Confederation Line (Stage 1) | In Service 1.0

[White Pine]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Who the heck puts two subways 500m apart? That's a 6-8 min walk. And it's closer than even the Yonge and University lines in Toronto.

Some subway lines are so close that they even share stations!

The whole point of that is that (in the event there are capacity issues on the first line) there is some redundancy. There is no relief whatsoever in a second downtown line if it misses the downtown core where the people are going. Right now, it only starts to get core-y at Nepean St. The best candidate for a second tunnel would be Laurier or maybe Slater (but let's assume that Laurier is better).

However, since this scenario takes place far into the future when Line 1 is at capacity, it could be that by that time the core will have expanded to the south, in which case an argument can be made for the tunnel to be further south.

In any case, any second tunnel should share at least one downtown station.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

That statistic means pretty much nothing.

It means plenty. It tells us that most of Ottawa is within a short bus ride of an LRT station.

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

In the Black Hole that is the northeast corner of the inner urban area.
...
Buses from Beechwood and Montreal Road typically run about 5km/h in traffic during the existing ambient conditions in morning "rush" hour.

🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵. You telling me that the 12 takes an hour from Montfort Hospital to Rideau Centre? Or that it takes 40 mins from the Beechwood Cemetery to Rideau Centre on the 7? I get that in traffic they might not be at 15 kph. But 5 kph seems a stretch.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by White Pine

Some subway lines are so close that they even share stations!

The whole point of that is that (in the event there are capacity issues on the first line) there is some redundancy. There is no relief whatsoever in a second downtown line if it misses the downtown core where the people are going. Right now, it only starts to get core-y at Nepean St. The best candidate for a second tunnel would be Laurier or maybe Slater (but let's assume that Laurier is better).

However, since this scenario takes place far into the future when Line 1 is at capacity, it could be that by that time the core will have expanded to the south, in which case an argument can be made for the tunnel to be further south.

In any case, any second tunnel should share at least one downtown station.

Many assumptions in these discussions.

1) Downtown density will drive in-bound transit demand. I don't see what the basis for this is. People living in the core are far less likely to use the subway, for a commute that would otherwise be a 10-15 min walk.

2) Most riders in this high density downtown will still be bound for an area that is within 500m of the Confederation Line. This would be surprising given Ottawa's limits on density in the core.

3) That the Confederation Line will definitely be outstripped of capacity, a stretch given the fact that the line is designed to handle multiples of its launch loads.

If we're just talking about a lot of riders because Ottawa is big and there's going to be a lot of cross-town traffic on the Confederation Line, then why would we be running another subway through the core?

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵. You telling me that the 12 takes an hour from Montfort Hospital to Rideau Centre?

It has been known to take 45 minutes to get from Vanier to its former Bank street terminus, yes. So you can save your call of 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 for actual b.s.

Or that it takes 40 mins from the Beechwood Cemetery to Rideau Centre on the 7? I get that in traffic they might not be at 15 kph. But 5 kph seems a stretch.

Not at all. Try it some time.

There is a reason why so many people in Vanier, New Edinburgh, and adjacent areas have had steam-spewing ears on transit matters the last few years.

In theory, yes, these buses are short hops to or from downtown, and when traffic is light, and the buses show up on time, it is a short trip.

In practice, thanks to general congestion, which the city is doing nothing about, and the lack of any meaningful transit priority, which the city is also doing nothing about, it can easily take 45 minutes and more of purely bus time, let alone wait time and walk time on either end of the trip, to travel by transit from downtown to the Black Hole or vice-versa.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

It has been known to take 45 minutes to get from Vanier to its former Bank street terminus, yes. So you can save your call of 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 for actual b.s.

There's a big difference between a 30 min run being 15 mins late and being 30 mins late. So no, BS stands. Your bus was not running at 5 kph.

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Not at all. Try it some time.

There is a reason why so many people in Vanier, New Edinburgh, and adjacent areas have had steam-spewing ears on transit matters the last few years.

In theory, yes, these buses are short hops to or from downtown, and when traffic is light, and the buses show up on time, it is a short trip.

