Ottawa Rapid Transit Network developments

[Dado]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

We are in a rush to build Transitway south of Baseline and right through to Barrhaven Town Centre, so that we will not attempt to resurrect the old LRT plan also to Barrhaven Town Centre.

They were always going to build the Southwest Transitway into Barrhaven Town Centre. That was part of the stupidity of the N-S LRT project because the trip timings to downtown from Barrhaven Town Centre worked out better using the SW Transitway than the N-S LRT due to the indirect winding route through Riverside South. The two were even to be co-located south of Marketplace for a shared station before the Transitway headed south along Greenbank to cross the Jock River.

It's always and everywhere about buses and BRT. It was about making LRT look slow and costly. What better than having the #95 or one of the Barrhaven express buses beat the train into downtown, or the #97 on the Southeast Transitway powering along while the train is busy slowly climbing an unnecessary roller coaster overpass and braking hard coming down the other side, to "prove" that BRT is better?

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

If we really wanted LRT to be useful,

It is not about making LRT useful. It is always about buses and BRT. LRT is being limited to where BRT simply no longer works and because the public is sick of BRT this limited LRT plan is to pacify them. LRT is about saving BRT from itself and nothing more, and if that can be done at high cost to dissuade any further LRT, then so much the better. The LRT network in the TMP will achieve that: it goes far enough out on the busiest corridors to handle what BRT can't; beyond those points BRT can probably function for years to come, albeit at high cost. And to further ensure that LRT goes no further they'll slap on some density requirements in the suburban town centres in the Official Plan that don't have a chance of being met in the next 20 odd years.

[p_xavier]

On that BRT subject:

Look to Toronto for transit system inspiration

In Transit by John Holmes
March 30, 2009 12:11 a.m.


While in Toronto for the last week, I noticed something quite profound about transit here in TO.

Say what you like about OC Transpo drivers, but they’re a good deal more polite than the staff who work for the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC).

The first time I bought transit tokens at Union Station, the booth operator mocked my British accent, and made a sarcastic joke about “bringing us culture.” My colleague from North Carolina was mocked even more by the TTC worker and his buddy. Her crime? Putting her token in the cash fare box rather than the slot in the turnstile.

The Toronto subway can be an intimidating place. It’s not immediately obvious how to do things for a newcomer. OC Transpo drivers have taken a lot of stick recently, but, if you’re lost, my own experience is that they’re usually polite and happy to help. When I encounter a grumpier one, he or she usually stops short of openly making fun of the passengers, which seems to be a fairly regular occurrence here on the TTC.

It’s obvious, however, that apart from the staff, Toronto’s transit system is vastly superior to Ottawa’s in every possible way. I understand this statement is hardly a revelation. But the difference is just embarrassing. In Toronto, streetcars run regularly along every major road until the early hours of the morning. In Ottawa, a bus runs down Bank Street once every 15 minutes on the weekend.

It’s often argued that Toronto inevitably has a better transit system than Ottawa because it’s a bigger city. Thanks to Toronto’s size, it has a system of remarkable complexity, covered by the TTC, Viva and GO Transit.

Using a combination of the TTC and the sleek Viva buses in York Region, I once travelled to watch the Canadian national cricket team play in King City, some 40 kilometres from downtown. In the country’s capital, there are fewer main roads and less miles to cover, so it should be easier to run a transit system well. Instead, we can’t even get OC Transpo and STO to operate from the same bus stop.

It’s clear Ottawa has an inferiority complex. Our decision makers have long been paralyzed by fear of big decisions and big projects, which is why we’re still debating light rail many years after it should have been built. It’s not impossible for Ottawa to have a transit system as good as Toronto’s. It’s just that we’ve never really tried.

