LRT Stage 3

[OtrainUser]

Originally Posted by bradnixon

These two statements are contradictory. If you want to have signal priority to hold the green for buses and allow them to get through the intersection, you need to have far side bus stops. I'm not sure why far-side stops are "anti passenger" but they have been proven to reduce transit trip times.

No they are not contradictory, Lyon and Albert has a near side stop with signal priority and Place du Portage is close to being the same way.

[CityTech]

Far side stops are superior in almost every way; reduced travel time and no change in pedestrian connectivity. I think Uhuinau is confusing far side stops with mid block stops. In fairness to him, OC often does replace near side stops with mid block stops (eg. Bank southbound at Gladstone).

A good example of a far side stop is southbound Holland at Wellington.

[CityTech]

Originally Posted by OtrainUser

No they are not contradictory, Lyon and Albert has a near side stop with signal priority and Place du Portage is close to being the same way.

Signal priority is far less effective with near side stops.

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by OtrainUser

No they are not contradictory, Lyon and Albert has a near side stop with signal priority and Place du Portage is close to being the same way.

I should have been more specific; I was talking about a specific type of signal priority where green lights are held for a few seconds longer when buses are approaching. This doesn't work with near-side stops because the bus can end up having to stop before the light and are caught when the light turns red.

There is a transit priority signal at Heron EB & Bronson (Mooney's Bay O-Train) with a near-side stop... it often isn't very much help because the buses need to sit and wait until the car signal goes red before they can finally pull out.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by McC

A west exit could be on the hill on Carling west of Bronson, or a south exit on Bank south of Riverside...

Are you suggesting a route that goes under Rideau, down Bank and then out Carling? That would be incredibly useful (especially to me), and would finally get some rapid transit down the Bank St. spine. That said, it would be a pricey tunnel.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by bradnixon

These two statements are contradictory. If you want to have signal priority to hold the green for buses and allow them to get through the intersection, you need to have far side bus stops. I'm not sure why far-side stops are "anti passenger" but they have been proven to reduce transit trip times.

They are anti-passenger because (A) the main reason for them is to keep car traffic flowing (car engineers are the driving force behind the anti-near-side movement), and (B) because they add time to the trip as measured by the human, who is stuck waiting for a favourable light (even if it's a transit-priority one), when they could have disembarked and been merrily on their way already.

The Beechwood stupidity is the best example of this. Eastbound buses crossing the bridge from St. Patrick have to get a favourable light at Vanier/Crichton, then Loyer, then Springfield, to reach the far-side stop. The first stop used to be at Loyer, where you could disembark, on a red light or a green, and be well on your way to your final destination. "Consolidating" the stop two lights deeper into Beechwood, and moving it to the far side at Springfield, means dead time waiting on a bus that didn't exist before, time stolen from transit passengers for no good reason.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by NOWINYOW

The original Ottawa BRT route operated for decades without major issues.

Only if you ignore, you know, all the major issues that plagued the stupid thing from the day it opened.

I've been riding OCTranspo for (exact number of decades redacted). Albert and Slater have been suffering busjams that entire time. The stupid stop configurations and "Slater Shuffle" existed that entire time. Artics that couldn't function well in snowy weather, that whole time.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by CityTech

Far side stops are superior in almost every way; reduced travel time and no change in pedestrian connectivity.

Except when those pedestrians have to disembark, backtrack often too far because not only does Ottawa favour far-side stops, they favour far-side stops that are set unduly far back (many multiples of a bus length) from the intersection, then beg for a favourable walk signal to get across one, or two segments of that intersection to get to their transfer point or final pedestrian destination which is often back where a near-side stop would have been in the first place.

I think Uhuinau is confusing far side stops with mid block stops.

Nope, except to the extent noted above where Ottawa doesn't just far-side the stops, they really FAAAAARRRR side them, especially on stroads with suburban geometries.

A good example of a far side stop is southbound Holland at Wellington.

Yes, that's a good example. It functions well, because the far side stop isn't that far and the streets aren't that wide.

Try Montreal and St. Laurent, though, where a bad situation is about to be made worse and branded as "improvement".

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by bradnixon

I should have been more specific; I was talking about a specific type of signal priority where green lights are held for a few seconds longer when buses are approaching. This doesn't work with near-side stops because the bus can end up having to stop before the light and are caught when the light turns red.

If transit had priority, then that wouldn't happen. If the signal is about to be unfavourable to a bus that's serving the near-side stop, transit priority would keep the signal favourable for another few seconds.

But we can't do that because single-occupant drivers and because despite all the happy talk in our official plans about transit priority, transit will always be de-prioritized any time we do anything to our street infrastructure or policies.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by phil235

Are you suggesting a route that goes under Rideau, down Bank and then out Carling? That would be incredibly useful (especially to me), and would finally get some rapid transit down the Bank St. spine. That said, it would be a pricey tunnel.

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Only if you ignore, you know, all the major issues that plagued the stupid thing from the day it opened.

I've been riding OCTranspo for (exact number of decades redacted). Albert and Slater have been suffering busjams that entire time. The stupid stop configurations and "Slater Shuffle" existed that entire time. Artics that couldn't function well in snowy weather, that whole time.

Shhhh. Between the 2 of you, you are ruining all the good arguments.

[Multi-modal]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

What would it connect to beyond that?

