole way, but that's another topic), you would implement that by classifying 40 trips leaving St. Laurent as either 40A Elmvale or 40B Greenboro/Hurdman. The understanding in these cases would be that while a route itself may be frequent, the frequent service standard may not necessarily apply to every lettered branch individually: it would only be guaranteed to apply to segments of a route that are serviced by all letters.

I'd also change the frequent service standard to actually mean frequent (instead of the current system where 30 minute service on weekends counts as "frequent"), specifically having this be the minimum for "frequent":
-10 minutes or better Monday-Friday 6am-7pm and Saturday-Sunday 12pm-6pm
-15 minutes or better at all other times Line 1 is operating (maybe with an exception allowing drop downs to 20-30 minutes after midnight)

I would have also kept the 86B and 86C rather than separating out the latter as the 89, using this same method.

Ottawa is growing into a big city. There are now regular evening events but we cannot depend on transit to get us there and back. When 30 minute frequency is the norm even in the city centre for most routes after 6 pm, it is no wonder we have to drive everywhere. Recent Lansdowne events maxed out parking but we still have lousy bus service, so the alternative choice is not attractive. We end up with massive traffic jams of people trying to find parking and growing frustration.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by CityTech

I think it would have good for the Frequent buses to not be a service category at all. Instead routes should have been divided into 4 categories based on their fundamental route pattern:
-Rapid
-Connexion
-Arterial: routes other than Rapid or Connexion that mostly stick to the major street grid (this is most of the "Frequent" routes)
-Local: everything else

I think they would have used Arterial instead of Frequent, but Arterial isn't bilingual.

Originally Posted by CityTech

I would have "Frequent" be a separate thing altogether, denoting any Rapid, Connexion, Arterial, or Local route that meets the frequent service standard. On the map, I'd have Rapid, Connexion, Arterial, and Local be colour-coded (as they are now), but with the route number bolded if it's frequent, and the line on the map being made thicker. So by looking at the map, you could tell if a route is Rapid, Connexion, Arterial, or Local by the colour of the line on the map, and then whether its Frequent or not based on how thick the line is. On stop flags, you could tell Rapid/Connexion/Arterial/Local by the colour of the box surrounding the route, and then whether its Frequent or not by whether the number inside the box is bolded or not.

I like that idea. By definition though, Connexion routes should never be deemed "Frequent" as they only run during peak periods.

I also wonder if we should have a 5th designation for contraflow routes (primarily used to get people to suburban business parks).

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Ottawa is growing into a big city. There are now regular evening events but we cannot depend on transit to get us there and back. When 30 minute frequency is the norm even in the city centre for most routes after 6 pm, it is no wonder we have to drive everywhere. Recent Lansdowne events maxed out parking but we still have lousy bus service, so the alternative choice is not attractive. We end up with massive traffic jams of people trying to find parking and growing frustration.

I agree. We need better frequency on the main routes (whatever we decide to name them) well into the evening.

[caveat.doctor]

Originally Posted by bradnixon

Vancouver does a pretty good job with its map, described here: https://humantransit.org/2012/05/van...twork-map.html

It shows the "B-Line" routes (sort of like our "Rapid") are dark, thick orange, and then other routes that are frequent are a thinner blue, but frequent segments are highlighted in orange.

Good example. That's probably the easiest no-cost fix OC Transpo could do now: leave the current systems and signage as is, but on the maps simply add a highlight to the portions of routes that actually offer "frequent" service.

(On that note: anyone know how to pull scheduling data to make a map like this? Specifically, to show only the segments of routes that provide service that is actually "Frequent".)

Some might say that maps like these aren't relevant now that most people use trip planners or apps. I would argue that we need to be able to visualise our system on a map to really understand how it's working - and not being able to do this leads us to designing narrowly-focused routes focused on specific trips (e.g., the Connexion routes), missing the opportunities for improving service simply with even staggering/spacing of runs amongst routes (even if they are "Local"), etc. If you could show how much/little the city is actually served with good quality transit (i.e., frequent, reliable, day and night, etc) it would be a better starting point for discussion.

Originally Posted by CityTech

I'd also change the frequent service standard to actually mean frequent (instead of the current system where 30 minute service on weekends counts as "frequent"), specifically having this be the minimum for "frequent":
-10 minutes or better Monday-Friday 6am-7pm and Saturday-Sunday 12pm-6pm
-15 minutes or better at all other times Line 1 is operating (maybe with an exception allowing drop downs to 20-30 minutes after midnight)

This sounds reasonable. The main thing is that "Frequent" actually needs to be frequent enough to be at that level where you can reasonably just show up without checking the schedule; and be able to trust on transferring between two such "Frequent" routes. Branding something as "Frequent" just because it is moreso than the rest of the system doesn't really help - sure, it's better service than "Local" for parts of the weekday, but it's still not at the level that you can actually shape your travel habits any differently.

