OC Transpo

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by DTcrawler

I don't think constant hyperbolization of the issue is necessary. Are you referring to the entire length of Line 1 or a specific section? As far as I know the remaining TSRs in effect are in the area around Hurdman station and the section between St. Laurent and Cyrville stations. Trains run at considerable speeds elsewhere on the line, especially in the downtown tunnel which was well worth the investment compared to the logjam of buses we used to see on Albert & Slater "Transitway" or the 2006 plan which would have been a complete waste of money without a downtown tunnel.

But yes, unfortunately penny pinching left us with permanent features such as the Hurdman S-curves and the choice of rolling stock, and only time will tell if those flaws are surmountable or not. The only thing that's for sure is that with current spending decisions, we're going in the wrong direction.

Agreed. And most of these decisions are in the past. The only possible change in the medium to longterm could be a change in rolling stock. That's obvioulsy not on the table in a univrse where we are cutting.

We have a very expensive rail backbone. We will likely need to cut costs elswhere. Doing that in ways that don't lose riders makes sense and perhaps we need to think outside of current methods. Infrequent busses going to every corner of the city to the nearest train stop for those who have no other choice and perhaps limited mobility but for most passengers it might mean something more frequent, but direct with less stops, and perhaps expensive.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Agreed. And most of these decisions are in the past. The only possible change in the medium to longterm could be a change in rolling stock. That's obvioulsy not on the table in a univrse where we are cutting.

We have a very expensive rail backbone. We will likely need to cut costs elswhere. Doing that in ways that don't lose riders makes sense and perhaps we need to think outside of current methods. Infrequent busses going to every corner of the city to the nearest train stop for those who have no other choice and perhaps limited mobility but for most passengers it might mean something more frequent, but direct with less stops, and perhaps expensive.

Considering that we had run trains at full speed for a couple of years, surely we can find a solution that is much less costly than replacing the entire fleet. If fixes are not possible or not affordable, the city needs to come clean with the voters and take their lumps. At some point, the public needs to have a say. This is the most important transit line in the city and it needs to run efficiently

As far as buses, Ottawa's high ridership in the past arose because of efficient and widespread commuter service. A network with much less reach will guarantee much lower ridership in the longterm. We are already abandoning a large portion of the past transit market. Because rail was designed for commuters instead of urban Ottawa, expect trains to run mostly empty in the suburbs if we don't reasonably address the last mile problem. This is exactly why most American rail systems perform so poorly

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Considering that we had run trains at full speed for a couple of years, surely we can find a solution that is much less costly than replacing the entire fleet. If fixes are not possible or not affordable, the city needs to come clean with the voters and take their lumps. At some point, the public needs to have a say. This is the most important transit line in the city and it needs to run efficiently

Word on the street is that Alstom cleared the trains to run at full speed again months ago. The city is holding out, for whatever reason. Perhaps because it would become an overblown public issue of the city restoring full speeds without a "permanent fix", despite the interim mitigations proving to be sufficient.

Reason #12455 the public should should remain somewhat detached to transit operations.

Certainly you yourself are treating the additional 5 minutes of end-to-end runtime like the entire thing is an unfixable failure. Truly a frustratingly shallow take once you add in the detail that the trains can technically run full speed again already.

[Kitchissippi]

I'm seeing more of these all over. I guess Line 2's opening is imminent.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

Word on the street is that Alstom cleared the trains to run at full speed again months ago. The city is holding out, for whatever reason. Perhaps because it would become an overblown public issue of the city restoring full speeds without a "permanent fix", despite the interim mitigations proving to be sufficient.

Reason #12455 the public should should remain somewhat detached to transit operations.

Certainly you yourself are treating the additional 5 minutes of end-to-end runtime like the entire thing is an unfixable failure. Truly a frustratingly shallow take once you add in the detail that the trains can technically run full speed again already.

What can I say. I can't be criticized for information not available to the public. When measuring transit times, even 5 minute savings are significant. That also applies to driving times within the city. When I hear of just waiting for a bus a few more minutes, I am ready to bang my head against the wall. This accumulates over time as other changes have the same impact, and over and over again. This is how transit becomes totally uncompetitive over time. Add a few minutes over and over again.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

What can I say. I can't be criticized for information not available to the public. When measuring transit times, even 5 minute savings are significant. That also applies to driving times within the city. When I hear of just waiting for a bus a few more minutes, I am ready to bang my head against the wall. This accumulates over time as other changes have the same impact, and over and over again. This is how transit becomes totally uncompetitive over time. Add a few minutes over and over again.

No, but maybe you shouldn't draw hyperbolic conclusions knowing that you don't have the full picture.

