The future of Ottawa's Transit

[TransitZilla]

OC has a new section of their website with Confederation Line details and the Spring Service changes.

Also seem to incorporate a redesign of the website using the new "O" logo.

http://www.octranspo.com/ready4rail

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by bradnixon

OC has a new section of their website with Confederation Line details and the Spring Service changes.

Also seem to incorporate a redesign of the website using the new "O" logo.

http://www.octranspo.com/ready4rail

Interesting and useful that they are publishing well in advance. Hard to know how stylized the map is but will the replacements for the current 1, 7 and 12 no longer go to the Rideau Centre? or will they simply use the back and therefore not technically intersect with the station? Also will they end at Parliament station or continue (up Bank etc) as they do now?

[Lakeofthewood]

Originally Posted by bradnixon

OC has a new section of their website with Confederation Line details and the Spring Service changes.

Also seem to incorporate a redesign of the website using the new "O" logo.

http://www.octranspo.com/ready4rail

Looking at this page, that shows changes to the routes coming in April, one change that jumps out at me is for Route 4, with seasonal frequency reductions to match lower ridership levels after winter Carleton term.

I don't know what they'll be changing here, because in the summer the 4 runs about every half hour and that's already not frequent enough since it is the only route that serves all of Bronson.

[hwy418]

IMO they don't need "Rapid" and "Frequent" categories - they're too similar. Also, why are they showing local service with numbers less than 100 (i.e. 50, 81, 82, 83, 84, etc.)? Shouldn't these routes be numbered in the 100's?

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by hwy418

Also, why are they showing local service with numbers less than 100 (i.e. 50, 81, 82, 83, 84, etc.)? Shouldn't these routes be numbered in the 100's?

Anything that connects to the Confederation Line is <100 even if it is a local route.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Interesting and useful that they are publishing well in advance. Hard to know how stylized the map is but will the replacements for the current 1, 7 and 12 no longer go to the Rideau Centre? or will they simply use the back and therefore not technically intersect with the station? Also will they end at Parliament station or continue (up Bank etc) as they do now?

The plans are constantly evolving as transit staff & councillors refine everything but, according to the draft plan we saw back in June, the 1 & the 7 will be split into two. The plan was for the Lowertown-Beechwood part of Route 1 to be numbered Route 10, and the Bank Street part to be numbered Route 11. Route 7 would have the Bank-Sunnyside part numbered Route 7 while the Rideau-Beechwood-St. Laurent part would be numbered Route 17. As part of the splits, the 1 & 7 replacements would no longer connect; the 10 and 17 would end at the Rideau Centre and the 11 and 7 would end at Parliament station. Route 2 would remain as a through connection from the Rideau Centre over to Bank and down Somerset, etc. I think the logic was to boost reliability by cutting out the extremely congested/unreliable Wellington-Rideau section from the Bank Street buses, and make transfers from the LRT to go down Bank easier, as the buses would start at Parliament station, instead of already being jammed full from people getting on along Rideau-Wellington by the time they hit the CBD. For short distance trips from areas like Bank & Somerset where having to transfer to the LRT to get to the Rideau Centre was a huge pain, the 2 would remain as a connection.

However, it seems that OC is backtracking on that and they want to retain cross-canal bus connectivity. When the 5 & 19 were split back in December, both routes continued to cross the canal, but the June draft plan was for both to end at Rideau. So who knows.

There's already a big change as the 2 has been renumbered to 11 (it was originally supposed to be renumbered to 52) which takes up the number the Bank Street part of the 1 was supposed to get. To me, this suggests that bus route 1 won't be split after all, and it will continue to be a single route from Rockcliffe to South Keys, numbered route 10.

[hwy418]

Originally Posted by bradnixon

Anything that connects to the Confederation Line is <100 even if it is a local route.

I don't understand why an exception needs to be made. If a route is considered local because of the area it serves or its service frequency then it should be numbered in the 100s regardless if it serves an LRT station or not.

Why have a route number <100 that could be a either a Rapid, Frequent, OR Local route?!? This would be confusing for users coming from outside Ottawa.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

The plans are constantly evolving as transit staff & councillors refine everything but, according to the draft plan we saw back in June, the 1 & the 7 will be split into two. The plan was for the Lowertown-Beechwood part of Route 1 to be numbered Route 10, and the Bank Street part to be numbered Route 11. Route 7 would have the Bank-Sunnyside part numbered Route 7 while the Rideau-Beechwood-St. Laurent part would be numbered Route 17. As part of the splits, the 1 & 7 replacements would no longer connect; the 10 and 17 would end at the Rideau Centre and the 11 and 7 would end at Parliament station. Route 2 would remain as a through connection from the Rideau Centre over to Bank and down Somerset, etc. I think the logic was to boost reliability by cutting out the extremely congested/unreliable Wellington-Rideau section from the Bank Street buses, and make transfers from the LRT to go down Bank easier, as the buses would start at Parliament station, instead of already being jammed full from people getting on along Rideau-Wellington by the time they hit the CBD. For short distance trips from areas like Bank & Somerset where having to transfer to the LRT to get to the Rideau Centre was a huge pain, the 2 would remain as a connection.