[waterloowarrior]

Originally Posted by Dado

They were always going to build the Southwest Transitway into Barrhaven Town Centre. That was part of the stupidity of the N-S LRT project because the trip timings to downtown from Barrhaven Town Centre worked out better using the SW Transitway than the N-S LRT due to the indirect winding route through Riverside South. The two were even to be co-located south of Marketplace for a shared station before the Transitway headed south along Greenbank to cross the Jock River.

It's always and everywhere about buses and BRT. It was about making LRT look slow and costly. What better than having the #95 or one of the Barrhaven express buses beat the train into downtown, or the #97 on the Southeast Transitway powering along while the train is busy slowly climbing an unnecessary roller coaster overpass and braking hard coming down the other side, to "prove" that BRT is better?

The Barrhaven extension wasn't intended to get people downtown quickly, it was intended for travel to major destinations like Carleton, Heron, South keys etc and travel within barrhaven and between barrhaven and RS.

[Franky]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

"Look to Toronto for transit system inspiration"

They are (at least) 5 times bigger population wise, of course their buses, trains, subways move more people more of the time and with more frequent service. Duh. Lets try to compare apples to apples. How about finding a transit oriented city of similar size and purpose (nation's capital) to model?

The point about interoperability is a good one though - no excuse for that.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by Franky

They are (at least) 5 times bigger population wise, of course their buses, trains, subways move more people more of the time and with more frequent service. Duh. Lets try to compare apples to apples. How about finding a transit oriented city of similar size and purpose (nation's capital) to model?

The point about interoperability is a good one though - no excuse for that.

The question is, was Toronto five times Ottawa's current population when they started to build a good network? No. That is what gave Ottawa's soon to be rebuilt Transitway. A 2G$ investment scrapped.

[Franky]

Originally Posted by Dado

It is not about making LRT useful. It is always about buses and BRT. LRT is being limited to where BRT simply no longer works and because the public is sick of BRT this limited LRT plan is to pacify them. LRT is about saving BRT from itself and nothing more, and if that can be done at high cost to dissuade any further LRT, then so much the better. The LRT network in the TMP will achieve that: it goes far enough out on the busiest corridors to handle what BRT can't; beyond those points BRT can probably function for years to come, albeit at high cost. And to further ensure that LRT goes no further they'll slap on some density requirements in the suburban town centres in the Official Plan that don't have a chance of being met in the next 20 odd years.

"Sick of BRT", where did you come up with that? Ridership is pretty high compared to similarly sized placed.

My biggest problem with BRT is the diesel. Trolley buses (electric buses) along the transitway could fix that for a lot less money than a new mode and transfers (and the expensive stations) would not be needed.

If it truly was about BRT, we would just have a bus tunnel and things would be fine. The tunnel design would have been done properly (more economically) and the sticker price would be Billions less than LRT. If people had been given "real" numbers when the "choice" between LRT and BRT was given, they would have chosen BRT. The true sticker price of LRT is starting be known and BRT looks better and better.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by Franky

If people had been given "real" numbers when the "choice" between LRT and BRT was given, they would have chosen BRT. The true sticker price of LRT is starting be known and BRT looks better and better.

For Toronto and Vancouver, giving prices 3 times higher than LRT or BRT, people chose subways. You get what you pay for. Anyways, for Ottawa the concept plans are starting to look good, except it still doesn't resolve the lack of stations in the core, plus the flimsy structures of the stations.

[Franky]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

The question is, was Toronto five times Ottawa's current population when they started to build a good network? No. That is what gave Ottawa's soon to be rebuilt Transitway. A 2G$ investment scrapped.

I won't argue that LRT would not have been the better choice - it's pointless. The fact is we have a BRT system and converting it to LRT makes no sense at all.

Lots of places are currently building BRT systems so it's not like it was a completely bad decision. BRT has some advantages over LRT that are significant, same with LRT. It just depends on which advantages (or differences) you prefer which is a judgement call.

The transitway doesn't need to be rebuilt. A tunnel would suffice to keep it going strong.