In practice, thanks to general congestion, which the city is doing nothing about, and the lack of any meaningful transit priority, which the city is also doing nothing about, it can easily take 45 minutes and more of purely bus time, let alone wait time and walk time on either end of the trip, to travel by transit from downtown to the Black Hole or vice-versa.

This discussion thread started on my assertion that saying 70% of the city was within 5 km of an LRT station was very valid information. It still is. If you're in Vanier or parts of New Edinburgh, you will use transit differently depending on your destination. If you're heading downtown than you take a bus that goes along Rideau. If your goal is to get on the LRT to go through downtown, then you are not going to Rideau to get on the LRT. You're connecting at St-Laurent or Hurdman. And it does not take an hour on the 7 from Manor Park to St-Laurent.

This is not to say that we don't need to invest more in making the Montreal-Rideau corridor more navigable. I just don't like the idea of dismissing data and stats because they aren't convenient to a personal narrative. Just as lrt's friend is fixated on having to transfer at Bayview, you seem fixated on the idea that you'll have to connect to the LRT at Rideau. Heck, connecting at St-Laurent means you might get a seat during rush. I would not want to connect at Rideau for that reason. And that's aside from the fact that Rideau is far worse transfer with a deep station to get into and a fare gate to cross.

[lrt's friend]

Let us remember the great flaw with rail transit. The last mile problem. How or whether that is addressed well determines the success of rail transit. Being 5 km from rail transit is just a platitude that the planners throw at the public. Everybody still has to get home. I am particularly offended by this when rail is so slow and not particularly useful because it goes well west of downtown.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Many assumptions in these discussions.

1) Downtown density will drive in-bound transit demand. I don't see what the basis for this is. People living in the core are far less likely to use the subway, for a commute that would otherwise be a 10-15 min walk.

2) Most riders in this high density downtown will still be bound for an area that is within 500m of the Confederation Line. This would be surprising given Ottawa's limits on density in the core.

3) That the Confederation Line will definitely be outstripped of capacity, a stretch given the fact that the line is designed to handle multiples of its launch loads.

If we're just talking about a lot of riders because Ottawa is big and there's going to be a lot of cross-town traffic on the Confederation Line, then why would we be running another subway through the core?

Your argument is all about efficiency and capacity. What about redundancy and service to the public?

I think for a city approaching 1.5M is foolhardy for relying on only one transit line into the city centre especially in the long-term. Clearly for a variety of reasons, Ottawa has fallen behind our peer cities and dropping transit modal share is evidence of this. The public is already voting on the quality of service by quitting using it.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

For them driven by construction techniques and geography with their entire downtown sandwiched between Mount Royal and the river. From the park to the canal is not even 2.5km. Ottawa has no such pressing geographic considerations. And the closer you get to Parliament, the more limitations there are on height, effectively limiting density closer to the Confederation Line.

I'd also argue that Montreal would not have built their lines as closely, if they were doing so today.

No geographical considerations, but the second line also has to serve the CBD and be relatively close to LeBreton. That's why it would be built within a few blocks of the Confederation.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

There's a big difference between a 30 min run being 15 mins late and being 30 mins late. So no, BS stands. Your bus was not running at 5 kph.

Do the math, pal. I've done it plenty of times, myself. If Johnny is on a #7 that takes 45 minutes (as it not unusually does) to get from say, Beechwood/St-Charles to Bank and Queen, a distance of 3.8 km, that works out to an average speed for the trip, exclusive of walk time, of 3.8/.75 = 5.0666... km/h

If you're in Vanier or parts of New Edinburgh, you will use transit differently depending on your destination. If you're heading downtown than you take a bus that goes along Rideau.

Yes, and those buses heading downtown from the Black Hole are the ones that take a very long time to move because this city is not serious about its own supposed transportation policy goals, and has not invested one plug nickel into improving bus transit within the core.

This is not to say that we don't need to invest more in making the Montreal-Rideau corridor more navigable. I just don't like the idea of dismissing data and stats because they aren't convenient to a personal narrative.

The only data and stats that are being dismissed here, are being dismissed by you.

Just as lrt's friend is fixated on having to transfer at Bayview, you seem fixated on the idea that you'll have to connect to the LRT at Rideau.

