Ottawa Transit Cuts. Your view

[miketoronto]

I was just at a planning conference, and someone mentioned the Ottawa Transit cuts.

I would like to hear your guys views on these cuts.

I went over some of the cuts, and some do make sense and some don't.

The only ones that seem to make sense to me, are the cuts to rush hour only routes that run along the exact same route, as a full service route. That does seem confusing and a little odd to have a separate route that bsically runs along a similar route.

What concerns me is Ottawa's view that they can reduce the amount of people within walking distance of a bus, just because they surpass the council mandated rule of 95% of residents being within walking distance of a bus. Right now it is at 99% or something.

To me and other planners that have talked about these things, standards are the bare minimum.

Instead of Ottawa saying that they have to bring the standard down, to 95% to bring transit access in line with standards, makes no sense.

And the one last thing that concerns me, is the 10 min walk distance. I don't know about you guys, but 10 minutes is a long walk to a bus stop in off peak times. That is not going to attract many choice riders.

I know in Toronto, the standard is a 5 minute walk until 1 am. And than a 10-15 minute walk after 1 am. Some of the outer suburbs of Toronto have a 10 minute walk distance in off peak times, and their ridership is not stellar during those periods.

It would be interesting to hear your views on this. Do you think there are savings to be found? Do you think how Ottawa is going about this is wrong?

One last thing. I don't think Ottawa should have had APTA compare Ottawa to American cities, to justify reducing the number of people within walking distance of transit. Most American cities have no standards for transit access, and saying that Ottawa is better than those cities, and using that to justify reducing the reach of transit does not go over well with me.

I really do not see how Ottawa is going to reach transit targets if they think having a bus within a 10 min walk is good service. Unless they are counting just peak hour ridership, than they should be o.k.

I bought a book called Transport for Suburbia. In the book, the author has a graph of Ottawa's transit service levels and ridership. Almost all the ridership decline of the late 80-90's mirrors a reduction in off peak transit service levels. In fact the other found that ridership drops in off peak hours were almost fully to blame for the ridership drop during that time.
With this round of proposed changed, it seems Ottawa again is just putting the focus on rush hour commuters.

[lrt's friend]

The problem with this whole thing is that it is being motivated by a politically determined budget target. We are using the excuse of sustainability but really I believe this is only a bandaid solution. As the city expands further, this problem will rear its ugly head again and what is the solution? More service cuts?

I am sure that some route optimization is desireable as travel patterns change but I am getting the impression that if you live in suburban Ottawa, which is really the majority of the population now, you will be getting less and less service. This applies to the older suburbs as we see that a Alta Vista bus route will become peak only service. I notice that other routes in that same general area are also being cutback as well. Walking distances in those areas are going to become enormous.

What is particularly disturbing is that the budget will be approved before the details are made public or even made available to our councillors. Effectively, when we know that our neighbourhood service is being ruined, it will be too late to do anything about it.

This does not come across as a strategic process as far as improving transit in this city in the long-term. The only one saving grace is that we are revising everything instead of past cuts to specific routes, when perhaps, no alternative service is available.

The reduction in standards is also disturbing. We have to remember that 100% of the population is paying the full transit levy yet we are now putting 5% of the population more than 800 metres from a bus stop. That is a very long walk. Is that 5% going to get refund on their transit levy? I think it would be appropriate if they are getting essentially little or no service but that won't happen.

The other disturbing aspect is that we are maintaining capacity but that does not mean we will be maintain ridership. 10% of the ridership will be negatively impacted by these changes. It always sounds nice when you say 90% will not be, but that still means 10,000,000 rides are negatively impacted. That is a lot. If you lose half of those riders, what does this say for the future? And if all that ridership is lost in the suburbs, what does that mean regarding sustainability of the remaining suburban service. It could be a spiral downwards, like what happened in most American cities in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. We have already seen that in Ottawa to some degree in recent years.

I just get frustrated that we are heading in the direction of just providing a commuter service plus a bare bones system mainly on the transitways during off-peak hours. Remember the location of those Transitways. Not the most convenient location for most residents. Not exactly the same as a subway running through dense neighbourhoods.

Then there are the other impacts. The suburban Park n Ride lots are already at capacity in most cases. As we eliminate suburban service, does this not put even more pressure on these lots and to build more? Just remember that Park n Ride lots are blights on the suburbs and limit intensification at transit stations. We will also be putting more pressure on Para Transpo as more seniors are put beyond their comfortable walking distance to a bus stop. We have an aging population.

Of course, I am also suspicious that these cost saving measures are necessary in order to fund the downtown tunnel. The city cannot afford both existing service costs and the cost of building the tunnel. I hope it isn't true.

