OC Transpo

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

My point is that we set a ridiculous speed limit, fine people heavily, often those not familiar with the city and leave a bad taste for those visiting downtown.

Putting speed cameras and artificially lowering the speed limits doesn't help, I agree. Hunt Club was designed for speeds of 100 km/h, but the limit is 50 km/h (of whatever) in the "safe" zone. Well, maybe is should have been designed for 50km/h speeds then. We continue to build our roads far too wide.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

It is the political class who made these decisions and you supported some of this.

With 75 percent of Ottawa suburban, without suburban buy-in, there is not sufficient population to support a subway.

With your disdain for the suburbs, amalgamation should not have taken place. Of course, you would be in Gloucester

Amalgamation should have gone differently. Inside the Greenbelt, the suburban ring and the rural areas should have been annexed by rural Counties around them. Having urban, mid-century suburban, modern suburbs and rural areas with competing interests doesn't serve anyone well.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Toronto just passed a 9.5% tax increase. Ottawa stuck to 2.5%. These two cities are not the same.

Yup. The 2.5% cap was irresponsible. Promise should be to cap the tax heights at inflation if a politicians want to do that.

The difference between Ottawa and Toronto is that Ottawa voted for the boring guy who promised low taxes instead of the progressive that had very different ideas to move the City forward, and a tax promise that was slightly more realistic (3%). Toronto did the same until the guy cheated on his wife and resigned. When they had a second chance, they made the choice to try something different in Olivia Chow.

Let's hope Sutcliffe follow's the lead of Tory and Belisle; resign, this job isn't for you.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by phil235

Except that the reality isn't a binary choice like that, given all that goes into a municipal budget. Also, people may vote for the big cuts initially, but I don't think it would take very long before people realize the impact of those cuts and are clamoring for alternatives.

The idea many have here that making people wait 20 minutes instead of 10 is going to have so many quit transit buy cars and the surge brings the whole city to a standstill seems very dubious.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

The idea many have here that making people wait 20 minutes instead of 10 is going to have so many quit transit buy cars and the surge brings the whole city to a standstill seems very dubious.

We aren't talking about reducing headways from 20 to 10 mins. We're talking about avoiding an increase in headways to 30 mins. And increasing rail headways to 10 mins. At that point, transit is basically for retirees and students. Pretty nuts to spend $7B building a rail centric transit system and then gimp the thing over tens of millions. But if that's what they want, so be it.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

The idea many have here that making people wait 20 minutes instead of 10 is going to have so many quit transit buy cars and the surge brings the whole city to a standstill seems very dubious.

The proof will be in the pudding, but cutting trunk service by half is a pretty significant change. The knock-on effects when you take transfers into account can have big effect on end to end travel times which will make transit uncompetitive. Maybe this particular change alone doesn't induce that many people to buy cars, but it could easily be a last straw in the ongoing deterioration of service that has definitely driven more people to drive.

It's also the way they are going about it. By cutting mid-day and early evening service, they are signaling that they are still only focusing on commuters, which has been their problem all along.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

My point is that we set a ridiculous speed limit, fine people heavily, often those not familiar with the city and leave a bad taste for those visiting downtown.

Is this really about visitors to the city? If that was the case, wouldn't the effects be even worse in Montreal where they have completely closed 11 urban streets to traffic, including a huge chunk of their main drag? And yet their tourist visits have bounced back much faster than Ottawa's. I don't think that there is any actual evidence that tourists dislike these efforts to make downtowns more pedestrian-friendly. On the other hand, there is lots of evidence that suburbanites are the ones complaining about the speed limits.

Why 30 kph? Yeah, yeah, safety, but it could also be 20 kph. That would be even safer.

Why 30? Because it is a good balance between preserving mobility and improving safety. If you look at the stats, 40 is considerably less safe for pedestrians.