No, I'm "fixated" on the idea that there are all kinds of trips for which the LRT makes absolutely no sense to include as any portion thereof, despite OC Transpo's best efforts to dump every transit user onto the LRT for at least part of every trip, for some unholy reason.

Why OC Transpo is intent on completely destroying the bus network in the core, making it completely useless for trips within the core, is beyond me.

It is even more baffling that there are supposed transit supporters out there who don't see it.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Let us remember the great flaw with rail transit. The last mile problem. How or whether that is addressed well determines the success of rail transit. Being 5 km from rail transit is just a platitude that the planners throw at the public. Everybody still has to get home.

The last mile is an issue. And we should invest in bus service. Just because you have last mile problem, doesn't mean you start laying down subways every 500m.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I am particularly offended by this when rail is so slow and not particularly useful because it goes well west of downtown.

Yes. It's pretty offensive that OC Transpo chose to invest in the corridors with the most ridership first. And you say this isn't about your personal benefit at all.....

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Your argument is all about efficiency and capacity. What about redundancy and service to the public?

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I think for a city approaching 1.5M is foolhardy for relying on only one transit line into the city centre especially in the long-term.

We can deal with redundancy once we actually have service that works for most of Ottawa's residents. We have people like Uhuniau complaining that a bus from Vanier to Bank takes 45 mins and you're worried about building redundant subways? Can we fix the gaping wounds before worrying about papercuts?

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Clearly for a variety of reasons, Ottawa has fallen behind our peer cities and dropping transit modal share is evidence of this. The public is already voting on the quality of service by quitting using it.

Ottawa has substantially higher transit modal share than all its peer cities in Canada and the US. The only cities that see higher modal share are cities that are significantly larger metros (> 3-4 million) , where distance and congestion really drive transit usage. Can you find a city that's 1-1.5 million with substantially higher peak transit modal share in North America? Put it up, I'd love to learn about it.

As for falling ridership, let's talk after Stage 2. I am not worried at all. The congestion in the core and construction have made the last few years particularly awful for transit users. One of those paint points will be substantially ameliorated in a few months. And another in about 5 years. I would bet money that in 2025, we'll see ridership that's easily > 125 million. Heck, I think we'll back up over 100 million in 2019, once people discover how much better the experience is without the bus parade on Albert and Slater.

Originally Posted by J.OT13

No geographical considerations, but the second line also has to serve the CBD and be relatively close to LeBreton. That's why it would be built within a few blocks of the Confederation.

Again, this assumes that there's so much demand in the blocks near the Confederation Line that it necessitates another line a few blocks away. Given height restrictions, and the Confederation Lines growth capacity, how exactly do you see this playing out? This also ignores the fact that we're seeing more housing in the downtown core. That would actually suppress peak demand with fewer commuters coming in-bound.

In any event, it's incredible that people here think we need to discuss some hypothetical project that is at best over a half century away, while pressing concerns like proper bus priority is still an issue in Ottawa.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Do the math, pal. I've done it plenty of times, myself. If Johnny is on a #7 that takes 45 minutes (as it not unusually does) to get from say, Beechwood/St-Charles to Bank and Queen, a distance of 3.8 km, that works out to an average speed for the trip, exclusive of walk time, of 3.8/.75 = 5.0666... km/h

So now we've gone from Vanier to Beechwood and St-Charles and you need a bus route that traverses most of the core to get to 5 kph. Well, good news for Johnny, post LRT, he can head down to Hurdman and take the LRT to Bank/Queen in less than 45 mins, including the transfer. Being within 5km of an LRT station will make that possible.

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

The only data and stats that are being dismissed here, are being dismissed by you.

Says the guy who needs very fixed artificially constructed scenarios to support his case. None of which would be valid in the post-LRT world either.

If you're expecting bus service which traverses the core very quickly, you're going to be waiting a very long time. Short of making Rideau a transit mall (something I'd actually love), there's not much that can be done to improve that ride during rush. Better signal priority and curbside bus lanes only go so far. And it's not just cars in your way. Your bus lane had to share with STO buses.

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

No, I'm "fixated" on the idea that there are all kinds of trips for which the LRT makes absolutely no sense to include as any portion thereof, despite OC Transpo's best efforts to dump every transit user onto the LRT for at least part of every trip, for some unholy reason.

