OC Transpo

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Where is people going car-free identified as an objective? None of the city, federal or provincial government have implemented any policies or funding that would facilitate people going car-free outside of a few central neighbourhoods or a few TOD sites. Nobody living in a typical Ottawa suburb who has the means to own a car has any incentive to go car free, or if they did it would be because they calculated uber fares are cheaper than car-related costs (which doesn't help traffic or transit).

Unused or lightly-used transit is not a solution to traffic.

It isn't really a death spiral, it is just returning to the mean. Ottawa had unusually high levels of transit usage in the suburbs because federal policies (mainly parking policies) incentivized people to take transit, which made it feasible to run higher frequency services during rush hour to get these people into central Ottawa (and also provided a source of revenue). The federal government has changed its policies, which are no longer conducive to transit in the suburbs. OCTranspo needs to adjust to this reality.

I know several people in my suburban area who live car-free and we are about to make life more difficult for them. If we don't facilitate car-free living, and we continue to want to increase density, reduce parking availability, all the catch words, how is our city going to continue to function in a decade or two?

If we do not make transit more attractive, we are facing a situation where we spent billions on a rapid transit system that functions well under capacity and will drain our transit budget. Unlike buses, where we can easily reduce frequency and routes, we have reasonably fixed contracts and costs to operate trains. In addition, while our Transitway system allowed access to suburban and mainly private business parks with a minimum of transfers, rail is making access more difficult. So, people don't want to go downtown anymore and while suburban employment remains strong and likely growing, transit access is deteriorating quickly.

I do not understand why we want a transit system that is mainly a social service. This will not have a happy outcome. American cities have proven that social service transit systems become unattractive to everybody else. I saw that when I was in Los Angeles.

A lot of our transit cuts are doubly bad, because to save service hours, we are tacking together routes to avoid a small duplication of service, which allowed for efficient access to a major transit destination. This ends up making transit very unattractive, and becomes a basic service that will not be used except for those who have no alternatives. We completely eliminate choice riders, who will choose transit for some trips despite having a car in the garage. I fit into that category. I can see myself becoming transit dependent some day, but the current proposal will make that impossible (too long of walks for someone who may be limited by arthritis in the future).

One of the things, I have complained about for years is that we are not building new transit routes bypassing regular traffic. We have had many plans that all appear to be mothballed. Our current plans cost a fortune, yet serve the exact same Transitway corridor with no better service. The one exception being the Line 2 extension, which is designed to be far from ideal. We are blowing a wad to serve a declining market, rather than building more less expensive transitway routes or a new O-Train route, using the original inexpensive model of Line 2 circa 2001.

Building a transit grid based on more segregated routes will allow more people to go car-free, but as long as most of the system is caught up in worsening traffic, how does this ever make transit more attractive?

Meanwhile, the city's planning department is building more density in the suburbs with little transit access. I brought up a project currently under construction in Findlay Creek, 1.5 km from all-day transit. Locals have wondered what this project is. It isn't an office/retail project. It isn't a condo project. It is a 200+ unit apartment project, now confirmed. I see what is happening out here. New immigrants are moving into the suburbs, like Findlay Creek, because the cost per square foot is much cheaper than any urban project. We don't get it. Multiple families or individuals are moving into these houses, sharing accommodation, and many have no or limited car access. New suburbs are full of newcomers. Transit service cuts to these locations is a lost opportunity, and limits employment opportunities for new immigrants. I know. I am currently interacting with a newcomer from Uganda who is having difficulties finding a job because transit is so poor.

[lrt's friend]

To reinforcement my comment about newcomers, it is much cheaper for 3 or 4 families to live in a suburban house than for those same families to pay for 3 or 4 apartments in an urban location. I am hearing that multi-family houses is very common in the suburbs especially because of the housing affordability crisis. But we don't want to deliver the transportation service that those people need. This will be less the case in more mature suburbs with an established ownership base that predates the current housing crisis and current immigration boom. So, our transit plans do not reflect changing demographics in certain areas.

I cannot see Canada substantially reducing immigration because of the need for younger workers with an aging general population.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by acottawa

The executive summary says

When observing the variation within each route-segment over time, however, ridership is inelastic; each additional vehicle-trip is expected to generate less ridership than the average bus already on the route.