What we should be doing is a proper assessment of sustainability which compares costs and revenue. In my opinion, we should consider to have long-distance commuters pay more. We need zone fares. Pay extra to jump the Greenbelt and not just on express routes. To sell this, we should indicate that 5 or 10 cents from those extra fares should go into a fund directly to help pay for rapid transit extensions to the suburbs so that this will happen sooner.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by miketoronto

I bought a book called Transport for Suburbia. In the book, the author has a graph of Ottawa's transit service levels and ridership. Almost all the ridership decline of the late 80-90's mirrors a reduction in off peak transit service levels. In fact the other found that ridership drops in off peak hours were almost fully to blame for the ridership drop during that time.
With this round of proposed changed, it seems Ottawa again is just putting the focus on rush hour commuters.

Interesting. I had wondered if something like that had been the cause of the ridership decrease. That there was a ridership decrease at all given that the Transitway had just been built is in and of itself interesting, but perhaps the very existence of the Transitway resulted in OC Transpo concentrating on peak period commuters. Did the author mention/know/investigate if peak period ridership went up or down during that period? In other words, was non-peak ridership losses greater than the overall losses, with the difference made up by peak period gains, or were the losses entirely from non-peak ridership with no change in peak ridership?


I does seem rather strange to go from being in the admirable and enviable position of being able to serve virtually all residents in the urban area with transit service within 400 m to pushing that out to 800 m. I also wonder what effect this might have on future suburban planning. At the moment planning and transit policy match - subdivisions are designed to enable that 400 m service and OC Transpo provides it once built. But now and the future? Will that continue or will we let things slide? More ominously, will developers be able to successfully argue at the OMB for layouts that make it practically impossible to serve everyone with transit within 400 m based on this change in OC Transpo policy? Design features like pedestrian cut-thrus make this policy possible in practice, but suburban planners don't necessarily like them since some regard permeability as something to be avoided rather than promoted.

[reidjr]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The problem with this whole thing is that it is being motivated by a politically determined budget target. We are using the excuse of sustainability but really I believe this is only a bandaid solution. As the city expands further, this problem will rear its ugly head again and what is the solution? More service cuts?

I am sure that some route optimization is desireable as travel patterns change but I am getting the impression that if you live in suburban Ottawa, which is really the majority of the population now, you will be getting less and less service. This applies to the older suburbs as we see that a Alta Vista bus route will become peak only service. I notice that other routes in that same general area are also being cutback as well. Walking distances in those areas are going to become enormous.

What is particularly disturbing is that the budget will be approved before the details are made public or even made available to our councillors. Effectively, when we know that our neighbourhood service is being ruined, it will be too late to do anything about it.

This does not come across as a strategic process as far as improving transit in this city in the long-term. The only one saving grace is that we are revising everything instead of past cuts to specific routes, when perhaps, no alternative service is available.

The reduction in standards is also disturbing. We have to remember that 100% of the population is paying the full transit levy yet we are now putting 5% of the population more than 800 metres from a bus stop. That is a very long walk. Is that 5% going to get refund on their transit levy? I think it would be appropriate if they are getting essentially little or no service but that won't happen.

The other disturbing aspect is that we are maintaining capacity but that does not mean we will be maintain ridership. 10% of the ridership will be negatively impacted by these changes. It always sounds nice when you say 90% will not be, but that still means 10,000,000 rides are negatively impacted. That is a lot. If you lose half of those riders, what does this say for the future? And if all that ridership is lost in the suburbs, what does that mean regarding sustainability of the remaining suburban service. It could be a spiral downwards, like what happened in most American cities in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. We have already seen that in Ottawa to some degree in recent years.

I just get frustrated that we are heading in the direction of just providing a commuter service plus a bare bones system mainly on the transitways during off-peak hours. Remember the location of those Transitways. Not the most convenient location for most residents. Not exactly the same as a subway running through dense neighbourhoods.

Then there are the other impacts. The suburban Park n Ride lots are already at capacity in most cases. As we eliminate suburban service, does this not put even more pressure on these lots and to build more? Just remember that Park n Ride lots are blights on the suburbs and limit intensification at transit stations. We will also be putting more pressure on Para Transpo as more seniors are put beyond their comfortable walking distance to a bus stop. We have an aging population.

Of course, I am also suspicious that these cost saving measures are necessary in order to fund the downtown tunnel. The city cannot afford both existing service costs and the cost of building the tunnel. I hope it isn't true.