However, it seems that OC is backtracking on that and they want to retain cross-canal bus connectivity. When the 5 & 19 were split back in December, both routes continued to cross the canal, but the June draft plan was for both to end at Rideau. So who knows.

There's already a big change as the 2 has been renumbered to 11 (it was originally supposed to be renumbered to 52) which takes up the number the Bank Street part of the 1 was supposed to get. To me, this suggests that bus route 1 won't be split after all, and it will continue to be a single route from Rockcliffe to South Keys, numbered route 10.

Thanks for this it is helpful. The 1 and to a lesser extent the 7 are useful as they travel to the north part of the Market. Not a huge market but a reasonably dense area that will have no useful bus service to the south if they are truncated as everything will require a transfer. Using the 9 to go to Little Italy for example could now take 2-3 times longer than previously.
I know costs and schedule are a consideration but hopefully they will keep some of these routes for those that are off the mainline of the LRT.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by hwy418

I don't understand why an exception needs to be made. If a route is considered local because of the area it serves or its service frequency then it should be numbered in the 100s regardless if it serves an LRT station or not.

Why have a route number <100 that could be a either a Rapid, Frequent, OR Local route?!? This would be confusing for users coming from outside Ottawa.

This system is already designed to be confusing for users coming from outside of Ottawa. Local buses aren't particularly local, frequent buses aren't particularly frequent and "connexion" doesn't mean anything to anyone.

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by hwy418

I don't understand why an exception needs to be made. If a route is considered local because of the area it serves or its service frequency then it should be numbered in the 100s regardless if it serves an LRT station or not.

Why have a route number <100 that could be a either a Rapid, Frequent, OR Local route?!? This would be confusing for users coming from outside Ottawa.

I don't think it is confusing. Today, we have Transitway routes and non-Transitway routes. The Transitway routes are shown on the diagrams of the Rapid Transit Network; other routes are not.

In the future the Transitway routes become the Rapid routes.

The Frequent routes are really just a special kind of non-Transitway route where a certain minimum frequency is guaranteed.

There already are non-Transitway routes that have more frequent service- think the 2, 12, 85, 86, 118, etc. The new Frequent category is just putting these routes into a special category to emphasize their importance.

[1overcosc]

I think the "frequent" label is somewhat misleading when the guarantee is 15 minutes at peak periods and midday, and only 30 minutes evenings and weekends; especially given that many "local" routes run every 30 minutes all the time, meaning on weekends and evenings there will be no distinction.

That said, the "frequent" class routes have one distinguishing feature: they're mostly routes that in fairly straight lines along arterials, meaning they're reasonably fast and direct. As opposed to locals which tend to swivel around a lot. The "local / frequent" distinction they're proposing helps lay the groundwork for a bus system that better distinguishes between direct trunk routes and neighbourhood/community locals, and it sets the stage for an actual frequent route network to be developed over time.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

That said, the "frequent" class routes have one distinguishing feature: they're mostly routes that in fairly straight lines along arterials, meaning they're reasonably fast and direct. As opposed to locals which tend to swivel around a lot. The "local / frequent" distinction they're proposing helps lay the groundwork for a bus system that better distinguishes between direct trunk routes and neighbourhood/community locals, and it sets the stage for an actual frequent route network to be developed over time.

That's true of some of them. Others (eastern section of the 7, eastern section of the 1, western segment of the 14) are just as indirect as the local routes.

To me, if somebody is getting information from the route designations (infrequent users, out of town visitors, noobs) then there are only 2 pieces of information that might be useful. 1) Whether the route runs all the time or has limited service (which tells people whether they should wait at that stop or go look for another one) and 2) whether any of the routes get to their destination faster (which might justify waiting for a faster, later bus).

I think the rapid designation is reasonably good at conveying useful information, the other three are not.

I would merge local and frequent and call them both "local" and rapid and connexion and call them both "rapid". The could also add another designation (such as an "L") to indicate that the route offers some sort of limited service (for the connexion routes for example).

[Kitchissippi]

Displaying the route numbers in different coloured shapes just makes it unnecessarily busy and confusing. Whether a bus is frequent or rapid is self-evident in its timing or routing. And so is the fact that it's "local". I think the numbering convention is enough and is already a stretch for most people to understand. In the end riders only care that the bus goes to their desired destination — how often is it that two routes from the same bus stop will take them there?