Which is exactly the point I am trying to make. If you have a suburban route with 5 passengers, adding more buses will each have fewer than five passengers.

Yes, the summary says that, but it also says that low frequency routes (i.e. the ones that we are talking about) are the most elastic, and increased frequency on those routes produces the most gains individually. It also says that high-frequency routes are the most productive.

More importantly though, the quote that you pulled refers to single route segments. Where the big gains are found are in the system as a whole, which stands to reason, as it means transfer times and overall trip times are shorter. As a general rule, the transit agencies that have increased frequency on key routes are the only ones who have seen ridership go up.

Hybrid working is not being very consistently applied. People who move more than 125km away are exempt, people that have a doctors note that gives them some sort of office-related anxiety are exempt, and even for the the rest many people some to be not doing their two days in the office or doing part days. Many offices can no longer accommodate the staff they have so people are going home because there is no workspace.

No doubt there has been uneven application, but those exceptions don't prove the trend. The first one deals with people who have moved outside of Ottawa, and presumably won't need transit or roads. The second is legally-mandated accommodation, which is nothing new to hybrid. Either way, they are exceptions, not the general rule.

I'm admittedly less familiar with the core public service, but agencies and crowns are almost all moving in the other direction and are tightening up in office rules. As are the private sector workplaces and service workers, which make up a good chunk of the workforce. Point is that there are still lots of people who need to go to the office and always will, particularly mid-week.

Yes people go other places than for work, but in a low-density, car-focused city it is impractical to provide transit that is more attractive than the car for going to "other places."

For example, when we lived in Gloucester, train yards was a 5-10 minute drive depending on traffic. Bus was 30 minutes to an hour depending on how far we were willing to walk. Increasing frequency would bring that down slightly, but still many multiples of the driving time. Plus if we drove we could make purchases that may not have been easy to bring back on the bus.

Impractical maybe, but that doesn't make it any less necessary. There are lots of people who don't have the choice, from students to low-income workers, and it's in society's interest as a whole to make sure they can get where they need to go. It just doesn't work to throw up our hands and say everyone is going to drive anyway - many will choose the slower route for economic reasons, environmental reasons etc.

Fine, but what are the policies the city is currently implementing that will lead to a different form factor in the future? The future doesn't occur in a vaccuum, it is the direct result of previous policy decisions.

Agree that the city is not doing what it should, but intensification is a pretty significant policy that is quite obviously playing out across the city. If we are building all of these condos and apartments without investing in transit, the result is not going to be pretty.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

All of that pie in the sky a car free city stuff doesn't matter as was aid our politicians as directed by voters are not pursuing anything like that. We have to decide what parts of our transit system to maintain. I would argue a basic level of service for those without the means to drive to get to work and commuters that continue to work downtown should be the priority. There is no appetite for increased taxes to pay for more so cuts are coming it's just a matter of where.

I don't disagree with your point on induced demand applying to transit. This is more about providing necessary choices than about creating car-free roads.

I'm not sure that I agree that there is no appetite for increased taxes to pay for transit. I don't have direct evidence, but I think that there are significant parts of the city that would be willing to pay for tangible improvements. Either way, it is the job of policy makers to sell necessary policy choices, rather than telling people what they want to hear and letting them sleepwalk towards disastrous results both from a city function and environmental perspective.

Our argument may just be more about what a basic level of service means. For me it is frequent, direct service on arterials rather than trying to cover every square inch of a massive, sprawly city. Most people can and will walk to an arterial if it means less time waiting for a bus. Giving decent service to the most people possible should be the initial goal, which may not actually take more money.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by phil235

I don't disagree with your point on induced demand applying to transit. This is more about providing necessary choices than about creating car-free roads.

I'm not sure that I agree that there is no appetite for increased taxes to pay for transit. I don't have direct evidence, but I think that there are significant parts of the city that would be willing to pay for tangible improvements. Either way, it is the job of policy makers to sell necessary policy choices, rather than telling people what they want to hear and letting them sleepwalk towards disastrous results both from a city function and environmental perspective.

Our argument may just be more about what a basic level of service means. For me it is frequent, direct service on arterials rather than trying to cover every square inch of a massive, sprawly city. Most people can and will walk to an arterial if it means less time waiting for a bus. Giving decent service to the most people possible should be the initial goal, which may not actually take more money.