What we should be doing is a proper assessment of sustainability which compares costs and revenue. In my opinion, we should consider to have long-distance commuters pay more. We need zone fares. Pay extra to jump the Greenbelt and not just on express routes. To sell this, we should indicate that 5 or 10 cents from those extra fares should go into a fund directly to help pay for rapid transit extensions to the suburbs so that this will happen sooner.

The issue with charging those in the burbs is they pay tax if you tell them they have to pay an extra fare i don't think that would go voer very well at all and likely alot would not take the bus.My point is you can't say yes those in the burbs your taxes will cover part of oc transpo plus you will have to pay a extra fee that just is not a good idea on many levels.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by reidjr

The issue with charging those in the burbs is they pay tax if you tell them they have to pay an extra fare i don't think that would go voer very well at all and likely alot would not take the bus.My point is you can't say yes those in the burbs your taxes will cover part of oc transpo plus you will have to pay a extra fee that just is not a good idea on many levels.

How do we address sustainability then? More rounds of service cuts? Continue to raise fares much faster than inflation? Why is there no justification for charging riders in Stittsville or Cumberland more if they are travelling much further than someone living in central neighbourhoods? It simply costs much more to provide service to the far extremities of the city. Isn't that the reason why we have sustainability problems?

[Dado]

Originally Posted by reidjr

The issue with charging those in the burbs is they pay tax if you tell them they have to pay an extra fare i don't think that would go voer very well at all and likely alot would not take the bus.My point is you can't say yes those in the burbs your taxes will cover part of oc transpo plus you will have to pay a extra fee that just is not a good idea on many levels.

Moreover, most people who live in the suburbs are not even responsible for the bad decisions that led to the costs our transit system. Fundamentally, why should they have to pay for other people's bad decisions? It's one thing to have to pay more because you live further out, but quite another to have to pay for an enormous premium for a bad choice of transit model that you had no say in and no viable alternatives to. As it happens, the people who made those decisions typically lived in the postwar suburbs inside the Greenbelt and they decided on a transit model that made some amount of sense for their situation - get on a bus in your neighbourhood and go downtown without a transfer a third or halfway through the total trip.

While we in Ottawa have a mental image of the Greenbelt as a some kind of great barrier, it hides the fact that the distances from downtown Ottawa to Orleans and Kanata are about the same as those from downtown Toronto to Scarborough and Mississauga where no such clear delineation exists. The difference from the transit operations perspective is that where we run scores of buses across that mental barrier in one of the highest cost transit operations on the continent, Toronto runs Go Trains instead and enjoys enormous economies of scale in doing so.

I've read in places that the "spread out" nature of Ottawa's urban form with the Greenbelt justifies its BRT model, but frankly the fact that we've got a massive empty zone in our urban form should be telling us to use rail instead. Perhaps if the Greenbelt were filled with water like an enormous moat around an island we'd think about it somewhat differently. The existence of an expanse like the Greenbelt naturally lends itself for a form of transit operation in which local feeders bring everyone together at collection points in the outer suburbs and then bring them all downtown together on much larger vehicles, likely without further stops or a bare minimum. Sending scores of buses, each with 50 passengers or so and one driver, in virtual caravans into downtown is, quite frankly, idiotic. It's a recipe for high operating costs. There basically should not be buses crossing the Greenbelt.

I really don't know what kind of short term solutions we can employ. These double-deckers are probably just going to jam up Albert and Slater since we don't have a downtown bus depot where they can board and alight without blocking other buses, so any savings on the haul will probably be lost downtown. While O-Train extensions have some potential for savings in specific roles (i.e. to Hull), Ottawa lacks a downtown train station to bring large numbers of trains into and a decent downtown distributor system for transit users once they get there (i.e. we lack equivalents to Toronto's subway and streetcars). Charging suburbanites super high fares is unfair to them, but charging everyone else is unfair to everyone else. It's a distressing mess created by a people more in love with buses than with providing an appropriate transit system.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Dado

Moreover, most people who live in the suburbs are not even responsible for the bad decisions that led to the costs our transit system. Fundamentally, why should they have to pay for other people's bad decisions? It's one thing to have to pay more because you live further out, but quite another to have to pay for an enormous premium for a bad choice of transit model that you had no say in and no viable alternatives to. As it happens, the people who made those decisions typically lived in the postwar suburbs inside the Greenbelt and they decided on a transit model that made some amount of sense for their situation - get on a bus in your neighbourhood and go downtown without a transfer a third or halfway through the total trip.