Well... Carling... I assume to Lincoln Fields. If this was a 2nd high capacity line I would argue for elevated rail down the centre of Carling (shallow underground at the highway). If it was lower capacity (reasonable as a second east-west line) at-grade lrt would be sufficient.

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Except when those pedestrians have to disembark, backtrack often too far because not only does Ottawa favour far-side stops, they favour far-side stops that are set unduly far back (many multiples of a bus length) from the intersection, then beg for a favourable walk signal to get across one, or two segments of that intersection to get to their transfer point or final pedestrian destination which is often back where a near-side stop would have been in the first place.

We're not going to agree on this, but I admire your dedication in the face of evidence. What I would say is that even if a far side stop makes it take longer for egressing passengers to cross back over to the other side of the street (which would probably be only about 50% of those passengers, since the other 50% would likely remain on the side they are on), it is better to delay the handful of people who are exiting the bus once, than to delay every single passenger on the bus at every single intersection.

If transit had priority, then that wouldn't happen. If the signal is about to be unfavourable to a bus that's serving the near-side stop, transit priority would keep the signal favourable for another few seconds.

How would the signal know that when that when the extra few seconds are up, the bus is ready to go? If lots of people are getting off or on, then the bus would still miss the light.

"Consolidating" the stop two lights deeper into Beechwood, and moving it to the far side at Springfield, means dead time waiting on a bus that didn't exist before, time stolen from transit passengers for no good reason.

Whether that particular stop is in the best location I don't know, but I will say this: consolidating those stops would benefit all passengers on the bus who are destined beyond Springfield.

[CityTech]

Originally Posted by bradnixon

We're not going to agree on this, but I admire your dedication in the face of evidence. What I would say is that even if a far side stop makes it take longer for egressing passengers to cross back over to the other side of the street (which would probably be only about 50% of those passengers, since the other 50% would likely remain on the side they are on), it is better to delay the handful of people who are exiting the bus once, than to delay every single passenger on the bus at every single intersection.

Whether that particular stop is in the best location I don't know, but I will say this: consolidating those stops would benefit all passengers on the bus who are destined beyond Springfield.

Exactly. If moving the stop from near to far, causes, say every human using that stop to have to walk 30s longer, but reduces the bus travel time by an average of 10s per intersection, then every human riding on the bus through more than 3 intersections (which is basically everyone!) will have saved time.

Although I would argue that a properly placed far side stop would be no more than one bus length past the intersection; which is 18m, or about a 12s-18s walk depending on the person (average walking speed varying from 1.5m/s for a fast-walking healthy person to 1.0m/s for a senior in a walker).

What Uhuniau is forgetting is that time savings for buses equal time savings for humans on the buses.

[CityTech]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Nope, except to the extent noted above where Ottawa doesn't just far-side the stops, they really FAAAAARRRR side them, especially on stroads with suburban geometries.

A good example of a far side stop is southbound Holland at Wellington.

Yes, that's a good example. It functions well, because the far side stop isn't that far and the streets aren't that wide.

A stop that is "really far sided", is actually a mid block stop, and I would agree those are pretty poor choices. The example I gave is one of the few examples of a "true" far side stop in Ottawa, and you agreed it works well.

Anything more than a bus length past the intersection is "mid block" rather than "far side", IMO.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by bradnixon

How would the signal know that when that when the extra few seconds are up, the bus is ready to go? If lots of people are getting off or on, then the bus would still miss the light.

Not if there were some way, perhaps through Hertzian waves travelling on the aether, for the transit system and the signals to speak to one another.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by bradnixon

Whether that particular stop is in the best location I don't know, but I will say this: consolidating those stops would benefit all passengers on the bus who are destined beyond Springfield.

Not especially, because the time-waster in that three-ish block segment of Beechwood was and is the lights, not the bus stops. But those stops got "optimized" by people who never once, during the entire process, stopped to consult with actual human transit users.

Until lately, some bus drivers would be nice and treat the removed stop as if it were still there, but someone seems to have drilled that practice out of them.

There seem to be some folks at Transpo who won't be happy until urban bus routes are down to one stop in each direction every thousand metres.

[Kitchissippi]

To balance the western interlining, how about an eastern split at Hurdman going along the Hospital Link to Innes then continuing down the old rail ROW past Science and Tech. It could end in a large park-and-ride structure at Walkley/Sheffield to catch commuters from the eastern 417 and tourists from Montreal. Currently there is nothing that encourages anyone from this approach to the city to leave their cars outside the core.

Also, maybe in the future order full 120m trainsets and redeploy the separate 70+ Citadis units as surface trams across several routes in the city. Retrofit the BRT routes with streetcar-style rails so they can be used by both trams and buses, keeping them flexible.

(click for large)

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

There seem to be some folks at Transpo who won't be happy until urban bus routes are down to one stop in each direction every thousand metres.

This is reductio ad absurdum.

Stop spacing of about 400m is ideal for local transit.

In general, OC has many routes with stops that are far too close together and we would probably benefit from a system-wide bus stop review and rationalization.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

To balance the western interlining, how about an eastern split at Hurdman going along the Hospital Link to Innes then continuing down the old rail ROW past Science and Tech.

What are the dashed lines in your schematic?

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

What are the dashed lines in your schematic?

Surface tram routes where the Citadis can be redeployed if we get full 120m length transets