[Mille Sabords]

Originally Posted by Franky

They are (at least) 5 times bigger population wise, of course their buses, trains, subways move more people more of the time and with more frequent service. Duh. Lets try to compare apples to apples. How about finding a transit oriented city of similar size and purpose (nation's capital) to model?

Not necessarily. A bigger city doesn't mean better transit. That's a choice. And that's how I read the article.

If we've been lulled into thinking that we're a small town and we can drive anywhere in 10 minutes, and everyone has a car, so let's not bother doing anything but the strict minimum, that's a choice. Any city of any size can make the choice to have better transit. It only has to start with reliability and frequency, and everything snowballs from there. As a smaller city we're advantaged by a smaller upfront cost than bigger cities if we want to have round-the-clock high frequency service on spine routes.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by Franky

"Sick of BRT", where did you come up with that?

Oh, I don't know, reading the paper, listening to people.

Ridership is pretty high compared to similarly sized placed.

Ridership in Ottawa was always high; it was high before the Transitway existed even in concept. It sunk to its lowest point in 1996, the year the basic Transitway network was finished. The Transitway simply has not had a positive effect on ridership - at best it slowed down a decline. Transit trips per capita are lower now then they were in the 70s, whereas in Calgary they are higher.

If it truly was about BRT, we would just have a bus tunnel and things would be fine.

Nope. There'd be underground queues of buses instead of above ground queues. Why is it you think that a bus tunnel will change the fundamental problem of too many buses and routes? Are you one of those deluded individuals who thinks the problem downtown is the traffic lights? Well I've got news for you:

IT'S NOT THE TRAFFIC LIGHTS CAUSING THE BUS QUEUES DOWNTOWN!

Calgary's 7th Avenue surface LRT now has a greater passenger throughput than do Albert and Slater in Ottawa, with only 75 m trains. Oh, and they've got more cross-streets to worry about. Not only that they've got shorter block lengths than we do. They even operate the trains outside the signalling system running as part of the regular traffic lights instead. On all the physical aspects we're better off or no worse, yet they still manage better than us. How is that possible? What is the fundamental difference between Calgary and Ottawa that could possibly explain how they come out on top despite having been dealt a worse hand physically in the street grid? Well they had the wisdom not to "invest" in BRT but rather to invest in LRT. What's more, they can still lengthen their stations (which they are, albeit slowly) for 100 m trains to get 33% more capacity. There's nothing we can do to increase the capacity of the BRT system downtown by 33%, tunnel or not.

If you want to know why, look at this recent footage from Hurdman Station, looking east:
• Video Link
At about 2:00 a queue has built-up on the East Transitway, just like downtown. The intersection isn't helping but the actual problem is that the station is over capacity. Buses are queueing waiting not for the intersection to clear but for the station itself to clear (one can see the end of one bus to the right). Then at ~2:30 one can hear a bus reversing! What's striking here is that some buses that haven't yet started their runs (i.e. expresses) are passing other buses that are in service, stopped at the station. But downtown in your bus sewer that won't be happening because every bus has to stop and take its turn at every station, which there'd be fewer of. Then it occurs again at ~3:40 - a bus waits not because of the intersection (which is bad enough) but because the station is occupied. This is exactly what will happen in a bus tunnel/sewer for most of the peak period.

All those stopped buses will and do have a cost: we need more buses - and drivers - to cover the same ground in the same time, so up goes the operating cost (fuel, wages, spare parts) and the rolling stock capital cost of our transit system along with its emissions. With drivers stuck in their buses idling, they are more likely to go into overtime and costs escalate still more (didn't OC Transpo just finish trying to force their drivers to swallow a longer workday spread in the recent strike? A workday spread of 13.5 h compared to the current 12 h, which is also the nation-wide norm. Hmm, coincidence?). We are and will continue to hemorrhage money because of BRT. We've pushed it well past its practical capacity and had we not been ruled by BRT fanatics we would have started looking at conversion in the 2003 TMP.