[zzptichka]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

My point is that we set a ridiculous speed limit, fine people heavily, often those not familiar with the city and leave a bad taste for those visiting downtown. Why 30 kph? Yeah, yeah, safety, but it could also be 20 kph. That would be even safer. Is it really reasonable coming off of a highway bridge? There are many ways to slow down traffic. I drive down roads everyday where they use other methods and it is effective. For a major arterial, this is a cash grab and works against trying to get people back downtown. We could also choose 40 kph which I argue is more reasonable for an arterial.

Why not 30kph at Carleton? Always better to hammer fines on those who are not residents and don't have a councillor to call. Why not damage the reputation of the city that is clearly suffering?

You might be onto something. London Ontario has recently reduced speed limits on some streets from 30 to 20 kmh. Maybe we should follow suit, so visitors from London Ontario feel like at home and our reputation doesn't suffer.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by phil235

The proof will be in the pudding, but cutting trunk service by half is a pretty significant change. The knock-on effects when you take transfers into account can have big effect on end to end travel times which will make transit uncompetitive. Maybe this particular change alone doesn't induce that many people to buy cars, but it could easily be a last straw in the ongoing deterioration of service that has definitely driven more people to drive.

It's also the way they are going about it. By cutting mid-day and early evening service, they are signaling that they are still only focusing on commuters, which has been their problem all along.

Well it's commuters the system misses. As others have pointed out there isn't gridlock outside of rush hours so why wouldn't those with an option just be driving already during off peak hours? Or at least certainly there are less switchers available who either work off hours or use transit for other purposes.

[eltodesukane]

5km/h (safe enough?)
Loblaws at College Square Mall, Baseline & Woodroffe

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by phil235

Is this really about visitors to the city? If that was the case, wouldn't the effects be even worse in Montreal where they have completely closed 11 urban streets to traffic, including a huge chunk of their main drag? And yet their tourist visits have bounced back much faster than Ottawa's. I don't think that there is any actual evidence that tourists dislike these efforts to make downtowns more pedestrian-friendly. On the other hand, there is lots of evidence that suburbanites are the ones complaining about the speed limits.

I've never heard of a single visitor to Ottawa complain about driving here. Heard plenty from locals though. This is as ridiculous as the businesses who complain about losing parking spots in front of their stores. Dig deeper and it's not about customers. It's about the owners parking there. Same idea here. Tourists love walkable areas and walkable cities. They pay a ton of money to visit them. I dunno any super car centric place that is really popular as a tourist destination. Except maybe to go to resorts or golf courses where people don't actually leave.

Originally Posted by phil235

Why 30? Because it is a good balance between preserving mobility and improving safety. If you look at the stats, 40 is considerably less safe for pedestrians.

Correct. Kinetic energy is exponential. 40 kph is not just 33% worse in a crash. More like 78% worse. But all of this is a minor detail if you see residents in a given neighbourhood as speed bumps on the way to your appointment. And of course, our planners have the same mind set where that design roads to be driven at 100 kph and then slap on some ridiculously unnatural speed limit with a wink and nudge to motorists.

[lrt's friend]

I know plenty of people who don't want to come to Ottawa or don't want to go to downtown Ottawa anymore. Does Montreal have speed traps at major entrances to the city? Except in the most urban locations, does 30 kph make sense? There needs to be reasonable balance. Ottawa streets have never been killing fields. Regarding transit, how can we spend billions and lose 38 per cent of the ridership? The pandemic excuse can only be used so long. Other cities are finding ways to attract new riders often in off peak hours. But how do we facilitate ridership with no park n rides integrated into stations that actually get you downtown without transfers. Yeah, Orleans in the future, but nowhere else. We design rapid transit to supposedly save money but forget the customer experience. Is it fast and direct? This is not always the case with go slow orders and rapid transit transfers that should have been avoided. We are designing things as if it is 1965 and transit is an after thought. The sad thing is that we have now engraved these errors in stone. All our rail lines should have gone downtown. All our railheads should have both park n rides and efficient bus terminals that encourage or at least facilitate suburban use including during off-peak hours. It is like there is no coordination in the plan, and then we wonder why people don't use it. TOD needs to be encouraged but TOD alone is not going to save our rail plan.