Must 🞵🞵🞵🞵 to have the option of a one-seat ride vs. a faster one-transfer ride to the core. How dare OC Transpo give you options?

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Why OC Transpo is intent on completely destroying the bus network in the core, making it completely useless for trips within the core, is beyond me.

I see underinvestment. I don't see how that equates to "intent on completely destroying the bus network in the core".

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

It is even more baffling that there are supposed transit supporters out there who don't see it.

Some of us aren't into hyperbole. Shocker.

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Again, 70% of Ottawa will be within 5 km of a rail line. That's a 20 min bus ride from a train station.

The "70% of Ottawa will be within 5 km of a rail line" line is close to meaningless because it is based on circle radii with no consideration of the actual street network or barriers.

It's very optimistic to say this is equivalent to a 20 minute bus ride; it is assuming that all bus routes will follow a direct path as the crow flies to the closest station, which is almost never the case.

E.g. the corner of Queensdale Ave and Sixth St in Blossom Park is only 2.7 km from South Keys station as the crow flies, but the bus trip takes 24 minutes on route 93. And this is from within the Greenbelt.

And, as lrt's friend has pointed out, this will be a Line 2 station that will not offer train service downtown; off-peak it will require 2 transfers to get downtown since route 93 stops at Greenboro at off-peak times.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by bradnixon

The "70% of Ottawa will be within 5 km of a rail line" line is close to meaningless because it is based on circle radii with no consideration of the actual street network or barriers.

It's very optimistic to say this is equivalent to a 20 minute bus ride; it is assuming that all bus routes will follow a direct path as the crow flies to the closest station, which is almost never the case.

E.g. the corner of Queensdale Ave and Sixth St in Blossom Park is only 2.7 km from South Keys station as the crow flies, but the bus trip takes 24 minutes on route 93. And this is from within the Greenbelt.

And, as lrt's friend has pointed out, this will be a Line 2 station that will not offer train service downtown; off-peak it will require 2 transfers to get downtown since route 93 stops at Greenboro at off-peak times.

I would argue that for most of the city, being within 5 km is pretty reflective of a 20-25 ride to a station. Does that mean this holds true for every single route? No. For most? Absolutely.

Some convoluted route like the 93 will be an exception. And by the way the schedule says 12 mins. Is this a 24 min ride routinely or just at rush?

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I would argue that for most of the city, being within 5 km is pretty reflective of a 20-25 ride to a station. Does that mean this holds true for every single route? No. For most? Absolutely.

Some convoluted route like the 93 will be an exception. And by the way the schedule says 12 mins. Is this a 24 min ride routinely or just at rush?

It is convoluted because the city has chosen to make it this way.

If you don't invest in local service, how do you expect a rail based network to work well?

Brad has pointed out a situation that is not even half way along the route. If you follow this through to Findlay Creek, which is undergoing a housing explosion, right now, you are talking about 30+ minutes just to Greenboro, let alone to Hurdman.

At the same time, our transit planners appear to have decided to change Route 93 from an all day route to Hurdman to only peak hour service. The original plan was to have all day service.


It is great to look at the overall picture but local issues, affecting Blossom Park, Findlay Creek and Vanier and the service cuts on Route 11 also need to be addressed. The latter two both have reached the news media and may become election issues in their respective wards. When I ask respectful questions through proper channels, I do not even get any sort of answers.

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Some convoluted route like the 93 will be an exception. And by the way the schedule says 12 mins. Is this a 24 min ride routinely or just at rush?

My bad, I did mis-quote the schedule. It is closer to 16 minutes per the schedule, but it can routinely take longer.

Blossom Park is one of the few neighbourhoods in the Greenbelt that will lack direct bus service to Line 1, even after Stage 2 opens.

It does have direct service to Line 2, but Line 2 doesn't go right downtown, and even the bus service to Line 2 is circuitous. Better bus service along Bank St. south of Hunt Club is needed.