While we in Ottawa have a mental image of the Greenbelt as a some kind of great barrier, it hides the fact that the distances from downtown Ottawa to Orleans and Kanata are about the same as those from downtown Toronto to Scarborough and Mississauga where no such clear delineation exists. The difference from the transit operations perspective is that where we run scores of buses across that mental barrier in one of the highest cost transit operations on the continent, Toronto runs Go Trains instead and enjoys enormous economies of scale in doing so.

I've read in places that the "spread out" nature of Ottawa's urban form with the Greenbelt justifies its BRT model, but frankly the fact that we've got a massive empty zone in our urban form should be telling us to use rail instead. Perhaps if the Greenbelt were filled with water like an enormous moat around an island we'd think about it somewhat differently. The existence of an expanse like the Greenbelt naturally lends itself for a form of transit operation in which local feeders bring everyone together at collection points in the outer suburbs and then bring them all downtown together on much larger vehicles, likely without further stops or a bare minimum. Sending scores of buses, each with 50 passengers or so and one driver, in virtual caravans into downtown is, quite frankly, idiotic. It's a recipe for high operating costs. There basically should not be buses crossing the Greenbelt.

I really don't know what kind of short term solutions we can employ. These double-deckers are probably just going to jam up Albert and Slater since we don't have a downtown bus depot where they can board and alight without blocking other buses, so any savings on the haul will probably be lost downtown. While O-Train extensions have some potential for savings in specific roles (i.e. to Hull), Ottawa lacks a downtown train station to bring large numbers of trains into and a decent downtown distributor system for transit users once they get there (i.e. we lack equivalents to Toronto's subway and streetcars). Charging suburbanites super high fares is unfair to them, but charging everyone else is unfair to everyone else. It's a distressing mess created by a people more in love with buses than with providing an appropriate transit system.

Let's not confuse issues here. I understand the points that you make and they are part of the solution. Nevertheless, Go Transit riders do pay higher fares, which directly relates to the distance travelled. Also, as far as I know, Mississauga Transit riders do have to pay another fare to use the TTC. I am not advocating some horrendous fare premium but something that covers the cost of longer distance travelled. I do not think it is justifiable to implement the hub and spoke model or some rail service and then eliminate the express fare in the suburbs. Passengers are still travelling longer distances and this costs the system more. It is also implying that what we are doing is making service worse, and perhaps, because of poor implementation, that will be the result.

[reidjr]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Let's not confuse issues here. I understand the points that you make and they are part of the solution. Nevertheless, Go Transit riders do pay higher fares, which directly relates to the distance travelled. Also, as far as I know, Mississauga Transit riders do have to pay another fare to use the TTC. I am not advocating some horrendous fare premium but something that covers the cost of longer distance travelled. I do not think it is justifiable to implement the hub and spoke model or some rail service and then eliminate the express fare in the suburbs. Passengers are still travelling longer distances and this costs the system more. It is also implying that what we are doing is making service worse, and perhaps, because of poor implementation, that will be the result.

Again the issue is in nepean and kanata etc pay taxes to ottawa if you tell them yes part of your taxes wills till go to oc but and on top of that you will have to pay a premium fare that would not go over well and likely mean most would drive downtown meaning the roads road be backed up far worse then they are now.The crazy thing is some who live with in the core have a anti burbs mind set and if there was a premium fare they would want the money raised to be used on transit in the core not out side of the green belt.My other concern is this would open the door for other city services etc out side of the core to face premium fees be it for green bin pick up etc.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by reidjr

Again the issue is in nepean and kanata etc pay taxes to ottawa if you tell them yes part of your taxes wills till go to oc but and on top of that you will have to pay a premium fare that would not go over well and likely mean most would drive downtown meaning the roads road be backed up far worse then they are now.The crazy thing is some who live with in the core have a anti burbs mind set and if there was a premium fare they would want the money raised to be used on transit in the core not out side of the green belt.My other concern is this would open the door for other city services etc out side of the core to face premium fees be it for green bin pick up etc.

Do you not believe that fares should relate to cost of service in any way? I am not suggesting anything more than the premium fare that they already pay to take an express bus. Just that there should not be loopholes on getting around that fare by taking the 95 or 96 to Kanata or Barrhaven. The current system is also an incentive to clog up the park n ride lots as it allows you avoid paying the express fare while local bus routes languish with insufficient riders. This is putting the city under pressure to build more and more of these lots and providing expensive bus service to those lots. I cannot imagine that the 95 extension to the Trim Road Park n Ride is a money maker especially during off-peak hours. Also, this may provide some of the solution for out-of-towners. They have to pay the premium fare to use the service. And on the issue, of not using transit to get downtown if they have to pay this already existing premium. Not likely. This is pretty well a captive market already because of expensive parking and a shortage of parking spaces downtown and not everybody likes to drive in bumper to bumper traffic. As I said, all I want is to have everybody pay the same fare to come in from outside the Greenbelt. Finally, this prepares everybody for a future hub and spoke system. Why should all express premiums be eliminated when that system is implemented? It just means that everybody else will be subsidizing Kanata, Barrhaven and Orleans transit riders even more. Sorry, I don't have a lot of sympathy that you should be able to live in the most distant suburb and pay the same fare to cross the city as someone making a short trip inside the Greenbelt.