The tunnel design would have been done properly (more economically) and the sticker price would be Billions less than LRT. If people had been given "real" numbers when the "choice" between LRT and BRT was given, they would have chosen BRT. The true sticker price of LRT is starting be known and BRT looks better and better.

They couldn't get away with a bus tunnel. They are still constrained by political realities, but they push as much BRT as they can get away with.

As for "true sticker price of LRT", give me a break. It's being inflated here, there and everywhere. The runaway cost of Baseline Station is due to BRT considerations (grade separation, tunnelization), not LRT - but LRT will get the blame because it's allegedly being built for LRT. How much of the population will know of the design that Richard has posted and come to the realization that maintaining a parallel BRT is pushing up the costs?

[Suzie]

Originally Posted by Dado

Calgary's 7th Avenue surface LRT now has a greater passenger throughput than do Albert and Slater in Ottawa, with only 75 m trains. Oh, and they've got more cross-streets to worry about. Not only that they've got shorter block lengths than we do. They even operate the trains outside the signalling system running as part of the regular traffic lights instead. On all the physical aspects we're better off or no worse, yet they still manage better than us. How is that possible? What is the fundamental difference between Calgary and Ottawa that could possibly explain how they come out on top despite having been dealt a worse hand physically in the street grid? Well they had the wisdom not to "invest" in BRT but rather to invest in LRT. What's more, they can still lengthen their stations (which they are, albeit slowly) for 100 m trains to get 33% more capacity. There's nothing we can do to increase the capacity of the BRT system downtown by 33%, tunnel or not.

I'll have more to say later but here a few, quick questions about Calgary's 7th Avenue surface LRT:

- Do the LRT vehicles have to deal with a gauntlet of cars and trucks that are weaving in and out of “reserved” transit lanes or are poorly parked, thereby blocking or interfering with their movements?

- Is it the case that many patrons pay onboard the LRT vehicles with paper tickets and cash? Is the driver forced to manually check these payments and provide transfers?

- Are patrons forced to use the front door to board the vehicle?

- Are the station platforms 12-18 inches lower than the height of the floors of the transit vehicle?

- Are drivers forced to answer questions from patrons?

I suspect that the answer to all of these questions is no. If the answers were yes, Calgary’s LRT system would grind to a complete halt and be totally gridlocked. Unfortunately, the answers to the questions in the case of Ottawa are yes (albeit only a partial yes in the case of the third question), but it does not have to be so. And by the way, other than the first one, these constraints impact the non-downtown stations, like Hurdman and Tunney’s Pasture, as well.

[MalcolmTucker]

Yeah, there are lots of little things Ottawa could do to provide interim relief to the transitway. Unfortunately for some reason there seems to be no appetite for it.

Likely because some people (like the Slater/Albert coalition chief amongst them) would complain to City Council, while there is little public upside for the politicians (ribbons to cut, press conferences, etc.). Even without transit exclusivity of roads, I am sure some people would find reasons to complain about all the other changes.

An interesting thing would be for the city to propose moving all transit way operations to one street downtown, making it bus only from 6 am-7pm. Tell businesses that if their street is selected that there will be $50 million of pedestrian space improvements, and of course more people on their street. I wonder if the streets would then jump at the chance to host the transitway?

[Franky]

Originally Posted by Mille Sabords

Not necessarily. A bigger city doesn't mean better transit. That's a choice. And that's how I read the article.

If we've been lulled into thinking that we're a small town and we can drive anywhere in 10 minutes, and everyone has a car, so let's not bother doing anything but the strict minimum, that's a choice. Any city of any size can make the choice to have better transit. It only has to start with reliability and frequency, and everything snowballs from there. As a smaller city we're advantaged by a smaller upfront cost than bigger cities if we want to have round-the-clock high frequency service on spine routes.

Transit every hour of the day in a small city will waste energy, time and money running empty buses all over the place for one or two passengers. Taxi service is more efficient in those cases.