I'm actually a strong supporter of our LRT projects but I'm disappointed that we are missing an opportunity to use the operational $ savings of LRT to further increase transit ridership by having a robust and frequent bus network. Instead we're keeping our bus network the same (or worse) and taking the savings out of the transit budget.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

So now we've gone from Vanier to Beechwood and St-Charles and you need a bus route that traverses most of the core to get to 5 kph. Well, good news for Johnny, post LRT, he can head down to Hurdman and take the LRT to Bank/Queen in less than 45 mins, including the transfer. Being within 5km of an LRT station will make that possible.

That's an option for some people in the Black Hole, sure, especially the southern part of the Black Hole (more Overbrook than Vanier or New Edinburgh).

But the 9 (or whatever it's designated these days) is not much more reliable than the east-west routes. Walk time plus 9 time plus transfer/wait time at Hurdman plus LRT time won't present much of a trip-time advantage to get to the downtown core for that many transit users, if any at all.

If you're expecting bus service which traverses the core very quickly, you're going to be waiting a very long time.

Yup, because no one at City Hall assigns any political or economic value to solving the problem.

Short of making Rideau a transit mall (something I'd actually love), there's not much that can be done to improve that ride during rush. Better signal priority and curbside bus lanes only go so far.

Indeed. And we'll likely never know, since the city has exactly zero plan to install signal priority or lane priority anywhere in the inner urban area. The closest projects are, IIRC, along Carling. The limp-weinered commitment in the last transit plan to provide TPMs along Montreal Road has already been sacrificed to the bike plan, just as happened on Beechwood Avenue.

And it's not just cars in your way. Your bus lane had to share with STO buses.

I don't mind sharing transit with transit.

Must 🞵🞵🞵🞵 to have the option of a one-seat ride vs. a faster one-transfer ride to the core. How dare OC Transpo give you options?

Yes, how dare OC Transpo give us feeble Hobson's choices.

I see underinvestment. I don't see how that equates to "intent on completely destroying the bus network in the core".

It has been pretty clear for the past three years that OC Transpo's desire to shunt as many passengers as possible onto the LRT, even for trips where that makes no sense to the passenger, would result in truncated routes and severed connections between local core bus routes. Residents have had to push back, and hard, to get even a few elements of that plan rolled back. One iteration of the bus plan from, IIRC, 2016, would have had effectively no buses at all crossing the Rideau Canal except for turnarounds in Confederation Square. There's a vestige of that plan in the stupid short-stopping of the 11 there vs. continuing to Rideau.

OC Transpo has completely lost sight of the fact that the bus system needs to be a network for it to have utility. Shortening the routes and breaking up connections, for exactly zero benefit in terms of run times or schedule adherence, in the misguided aim of putting all transit passengers on the LRT for at least part of their trip, is one of the most impressively stupid things I have ever seen OC Transpo do. And there have been some doozies. Network topology matters to passengers, and especially to those who rely on transit for more than just getting from home to work and back again, 9 to 5, Monday to Friday.

You cannot build a transit-oriented city and culture with a disjointed, counter-intuitive, and frustrated system topology.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by bradnixon

My bad, I did mis-quote the schedule. It is closer to 16 minutes per the schedule, but it can routinely take longer.

Blossom Park is one of the few neighbourhoods in the Greenbelt that will lack direct bus service to Line 1, even after Stage 2 opens.

It does have direct service to Line 2, but Line 2 doesn't go right downtown, and even the bus service to Line 2 is circuitous. Better bus service along Bank St. south of Hunt Club is needed.

I'm actually a strong supporter of our LRT projects but I'm disappointed that we are missing an opportunity to use the operational $ savings of LRT to further increase transit ridership by having a robust and frequent bus network. Instead we're keeping our bus network the same (or worse) and taking the savings out of the transit budget.

So we take 16 minutes quoted, plus 11 minutes per schedule from Greenboro to Hurdman then add the exoected 5 to 10 minute transfer time at Greenboro or South Keys. Voila, we are over 30 minutes to Line 1, as I quoted. The Trillium connection is worse because of the slow trains and because it enters downtown from the opposite side from the most popular destinations (Rideau Centre, ByWard Market and U of O).

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

So we take 16 minutes quoted, plus 11 minutes per schedule from Greenboro to Hurdman (scheduled time) then add the exoected 5 to 10 minute transfer time at Greenboro or South Keys. Voila, we are over 30 minutes to Line 1, as I quoted. The Trillium connection is worse because of the slow trains and because it enters downtown from the opposite side from the most popular destinations (Rideau Centre, ByWard Market and U of O).