There are exceptions to this. In this area, they are eliminating service on the principle arterial, Bank Street, because of awkward geography, lack of pedestrian access, the Greenbelt, and supposed parallel service on Line 2 (3 or 4 kms away), which runs through woods and swamp and has no stops anyways. The end result is no reasonable service and walking distances of 1 km or longer, which I argue is too far for practical transit access. In one new subdivision in the neighbourhood, there could be access to all day transit and shopping except they didn't build a bridge across a small creek. Ironically, while a bridge has not been built here, there are two bridges waiting for installation in a nearby nature area. We can see the priorities.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

There are exceptions to this. In this area, they are eliminating service on the principle arterial, Bank Street, because of awkward geography, lack of pedestrian access, the Greenbelt, and supposed parallel service on Line 2 (3 or 4 kms away), which runs through woods and swamp and has no stops anyways. The end result is no reasonable service and walking distances of 1 km or longer, which I argue is too far for practical transit access. In one new subdivision in the neighbourhood, there could be access to all day transit and shopping except they didn't build a bridge across a small creek. Ironically, while a bridge has not been built here, there are two bridges waiting for installation in a nearby nature area. We can see the priorities.

I agree with you on most counts. Yes, there are exceptions, and yes it does not work if there aren't decent pedestrian routes to transit.

I don't agree that 1 km is too far, as long as the destination is a truly frequent transit line. Ideally you would get that down to 800m, but 1 km as a maximum makes sense in a lot of Ottawa's geography. That is around a 13 minute walk for most people, and remember that it would be a maximum. Average would be 6-7 minutes of walking. Probably less if we concentrate density along arterials. If you combine that with 10-minute service or better, that would be a reasonable option for a big chunk of the population.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Taxpayers are already paying 15% of their entire tax bill for a service hardly any of them use

1. "Hardly any of them"?

2. Even those who don't use transit benefit from it, though.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Some transit is a service to the poor. Their time isn't worth as much

Not worth as much to whom?

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by phil235

I don't agree that 1 km is too far

It is too far, because transit service along Bank Street is meant to serve origins and destinations along Bank Street.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

It is too far, because transit service along Bank Street is meant to serve origins and destinations along Bank Street.

Is it? As part of a functioning system, wouldn't a big chunk of it be connecting to other destinations?

Either way, this isn't about Bank St., which is a bit of an odd duck given the parallel rail transit. It's about standards for arterials everywhere. The broader point is that people will walk farther for good service. A short walk to bad service isn't very appealing.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by phil235

I don't disagree with your point on induced demand applying to transit. This is more about providing necessary choices than about creating car-free roads.

As unrealistic as "Car free roads" would be if that was our goal it's clearly not the goal of anyone beyond a very small fringe about as large as the get rid of all transit folks.

Originally Posted by phil235

I'm not sure that I agree that there is no appetite for increased taxes to pay for transit. I don't have direct evidence, but I think that there are significant parts of the city that would be willing to pay for tangible improvements. Either way, it is the job of policy makers to sell necessary policy choices, rather than telling people what they want to hear and letting them sleepwalk towards disastrous results both from a city function and environmental perspective.

Electoral history suggest otherwise. Even the hint of free transit and resulting tax increases was the kiss of death that McKenny had to vehemently deny.

Originally Posted by phil235

Our argument may just be more about what a basic level of service means. For me it is frequent, direct service on arterials rather than trying to cover every square inch of a massive, sprawly city. Most people can and will walk to an arterial if it means less time waiting for a bus. Giving decent service to the most people possible should be the initial goal, which may not actually take more money.

Completely agree. If we need to sacrifice anything it should be the proximity. I get some people can't walk very far but there are other options for them. It improves service for everyone when we straighten out the routes and it cuts cost allowing more frequent service for the same cost.

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Not worth as much to whom?

To them. You aren't taking an Uber to work for $15 an hour to save 20 minutes of waiting.

Or if you ask those starting shifts at 5am would they rather wait longer for their afternoon bus or have the morning bus cancelled so they need to take an Uber in the morning they will answer for more service rather than more frequent.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

1. "Hardly any of them"?