My point isn't that 5 minutes is insignificant (I agree that it still makes a big difference), my point is that comparing the LRT to the speed of a bike is pointless rhetoric. It's fundamentally not the most pressing issue without a solution in the transit network right now. 5 minutes longer on the train is far less of a problem than 30+ minutes waiting at either end for your local bus.

[eltodesukane]

Old & new bus stop sign.
Will bus #14 still go to Tunney's Pasture? Can't tell from this sign.
(Should the red bus logo on top take up ~25% of available space?)

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by eltodesukane

Old & new bus stop sign.
Will bus #14 still go to Tunney's Pasture? Can't tell from this sign.
(Should the red bus logo on top take up ~25% of available space?)

It doesn't hurt to make the signs easily identifiable from a distance.

They can produce taller signs when necessary.

[eltodesukane]

But here a taller sign is necessary to show where bus #14 is going to,
and yet a taller sign it is not.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

As far as buses, Ottawa's high ridership in the past arose because of efficient and widespread commuter service. A network with much less reach will guarantee much lower ridership in the longterm. We are already abandoning a large portion of the past transit market. Because rail was designed for commuters instead of urban Ottawa, expect trains to run mostly empty in the suburbs if we don't reasonably address the last mile problem. This is exactly why most American rail systems perform so poorly

I don't think that looking to the past is helpful here, as the city has changed dramatically since the days of one-ride commuter buses coming from far-flung suburbs downtown. That just doesn't work for a city of over a million people. At least not any that I am aware of. That type of service is also extremely expensive to run, so it doesn't provide a solution to our current situation.

I know we have been back and forth on this a lot of times, but I don't think that you can categorically state that less reach equals less ridership. In the past Ottawa had high peak hour ridership (at a high per rider cost), but its overall ridership was not great. To get to high overall ridership, and all of the benefits that entails for the city, we need a different model from just commuter service.

Our official plan is all about intensifying transit nodes and key corridors, so why not match that with frequent transit that concentrates on those areas and see what happens? Given the orientation of our rail lines, I expect that will even be an improvement for the majority in the suburbs. A little longer to get to transit, but more frequent service and quicker transfers when you get there.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by phil235

I don't think that looking to the past is helpful here, as the city has changed dramatically since the days of one-ride commuter buses coming from far-flung suburbs downtown. That just doesn't work for a city of over a million people. At least not any that I am aware of. That type of service is also extremely expensive to run, so it doesn't provide a solution to our current situation.

I know we have been back and forth on this a lot of times, but I don't think that you can categorically state that less reach equals less ridership. In the past Ottawa had high peak hour ridership (at a high per rider cost), but its overall ridership was not great. To get to high overall ridership, and all of the benefits that entails for the city, we need a different model from just commuter service.

Our official plan is all about intensifying transit nodes and key corridors, so why not match that with frequent transit that concentrates on those areas and see what happens? Given the orientation of our rail lines, I expect that will even be an improvement for the majority in the suburbs. A little longer to get to transit, but more frequent service and quicker transfers when you get there.

When do we actually see the benefits? It is great to make these statements but isn't the upcoming changes about saving money. Where are we delivering better service? Are we not also implementing even more windy indirect routes? There are many examples.

How do we achieve higher ridership if walks are longer, frequency is reduced, there are more transfers to reach your destination, and connecting routes are also less frequent.

This seems contrary to what you are suggesting.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

When do we actually see the benefits? It is great to make these statements but isn't the upcoming changes about saving money. Where are we delivering better service? Are we not also implementing even more windy indirect routes? There are many examples.

How do we achieve higher ridership if walks are longer, frequency is reduced, there are more transfers to reach your destination, and connecting routes are also less frequent.

This seems contrary to what you are suggesting.

Absolutely, the current changes are largely contrary to what I am suggesting. We still have this coverage goal, which leads to maintaining once-an-hour suburban routes that are useful to basically no one.

There are some improvements with the new plan. For instance, Bronson is getting frequent service. For some reason it has not had that, despite being one of the few key N-S transportation corridors in the city. A few routes are straightening as well.

Personally I would go all in on consolidation on main routes, sell the services as frequent and more reliable, and try to build on that.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by phil235

Absolutely, the current changes are largely contrary to what I am suggesting. We still have this coverage goal, which leads to maintaining once-an-hour suburban routes that are useful to basically no one.

There are some improvements with the new plan. For instance, Bronson is getting frequent service. For some reason it has not had that, despite being one of the few key N-S transportation corridors in the city. A few routes are straightening as well.

Personally I would go all in on consolidation on main routes, sell the services as frequent and more reliable, and try to build on that.