Originally Posted by CityTech

I'd have Rapid, Connexion, Arterial, and Local be colour-coded (as they are now), but with the route number bolded if it's frequent, and the line on the map being made thicker. So by looking at the map, you could tell if a route is Rapid, Connexion, Arterial, or Local by the colour of the line on the map, and then whether its Frequent or not based on how thick the line is. On stop flags, you could tell Rapid/Connexion/Arterial/Local by the colour of the box surrounding the route, and then whether its Frequent or not by whether the number inside the box is bolded or not.

I like this idea, though the change to "Arterial" would probably be prohibitive at this point. For ease I'd suggest keeping things as they are. On the map, thicken the appropriate portions of lines to convey frequency (here's another article on frequency mapping; there's actually good reason to not use as many colours as we do now, in order to emphasise frequency). On flags, because it would be costly to replace them now, and because it's not always easy to tell the difference between bold and regular font (usually need to have both side by side to tell), you could indicate actual frequent service by adding a sticker next to the symbol, like an asterix or stopwatch icon. Montreal did this for its 10-minute network, for example.

[RationalPhi]

Whenever I occasionally ride the bus with my 8yo and try to pay for a child fare on my card the drivers just give me a blank look and wave us on. Is it an unwritten rule that accompanied kids under 12 are free, because drivers have better things to do than futz with the Presto machine? Or am I just lucky with nice bus drivers and an adorable kid? Am I supposed to get a dedicated child Presto card? Continue with the awkward exchange every time? Just forget even trying to pay kid fares?

[CityTech]

Originally Posted by roger1818

I think they would have used Arterial instead of Frequent, but Arterial isn't bilingual.

True. I dunno what the French equivalent of "Arterial" would be.

Originally Posted by roger1818

I like that idea. By definition though, Connexion routes should never be deemed "Frequent" as they only run during peak periods.

I thought of that, but I think there might some value to distinguishing between Connexion routes that are pretty frequent versus the ones that aren't--some come every 10-15 mins dropping to 20-30 at the edges of the peak, some come every 30 mins only, others only have a handful of runs (like the 222 or 265).

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by RationalPhi

Whenever I occasionally ride the bus with my 8yo and try to pay for a child fare on my card the drivers just give me a blank look and wave us on. Is it an unwritten rule that accompanied kids under 12 are free, because drivers have better things to do than futz with the Presto machine? Or am I just lucky with nice bus drivers and an adorable kid? Am I supposed to get a dedicated child Presto card? Continue with the awkward exchange every time? Just forget even trying to pay kid fares?

Yes you need a separate Presto card. The whole idea of charging them seems silly. When you have two it makes a Uber more logical most of the time. They do take up room but are usually riding outside of peak time and better to get the adult revenue and call it a day.

[Capital Shaun]

Originally Posted by RationalPhi

Whenever I occasionally ride the bus with my 8yo and try to pay for a child fare on my card the drivers just give me a blank look and wave us on. Is it an unwritten rule that accompanied kids under 12 are free, because drivers have better things to do than futz with the Presto machine? Or am I just lucky with nice bus drivers and an adorable kid? Am I supposed to get a dedicated child Presto card? Continue with the awkward exchange every time? Just forget even trying to pay kid fares?

In my experience, it seems to vary from driver to driver. One summer when taking my kids to camp every morning, the regular drivers would just wave them on, but if it was a different driver, they'd charge the fare. Very inconsistent.

[TransitZilla]

OC has posted their winter service change summary:

https://www.octranspo.com/en/plan-yo...rvice-changes/

No earth shattering changes; from what I can tell of the highlights:

-Big frequency bump on the 39 to every 15 minutes all day between Blair and Trim (and Blair to Place d'Orleans on the weekend)
-route 12 extended to O'Connor
-Barrhaven Connexion routes will be express from Tunney's to Fallowfield
-added frequency and trips on a bunch more routes

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by bradnixon

OC has posted their winter service change summary:

https://www.octranspo.com/en/plan-yo...rvice-changes/

No earth shattering changes; from what I can tell of the highlights:

-Big frequency bump on the 39 to every 15 minutes all day between Blair and Trim (and Blair to Place d'Orleans on the weekend)
-route 12 extended to O'Connor
-Barrhaven Connexion routes will be express from Tunney's to Fallowfield
-added frequency and trips on a bunch more routes

We all noticed the Route 39 service cut as soon as they announced the post LRT schedules. Sometimes you have to wonder whether the planners can't see the forest for the trees. This was a pretty obvious potential source of complaints.