[lrt's friend]

A perfect example of planning stupidity is building the Line 3 terminus at Moodie in the middle of the Greenbelt in order to facilitate train maintenance instead of improving the customer experience with the main Park n Rides one station beyond. Is that really wise planning? I have now concluded that I will not see an extension to even Eagleson in my lifetime.

[lrt's friend]

Another example of stupidity, is the lack of a transit shuttle to Rideau-Carleton, a cash cow for the city and the location of the area's largest fair. It is now 25 years since Claudette Cain had the audacity to save Rideau-Carleton with a casino that the city foolishly didn't want. Claudette is long retired and it is time to end this spite war.

[Truenorth00]

We're cutting Line 1 service to 10 min headways but ya know what's really important? A shuttle to a casino. This city deserves the politicians running it. Perfect reflection of the median voter.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

We're cutting Line 1 service to 10 min headways but ya know what's really important? A shuttle to a casino. This city deserves the politicians running it. Perfect reflection of the median voter.

Absolutely. The median voter only wants to fund transit at all to get other cars out of their way.

I know you think congestion will eventually lead to some epihany. But I am very skeptical.

I know many even most have a total aversion to moving to Quebec but we have Gatineau right there which builds roads and transit. Highway infrastructure directly to growing residential areas but also decent transit given their population and they don't seem to be cutting service.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I know plenty of people who don't want to come to Ottawa or don't want to go to downtown Ottawa anymore. Does Montreal have speed traps at major entrances to the city?

You know plenty of people who don’t want to come to Ottawa because of 30 kmph speed limits? Seems pretty niche. And unless they are coming to visit someone, i'd say there are about 0% of tourists who don't want to visit downtown Ottawa.

And if you have been to Montreal you would know that you are almost guaranteed to see multiple speed traps on your way into the city. Montreal is many times more difficult to drive in than Ottawa, and it is coming back way faster. The well-developed urban transit system is a big factor. Slower speed limits and more park and rides are not.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by phil235

You know plenty of people who don’t want to come to Ottawa because of 30 kmph speed limits? Seems pretty niche. And unless they are coming to visit someone, i'd say there are about 0% of tourists who don't want to visit downtown Ottawa.

And if you have been to Montreal you would know that you are almost guaranteed to see multiple speed traps on your way into the city. Montreal is many times more difficult to drive in than Ottawa, and it is coming back way faster. The well-developed urban transit system is a big factor. Slower speed limits and more park and rides are not.

The projection is obvious. It's not even worth responding to anymore.

[11a2b3]

Originally Posted by zzptichka

Why won't he try to "find some efficiencies"???

Cancelling the electric bus order, how much would the city save?

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by 11a2b3

Cancelling the electric bus order, how much would the city save?

Not much in the long term as the Feds are paying a lot of the capital costs and the eventual diesel savings will be substantial. Sure the money would be much. better spent elsewhere but that’s probably not an option

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Not much in the long term as the Feds are paying a lot of the capital costs and the eventual diesel savings will be substantial. Sure the money would be much. better spent elsewhere but that’s probably not an option

The majority of transit operators in most of the developed world are moving to Battery Electric Buses. BEB adoption globally is much higher than personal electric cars. As usual, Canada is behind. Lifecycle costs (includes acquisition costs) are definitively lower . What is expensive is the transition. Including the infrastructure, training, support contracts, etc. What the feds have aimed to do is reduce that, in the hopes that agencies can eventually transition to ordering exclusively BEBs themselves. Helps that we have some major bus builders with good electric bus offerings in New Flyer and Novabus.

Should be noted too, that BEBs are actually an item that improve the passenger experience and budgeting. It isn't just the fuel savings. It reduces the exposure to variable oil prices. This should mean less service cuts in the the future, just because an oil price spike blew a hole in the budget.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Should be noted too, that BEBs are actually an item that improve the passenger experience and budgeting.

They don't improve the passenger experience when the same passengers who once squeezed into a 60-foot diesel artic now squeeze into a 40-foot electric.