Your transfer time will always be 5 to 10 mins. Regardless of the frequency of service. When your bus arrives, you don't magically teleport onto the train platform with a train waiting for you to step on.

Worst case scenario here is that you get to the train platform and watch a train depart. That would be transfer time + headway to the next train. Best case scenario is that you get to the platform and step onto a train which departs right after you step on. That would be just the transfer time. Assuming 10 min headways and 5 mins to get from your bus to the platform, that's a total transfer time of 5-15 mins. Doubling frequency and getting 5 min headways changes that bracket to 5-10 mins.

Your post makes a larger argument for investing in improved bus frequency and better routing than it does for increasing Trillium Line frequencies. Alternatively, just take a bus that goes to Hurdman. I don't see why at all this is not seen an acceptable option.

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Alternatively, just take a bus that goes to Hurdman. I don't see why at all this is not seen an acceptable option.

I think that's lrt's friend's point- there is no bus direct from Blossom Park to Hurdman outside of peak. So even after Stage 2, it's a transfer at South Keys either way- either to Line 2 or to a bus to Hurdman.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

That's an option for some people in the Black Hole, sure, especially the southern part of the Black Hole (more Overbrook than Vanier or New Edinburgh).

But the 9 (or whatever it's designated these days) is not much more reliable than the east-west routes. Walk time plus 9 time plus transfer/wait time at Hurdman plus LRT time won't present much of a trip-time advantage to get to the downtown core for that many transit users, if any at all.



Yup, because no one at City Hall assigns any political or economic value to solving the problem.



Indeed. And we'll likely never know, since the city has exactly zero plan to install signal priority or lane priority anywhere in the inner urban area. The closest projects are, IIRC, along Carling. The limp-weinered commitment in the last transit plan to provide TPMs along Montreal Road has already been sacrificed to the bike plan, just as happened on Beechwood Avenue.



I don't mind sharing transit with transit.



Yes, how dare OC Transpo give us feeble Hobson's choices.



It has been pretty clear for the past three years that OC Transpo's desire to shunt as many passengers as possible onto the LRT, even for trips where that makes no sense to the passenger, would result in truncated routes and severed connections between local core bus routes. Residents have had to push back, and hard, to get even a few elements of that plan rolled back. One iteration of the bus plan from, IIRC, 2016, would have had effectively no buses at all crossing the Rideau Canal except for turnarounds in Confederation Square. There's a vestige of that plan in the stupid short-stopping of the 11 there vs. continuing to Rideau.

OC Transpo has completely lost sight of the fact that the bus system needs to be a network for it to have utility. Shortening the routes and breaking up connections, for exactly zero benefit in terms of run times or schedule adherence, in the misguided aim of putting all transit passengers on the LRT for at least part of their trip, is one of the most impressively stupid things I have ever seen OC Transpo do. And there have been some doozies. Network topology matters to passengers, and especially to those who rely on transit for more than just getting from home to work and back again, 9 to 5, Monday to Friday.

You cannot build a transit-oriented city and culture with a disjointed, counter-intuitive, and frustrated system topology.

Only Ottawa plans to redirect bus riders to LRT where all it does is slow trip times even more. Why direct ANY Vanier residents to LRT who are going to downtown when it is clearly out of the way routing? All it takes is a look at a map and knowing that there is congestion on north-south streets as well.


Other cities maintain service and connectivity when LRT is not clearly advantageous for that part of the city. It is also bizarre to impose transfers to use a subway for one or two stops just in order to short turn a bus that has already reached downtown.


It is as if the concept of transit penalties is not a term understood by the planners.


What we are seeing is a desperate plan trying to cut resources from the bus system in order to meet a predetermined budget, that the public does not have knowledge of.


As I have said before, the reason for a lot of this is the cost to move buses around shut down Transitways which is way higher than they want to admit. There is no money to re-invest in local transit because of this. So we are stuck with a system that cannot really be improved for a decade or more, and chances are, they will want to still take the savings out the system when detour costs finally decline.