We are not doing "the strict minimum", we have a very good transit system, studies and emulated in other cities.

You need to give some real numbers to your assertion that we can run "round-the-clock high frequency service on spine routes". How many more city managers and city employees will we need to fire to make up the difference?

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by Franky

Transit every hour of the day in a small city will waste energy, time and money running empty buses all over the place for one or two passengers. Taxi service is more efficient in those cases

You're right, there needs to be a demand for it. Generally, it takes 3-4 dwellings per residential acre (most suburban areas in Ottawa run between 4 and 6 per acre) to support normal transit service all day on a 60 minute frequency. Look at Route 123 as an example for trying to run transit in an area that such is not supported.

[Franky]

Originally Posted by Dado

Oh, I don't know, reading the paper, listening to people.

So you are basing the need for $5B transit system on anecdotal evidence?

Originally Posted by Dado

Ridership in Ottawa was always high; it was high before the Transitway existed even in concept. It sunk to its lowest point in 1996, the year the basic Transitway network was finished. The Transitway simply has not had a positive effect on ridership - at best it slowed down a decline. Transit trips per capita are lower now then they were in the 70s, whereas in Calgary they are higher.

And Calgary is just about the most successful LRT example on the planet so maybe that's not the best comparison and how can you be sure it's not due to other factors? Other cities have LRT and aren't doing as well as Calgary, so what does that tell you? That you can't compare like you are trying to.

Originally Posted by Dado

Nope. There'd be underground queues of buses instead of above ground queues. Why is it you think that a bus tunnel will change the fundamental problem of too many buses and routes? Are you one of those deluded individuals who thinks the problem downtown is the traffic lights? Well I've got news for you:

IT'S NOT THE TRAFFIC LIGHTS CAUSING THE BUS QUEUES DOWNTOWN!

Off-board ticketing, better stations, lack of traffic and lights would all improve transit significantly.

If I WRITE IT IN RED AND BOLD, WITH ALL CAPS DOES IT MAKE IT TRUE?

Originally Posted by Dado

Calgary's 7th Avenue surface LRT now has a greater passenger throughput than do Albert and Slater in Ottawa, with only 75 m trains. Oh, and they've got more cross-streets to worry about. Not only that they've got shorter block lengths than we do. They even operate the trains outside the signalling system running as part of the regular traffic lights instead. On all the physical aspects we're better off or no worse, yet they still manage better than us. How is that possible? What is the fundamental difference between Calgary and Ottawa that could possibly explain how they come out on top despite having been dealt a worse hand physically in the street grid? Well they had the wisdom not to "invest" in BRT but rather to invest in LRT. What's more, they can still lengthen their stations (which they are, albeit slowly) for 100 m trains to get 33% more capacity. There's nothing we can do to increase the capacity of the BRT system downtown by 33%, tunnel or not.

Again, we don't have LRT and we can't turn back the clock. Switching now is a very costly mistake.

Originally Posted by Dado

If you want to know why, look at this recent footage from Hurdman Station, looking east:
• Video Link

Good god! A simple overpass or underpass would go a long way to solving some of the problems. Off-board ticketing would also help a lot.

Originally Posted by Dado

At about 2:00 a queue has built-up on the East Transitway, just like downtown. The intersection isn't helping but the actual problem is that the station is over capacity. Buses are queueing waiting not for the intersection to clear but for the station itself to clear (one can see the end of one bus to the right). Then at ~2:30 one can hear a bus reversing! What's striking here is that some buses that haven't yet started their runs (i.e. expresses) are passing other buses that are in service, stopped at the station. But downtown in your bus sewer that won't be happening because every bus has to stop and take its turn at every station, which there'd be fewer of. Then it occurs again at ~3:40 - a bus waits not because of the intersection (which is bad enough) but because the station is occupied. This is exactly what will happen in a bus tunnel/sewer for most of the peak period.

Off-board ticketing would be possible in the tunnel and stations would be better. BRT can handle the relatively small demand we are projecting for 2031.