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Thanks for this it is helpful. The 1 and to a lesser extent the 7 are useful as they travel to the north part of the Market. Not a huge market but a reasonably dense area that will have no useful bus service to the south if they are truncated as everything will require a transfer. Using the 9 to go to Little Italy for example could now take 2-3 times longer than previously.
I know costs and schedule are a consideration but hopefully they will keep some of these routes for those that are off the mainline of the LRT.

OC Transpo is determined to stick it to as many people who use transit to navigate the core as possible.

It is absolutely mind-boggling how awful they are making local transit downtown, already, in the pre-LRT phase... with more awfulness to follow next year.

None of these people actually USE transit in their daily lives, beyond a few who commute to work. They do not shop with transit, they do not school with transit, they do not errand with transit. They have no idea how non-suburban commuters use their own system, and how the most transit-dependent populations rely on sensible routes that linke neighbourhoods to one another and ROUTES to one another.

And boy does it show.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

In the end riders only care that the bus goes to their desired destination — how often is it that two routes from the same bus stop will take them there?

In the downtown core? Lots.

Going from the Market to the Glebe? You have a choice of the 1 and 7; the 4 if you're going to the western half of the Glebe; the 5 if you are going to the NE corner.

Going from downtown to Beechwood? 1, 7. Formerly the 5, until the transit planning experts decided to break up the Rideau Street hub.

Hintonburg to downtown? 2 or 16, with the 14 also a viable option (though not at the same stops) depending on where on the Gladstone-vs-Wellington axis you are.

Old Ottawa South to downtown? Again, depending on where you start your walk, you have the 1, 5, or 7.

Vanier to downtown? 12 or 19 along parts of Montreal; 1 or 7 or 19 if you are closer to Beechwood; 14 or 18 in the south part, with the 12 also an option.

These "duplicate" options are a FEATURE from the user end of things. OC Transpo (and many on this forum) for some reason consider them a bug.

The more the downtown transit map becomes a disorganized mess of broken connections, fixated on "feeding" the LRT, the more transit service within the core is starved. Major cities across North America are coming to realize that buses need to move from the hub-and-spoke model of the late 20th century, and return to being a network or grid, as many cities had in streetcar days. The downtown transit plans that have been bandied about these past two or three years take the worst of both models, and reject the best features of both.

But by god you have to keep those two-peak-trips-a-day suburban commuters happy.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

The "local / frequent" distinction they're proposing helps lay the groundwork for a bus system that better distinguishes between direct trunk routes and neighbourhood/community locals, and it sets the stage for an actual frequent route network to be developed over time.

In other words: at some point in the distant future, bus service will get better, but not before it gets much, much worse.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by acottawa

That's true of some of them. Others (eastern section of the 7, eastern section of the 1, western segment of the 14) are just as indirect as the local routes.

The eastern 7 is as direct as the street topography will allow: It goes all the way along St-Laurent, does a very simple run through Manor Park, then services the main street that is Beechwood, scooches down to the main street that is Rideau-Wellington, then the main street that is Bank to a major institutional destination.

It is absolutely nothing like the meandering hell that is local service in Orleans or - SHUDDER - Kanata.

[lrt's friend]

Reading the latest article about interprovincial transit integration, I found the emphasis was on the number of transit vehicles crossing downtown rather than moving people efficiently and conveniently. I hope they do not forget that they are in the business of moving people and not necessarily removing as many buses out of downtown as possible. The latter is a laudable goal but they can't forget their primary business.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Reading the latest article about interprovincial transit integration, I found the emphasis was on the number of transit vehicles crossing downtown rather than moving people efficiently and conveniently. I hope they do not forget that they are in the business of moving people and not necessarily removing as many buses out of downtown as possible. The latter is a laudable goal but they can't forget their primary business.

As far as I can tell, they are convinced they are in the business of moving buses.

It's starting to look like that transit company in northern England that found their buses were better able to keep to schedule if they stopped picking up passengers.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

The eastern 7 is as direct as the street topography will allow: It goes all the way along St-Laurent, does a very simple run through Manor Park, then services the main street that is Beechwood, scooches down to the main street that is Rideau-Wellington, then the main street that is Bank to a major institutional destination.

It is absolutely nothing like the meandering hell that is local service in Orleans or - SHUDDER - Kanata.

It's the local neighbourhood route for manor park. It gets of the main street to go north at at Birch, heads east on Sandridge and then south on the residential portion at St. Laurent before catching up with the main street again at the Dairy Queen. There's nothing wrong with that, but if someone were on St. Laurent looking to get to Rideau, there is no clue in OC Transpo's categorization of routes that the "frequent" 14 will head to Rideau by fairly direct means while the "frequent" 7 will head to Rideau by very indirect means.