Wasn't Route 10 on Bronson frequent? You know we are also creating new hourly routes inside the Greenbelt and some horribly indirect routes, for example the one from Navan Road and Blackburn Hamlet, many places too far to walk from frequent service on Innes and as we all want, with more density than 1950s to 1970s suburbs

We cannot expect people to walk 1 or 2 kms when the old main rural roads have never been upgraded to include sidewalks as hundreds of homes have been built around them.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

When do we actually see the benefits? It is great to make these statements but isn't the upcoming changes about saving money. Where are we delivering better service? Are we not also implementing even more windy indirect routes? There are many examples.

How do we achieve higher ridership if walks are longer, frequency is reduced, there are more transfers to reach your destination, and connecting routes are also less frequent.

This seems contrary to what you are suggesting.

The plan seems to be to make commuting by car also much worse. Choking traffice on complete streets that used to be commuter paths, more expensive and harder to find parking. With much more the former and largely hidden from the public debate. The game changer would be a congestion charge as it would make a clear discentive at the same time as not delaying essential trips though it has equity issues of course. It also actually provides new funds for transit without property tax increaes. I think with Ford in power it's impossible even if we could get consensus of course

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

The plan seems to be to make commuting by car also much worse. Choking traffice on complete streets that used to be commuter paths, more expensive and harder to find parking. With much more the former and largely hidden from the public debate. The game changer would be a congestion charge as it would make a clear discentive at the same time as not delaying essential trips though it has equity issues of course. It also actually provides new funds for transit without property tax increaes. I think with Ford in power it's impossible even if we could get consensus of course

Congestion charges as we cut transit service to downtown? Downtown is already in serious trouble. Congestion charges requires excellent transit to be in place. Ottawa is not a big enough city to pull this off.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Wasn't Route 10 on Bronson frequent? You know we are also creating new hourly routes inside the Greenbelt and some horribly indirect routes, for example the one from Navan Road and Blackburn Hamlet, many places too far to walk from frequent service on Innes and as we all want, with more density than 1950s to 1970s suburbs

We cannot expect people to walk 1 or 2 kms when the old main rural roads have never been upgraded to include sidewalks as hundreds of homes have been built around them.

Ridiculously Bronson was not frequent, so there should be some improvement with these changes. That corridor has lost a bunch of ridership since the original "optimization". With decently frequent service, you could get a lot of that ridership back. I guarantee you that there are currently lots of Carleton students and downtown commuters who find walking as fast or faster than waiting for the 10.

You don't seem to acknowledge the trade-off for service in the outer suburbs. If you have a fixed budget and you don't want people to have to walk far, then you are asking for less frequent service (i.e. the 1-hour frequencies that you are panning). I don't see that as a good trade-off or a move that will entice people back to transit. Give good service to an arterial or a hub, however, and people will find ways to get there and not drive into town.

Frankly if you are buying a "cheaper" 2500 sq ft house way out in a field where there are no sidewalks, I don't think it's very realistic to expect good transit service in the interior of your neighbourhood. Unless I'm wrong and those areas are clamouring to pay more taxes to improve their transit.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Davis137

I think there are strides being made to improve the urban landscape inside the greenbelt, while also reigning in the suburban sprawl outside of it that has gone on with near unregulated abandon for the last 10 years.

10, 60, whatevs.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

We cannot spend billions and end up with a train running at the speed of a bicycle. How can transit be attractive with such a critical flaw. We have multiple problems and they all cost a lot of money. Can you imagine a section of the Queensway designed so that traffic runs at bicycle speed all day, every day?

Don't threaten me with a good time.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Congestion charges as we cut transit service to downtown? Downtown is already in serious trouble. Congestion charges requires excellent transit to be in place. Ottawa is not a big enough city to pull this off.

Nor is it congested enough.

The downtown "congestion" problem that needs solving is not that of the suburban single-occupant driver who is traffic complaining about all the traffic.

The congestion problem is that public transit has little to no priority in the part of the city where it is most needed and wanted, and that the city is, in fact, rapidly making the anti-transit congestion problem even worse by redesiging and rebuilding streets in ways take away the few opportunities for better transit priority that exist.

Vanier or Old Ottawa South really shouldn't be an hour by urban trunk route bus from downtown. And they aren't, all the time. But when they are, it's clear what the problem is: we don't prioritize transit in the bloody densest part of the city, and we've actually been de-prioritizing it.

And the residents of that densest part of the city are paying a disproportionate share of the costs of building LRT out to the suburbs.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Congestion charges as we cut transit service to downtown? Downtown is already in serious trouble. Congestion charges requires excellent transit to be in place. Ottawa is not a big enough city to pull this off.

Well the funds could avoid cuts.

I wouldn't say it should be just downtown and I certainly consider it congested. I don't commute but when I go to Kanata Buckingham or the Airport after work I see a lot of single commuters sitting in traffic.