2. Even those who don't use transit benefit from it, though.

1. What percentage of Ottawans use transit in a given week? Maybe 20?

2. To some extent.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by acottawa

1. What percentage of Ottawans use transit in a given week? Maybe 20?

What percentage of Ottawans use March Road in a given week?

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by acottawa

2. To some extent.

To a very large extent. For instance, to any business owner outside my practical walk radius who is angry that they have to pay tax towards eMpTy BuSeS, but for those buses, empty or otherwise, I wouldn't be able to spend money in your establishment.

But for public transit, there'd be a lot more vehicles on the road, a lot more parking lots, and a lot less of the not-car-oriented Ottawa that makes those parts of Ottawa attractive for humans.

The benefits are hard to quantify and often intangible, but that doesn't mean they are small or easily dismissed.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by phil235

Is it? As part of a functioning system, wouldn't a big chunk of it be connecting to other destinations?

If you don't have transit running in straightish and intuitive lines along your principal commercial streets and stroads, then your system isn't functioning, in my view.

Parallel rail service is not a reason to diminish bus service on Bank any more than it is on Montreal Road or Somellingmond. The fact that such services are "parallel" is geometry at most, and has little to do with transit network topology or how people move about in urban and suburban spaces.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

What percentage of Ottawans use March Road in a given week?

Weak analogy. What percentage use the road network as whole is a better question. Which is the majority of residents. By car, bike, bus or taxi.

Still more people use March Road than use route 97 in a given week.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

To a very large extent. For instance, to any business owner outside my practical walk radius who is angry that they have to pay tax towards eMpTy BuSeS, but for those buses, empty or otherwise, I wouldn't be able to spend money in your establishment.

But for public transit, there'd be a lot more vehicles on the road, a lot more parking lots, and a lot less of the not-car-oriented Ottawa that makes those parts of Ottawa attractive for humans.

The benefits are hard to quantify and often intangible, but that doesn't mean they are small or easily dismissed.

Let's focus on reasonable scenarios. If we cut non peak bus service to hourly and straighten and streamline routes. There will be little to no impact as you described above. And those would be extreme cuts at this point.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Let's focus on reasonable scenarios. If we cut non peak bus service to hourly

Hourly? Sure, let's bomb our transit system back to 1990s-era weekend STO service.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

If you don't have transit running in straightish and intuitive lines along your principal commercial streets and stroads, then your system isn't functioning, in my view.

Parallel rail service is not a reason to diminish bus service on Bank any more than it is on Montreal Road or Somellingmond. The fact that such services are "parallel" is geometry at most, and has little to do with transit network topology or how people move about in urban and suburban spaces.

But in the scenario I am talking about it would be running straightish on Bank St., and at higher frequency. It's the winding dips into neighbourhoods that would be minimized.

I only brought up the parallel rail because it would draw a lot of the longer-distance and connecting passengers off of that particular corridor. Thought that's what you meant.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by phil235

I agree with you on most counts. Yes, there are exceptions, and yes it does not work if there aren't decent pedestrian routes to transit.

I don't agree that 1 km is too far, as long as the destination is a truly frequent transit line. Ideally you would get that down to 800m, but 1 km as a maximum makes sense in a lot of Ottawa's geography. That is around a 13 minute walk for most people, and remember that it would be a maximum. Average would be 6-7 minutes of walking. Probably less if we concentrate density along arterials. If you combine that with 10-minute service or better, that would be a reasonable option for a big chunk of the population.

I think we are continuing to stretch what is a reasonable walking distance to transit.

Generally, 400 m or 1/4 mile (about a 5 minute walk) is the normal limit for reasonable transit access. When we extend that out further, people will begin to look for other means of transportation.

I don't think we should be expecting people to speed walk, to a bus stop which is 6-7 minutes to cover a 1 km. I used to occasionally walk 1 mile (1.6 km) from a bus stop rather than wait another half hour for the next bus and it took me about 20 minutes walking at a decent pace, then you have to consider bad weather conditions, rain storms, snow and uncleared sidewalks.

Anyways, here is information about walking distance to transit

https://humantransit.org/2011/04/basics-...20that%20400m,up%20to%201000m%20or%20so.