I would like to see rapid routes with frequent service be shown as orange circles. Non-frequent rapid routes would remain blue circles. The frequent designation is the most useful information for any bus route on maps and on stop signs.

I would also like to see routes that are almost frequent be boosted to that level. Route 46 is an example. This is a big step in service dependability if there is consistent frequency all day rather than having sporadic gaps.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Commute times are the contemporary equivalent to fisherman's tales.

Basically everyone I know who lives 5-10 km north of A-50 in the hills of Cantley or Val-des-Monts swears that it takes them "seven minutes" to get to where all the "stuff" is - basically the general vicinity of Gréber and Maloney.

I am not sure why it's 7 minutes and not 6 or 8, but everyone seems to have the same line. Perhaps it's because it's obviously more than 5, which would be too outrageous a claim, but far enough from 10 which is scary because it's in the double digits.

For the record, I live not too far from the Gatineau ground zero that is Gréber/Maloney, and I have lots of friends who live "up there" in seven-minute-territory, as do my kids, and generally speaking it takes about as long for me to get to those people's places in Cantley and Val-des-Monts, as it does to the Byward Market or Rideau Centre.

I thought about this part of the thread over the weekend, as we bumped into friends/acquaintances who are having a new house built up in Cantley.

Sure enough, and without us even prompting them by raising the topic of distance, they spontaneously said: "... and it's only seven minutes from blablabla...".

Not 5 minutes. Not 10 minutes. 7 minutes.

[lrt's friend]

Over 140 documented bus trip cancellations today plus a shutdown of the C-Line between St. Laurent and Blair this afternoon that was long enough to require R1 service to be implemented. Broken down train at Cyrville Station.

[lrt's friend]

Looks like we are on track for even more bus trip cancellations today.

QUESTION: Are trip cancellations reflected on the electronic station schedule signs? Again, this is valuable information that riders need to know. I am software designer and I would show cancelled trips on the electronic displays in red with a line through the time. This tells the user that their was supposed to be a trip but it is not running. No guessing as to why there is a schedule gap if a trip was just not displayed at all.

[Multi-modal]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

QUESTION: Are trip cancellations reflected on the electronic station schedule signs? Again, this is valuable information that riders need to know. I am software designer and I would show cancelled trips on the electronic displays in red with a line through the time. This tells the user that their was supposed to be a trip but it is not running. No guessing as to why there is a schedule gap if a trip was just not displayed at all.

That is a wonderful idea and would really help the user.... but it would be a highly visible indicator of an OC Transpo issue so it won't happen

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

QUESTION: Are trip cancellations reflected on the electronic station schedule signs? Again, this is valuable information that riders need to know. I am software designer and I would show cancelled trips on the electronic displays in red with a line through the time. This tells the user that their was supposed to be a trip but it is not running. No guessing as to why there is a schedule gap if a trip was just not displayed at all.

No, I don't think so, and that's why I've suggested that OC should move to the GTFS-RT standard for their API. It includes a way to provide an update on the status of each trip (e.g. running as planned or cancelled). With this information, cancelled trips could be displayed on the screen or in apps as cancelled.

Pat Scrimgeour gave an answer yesterday that suggested that OC is replacing their scheduling/dispatch IT back-end platform; I suspect once this is completed they will have the ability to feed out this kind of information.

[Uhuniau]

According to a bit of boilerplate language on the "real-time" screens, a trip that is cancelled will simply be made to vanish from the departure board.

Unless you're waiting for a bus at Parliament, in which case there's still no departure board at all.

[lrt's friend]

My ongoing complaint about Hurdman station remains. The bus signs are on the wrong side of the shelters so the shelters block the signs from view when coming from the train. I could not find any universal electronic bus departure boards unlike stations like Greenboro. Buses running down the south-east Transitway do not necessarily depart from the same bus stop or even adjacent bus stops. You could not find information any where on the next departure going down the south-east Transitway. As it turned out, the next departure was from a different stop from where I was waiting. Several people had to chase down the bus.

Ongoing congestion on Bank Street and major events at Lansdowne suggest that if we ever build another subway, that is where it is needed. It would cut travel times in half.

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

My ongoing complaint about Hurdman station remains. The bus signs are on the wrong side of the shelters so the shelters block the signs from view when coming from the train. I could not find any universal electronic bus departure boards unlike stations like Greenboro. Buses running down the south-east Transitway do not necessarily depart from the same bus stop or even adjacent bus stops. You could not find information any where on the next departure going down the south-east Transitway. As it turned out, the next departure was from a different stop from where I was waiting. Several people had to chase down the bus.

There is a "directory" electronic board; it is near the bottom of the stairs that come down from the east end of the platform.

There is also a non-electronic direction sign near the washrooms:

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Hu...1!4d-75.663798