Originally Posted by Dado

All those stopped buses will and do have a cost: we need more buses - and drivers - to cover the same ground in the same time, so up goes the operating cost (fuel, wages, spare parts) and the rolling stock capital cost of our transit system along with its emissions. With drivers stuck in their buses idling, they are more likely to go into overtime and costs escalate still more (didn't OC Transpo just finish trying to force their drivers to swallow a longer workday spread in the recent strike? A workday spread of 13.5 h compared to the current 12 h, which is also the nation-wide norm. Hmm, coincidence?). We are and will continue to hemorrhage money because of BRT. We've pushed it well past its practical capacity and had we not been ruled by BRT fanatics we would have started looking at conversion in the 2003 TMP.

We never did get to the bottom of the O&M cost for BRT vs LRT. Delcan put the costs pretty close.

Originally Posted by Dado

They couldn't get away with a bus tunnel. They are still constrained by political realities, but they push as much BRT as they can get away with.

That is such a crock. If a BRT tunnel was wanted, the engineers would have made it look pretty and the public would have gone with the "preferred" solution. The fact is O'Brien said a tunnel was needed and he wants rail, so that what the engineers gave him. The parameters are arranged to get LRT and a tunnel as an answer when a number of solutions would be workable is they were given proper consideration.

Originally Posted by Dado

As for "true sticker price of LRT", give me a break. It's being inflated here, there and everywhere. The runaway cost of Baseline Station is due to BRT considerations (grade separation, tunnelization), not LRT - but LRT will get the blame because it's allegedly being built for LRT. How much of the population will know of the design that Richard has posted and come to the realization that maintaining a parallel BRT is pushing up the costs?

Not exactly. Bus to LRT is a feature/failing of the system. The need for rather large, heated and cooled stations is a result of the transfer introduced by LRT limited coverage and need for bus feeder systems. BRT allows passengers to be picked up at their nearest stop and taken directly to the city core. LRT introduces a transfer point for practically every trip.

I don't care much for the BRT solution but switching to LRT at this point is simply a costly mistake.

[Franky]

Originally Posted by kyle_olsen

An interesting thing would be for the city to propose moving all transit way operations to one street downtown, making it bus only from 6 am-7pm. Tell businesses that if their street is selected that there will be $50 million of pedestrian space improvements, and of course more people on their street. I wonder if the streets would then jump at the chance to host the transitway?

Interesting idea.

[srperrycgy]

Originally Posted by Suzie

I'll have more to say later but here a few, quick questions about Calgary's 7th Avenue surface LRT:

- Do the LRT vehicles have to deal with a gauntlet of cars and trucks that are weaving in and out of “reserved” transit lanes or are poorly parked, thereby blocking or interfering with their movements?

No private vehicles are permitted on 7th Avenue. But trains do get stopped due to buses or other CTrains. Any delay will slow things down quickly.

Originally Posted by Suzie

- Is it the case that many patrons pay onboard the LRT vehicles with paper tickets and cash? Is the driver forced to manually check these payments and provide transfers?:

Nope. Payment (Cash/Ticket Validation) is made at TVMs on each platform. Only CT Protective Services and the Calgary Police Service do fare-checks.

Originally Posted by Suzie

- Are patrons forced to use the front door to board the vehicle?

Nope. Each 3-LRV train has 4 doors. Not a problem, except at peak hours when the trains are typically packed.

Originally Posted by Suzie

- Are the station platforms 12-18 inches lower than the height of the floors of the transit vehicle?

All platforms are at the same height as the LRVs. But the platforms are close to 1m above the track.

Originally Posted by Suzie

- Are drivers forced to answer questions from patrons?

Nope. Operators are in their own cab at the front of the train. They will respond to customers in an emergency. At the end of the line, they might get asked a question by customers, but most of the time they are high-tailing it to the break room/washroom or to turnaround to the opposite cab and start the return trip.

Originally Posted by Suzie

-I suspect that the answer to all of these questions is no. If the answers were yes, Calgary’s LRT system would grind to a complete halt and be totally gridlocked. Unfortunately, the answers to the questions in the case of Ottawa are yes (albeit only a partial yes in the case of the third question), but it does not have to be so. And by the way, other than the first one, these constraints impact the non-downtown stations, like Hurdman and Tunney’s Pasture, as well.

[waterloowarrior]

Calgary is just about the most successful example of LRT on the planet?

[Dado]

Originally Posted by Suzie

I'll have more to say later but here a few, quick questions about Calgary's 7th Avenue surface LRT:

- Do the LRT vehicles have to deal with a gauntlet of cars and trucks that are weaving in and out of “reserved” transit lanes or are poorly parked, thereby blocking or interfering with their movements?

- Is it the case that many patrons pay onboard the LRT vehicles with paper tickets and cash? Is the driver forced to manually check these payments and provide transfers?

- Are patrons forced to use the front door to board the vehicle?

- Are the station platforms 12-18 inches lower than the height of the floors of the transit vehicle?

- Are drivers forced to answer questions from patrons?


I suspect that the answer to all of these questions is no. If the answers were yes, Calgary’s LRT system would grind to a complete halt and be totally gridlocked. Unfortunately, the answers to the questions in the case of Ottawa are yes (albeit only a partial yes in the case of the third question), but it does not have to be so. And by the way, other than the first one, these constraints impact the non-downtown stations, like Hurdman and Tunney’s Pasture, as well.

Asking about floor heights is very rich. Of course there is level boarding in Calgary's LRT, but that says more about BRT than LRT. Non-level boarding is a fundamental problem with buses. The only ways it can be solved are with guidewheels and guideways or with the use of extending ramps from the buses. Either way, you can't use buses off-the-shelf and in the former the busway needs heavy alteration as well (which then has to be kept clear in the winter). There's a reason they haven't built the platforms higher even in the transitways where there's nothing to stop them from doing so.

The weaving is likely a non issue at peak periods since anyone with any sense stays well away from Albert and Slater during that time due to the buses. As for the rest, by all means, implement them in Ottawa. It won't gain you much because you're still dealing with too many buses on too many routes leading to passenger confusion and delays on the platforms. We might just catch up to Calgary's throughput if we do all these other changes, but then we've still got no response to Calgary lengthening their platforms and increasing capacity by another third.

I also find the asking questions thing amusing. Just why are patrons asking so many questions? What is the topic of these questions? Are they asking where the bus goes? Could it be they can't understand the insane route structure and need more help than in a hub-and-spoke system like that in Calgary?

[Franky]

Originally Posted by Dado

Asking about floor heights is very rich. Of course there is level boarding in Calgary's LRT, but that says more about BRT than LRT. Non-level boarding is a fundamental problem with buses. The only ways it can be solved are with guidewheels and guideways or with the use of extending ramps from the buses. Either way, you can't use buses off-the-shelf and in the former the busway needs heavy alteration as well (which then has to be kept clear in the winter). There's a reason they haven't built the platforms higher even in the transitways where there's nothing to stop them from doing so.

The weaving is likely a non issue at peak periods since anyone with any sense stays well away from Albert and Slater during that time due to the buses. As for the rest, by all means, implement them in Ottawa. It won't gain you much because you're still dealing with too many buses on too many routes leading to passenger confusion and delays on the platforms. We might just catch up to Calgary's throughput if we do all these other changes, but then we've still got no response to Calgary lengthening their platforms and increasing capacity by another third.

I also find the asking questions thing amusing. Just why are patrons asking so many questions? What is the topic of these questions? Are they asking where the bus goes? Could it be they can't understand the insane route structure and need more help than in a hub-and-spoke system like that in Calgary?

Off-board ticketing (with a service or attendant to answer questions) would solve that problem.