I will add that if you want to make a short transit trip outside the Greenbelt to the local shopping centre or employment park, the regular fare would apply. Just to come into the city, should you pay extra. I do not think I am being unreasonable.

[reidjr]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Do you not believe that fares should relate to cost of service in any way? I am not suggesting anything more than the premium fare that they already pay to take an express bus. Just that there should not be loopholes on getting around that fare by taking the 95 or 96 to Kanata or Barrhaven. The current system is also an incentive to clog up the park n ride lots as it allows you avoid paying the express fare while local bus routes languish with insufficient riders. This is putting the city under pressure to build more and more of these lots and providing expensive bus service to those lots. I cannot imagine that the 95 extension to the Trim Road Park n Ride is a money maker especially during off-peak hours. Also, this may provide some of the solution for out-of-towners. They have to pay the premium fare to use the service. And on the issue, of not using transit to get downtown if they have to pay this already existing premium. Not likely. This is pretty well a captive market already because of expensive parking and a shortage of parking spaces downtown and not everybody likes to drive in bumper to bumper traffic. As I said, all I want is to have everybody pay the same fare to come in from outside the Greenbelt. Finally, this prepares everybody for a future hub and spoke system. Why should all express premiums be eliminated when that system is implemented? It just means that everybody else will be subsidizing Kanata, Barrhaven and Orleans transit riders even more. Sorry, I don't have a lot of sympathy that you should be able to live in the most distant suburb and pay the same fare to cross the city as someone making a short trip inside the Greenbelt.

I will add that if you want to make a short transit trip outside the Greenbelt to the local shopping centre or employment park, the regular fare would apply. Just to come into the city, should you pay extra. I do not think I am being unreasonable.

Well since a large bulk of the population lives in kanata/orleans etc its not like its just a few people and most live in the core.If you do a fare system fine that has to apply to everyone if someone lives downtown but work in orleans they should pay the premium as well you can't just apply it to the burbs.As for my self i live in nepean have more whole life and will not move to downtown should i or any one be forced to move no.I am not saying your doing this but some are so aginst the burbs they don't think they should get any city service even no arenas etc if you want access you have to go to the core now that is not right.If anything i would like a true zone system set up where if your not from that zone you pay extra for the city services thats the only fair way of doing it.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by reidjr

Well since a large bulk of the population lives in kanata/orleans etc its not like its just a few people and most live in the core.If you do a fare system fine that has to apply to everyone if someone lives downtown but work in orleans they should pay the premium as well you can't just apply it to the burbs.As for my self i live in nepean have more whole life and will not move to downtown should i or any one be forced to move no.I am not saying your doing this but some are so aginst the burbs they don't think they should get any city service even no arenas etc if you want access you have to go to the core now that is not right.If anything i would like a true zone system set up where if your not from that zone you pay extra for the city services thats the only fair way of doing it.

I am not trying to be anti-suburban. And yes, my idea of the premium would work both ways. It is an attempt at fairness but also to better match revenue with costs. Also an attempt to address sustainability of the overall system. I question whether the current process really addresses long-term sustainability. If we are going to be moving more passengers longer distances over time, then the average cost per passenger will continue to increase.

I have personally been driven away from transit and a good part of it was cost. I could no longer justify the cost of a rapidly increasing bus pass price when my trip distance to my job was quite short. It is now far cheaper to drive to work, considering that I have a car anyways. The other major factor was repeated rounds of service cuts that made my trip to the office too long and too unreliable even during peak hours. And then, the opening of the Transitway made short distance travel much slower and more awkward. Strangely, the Transitway in our neighbourhood created the 'milk runs'. No longer did the bus routes follow normal direct travel patterns. What used to be a 5 minute trip to where I had to transfer, now takes 15 or 20 minutes. Unfortunately, this is the hub and spoke model in action, and when it is fully implemented for LRT, a few more minutes will be added to that trip time again.

[blackjagger]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I am not trying to be anti-suburban. And yes, my idea of the premium would work both ways. It is an attempt at fairness but also to better match revenue with costs. Also an attempt to address sustainability of the overall system. I question whether the current process really addresses long-term sustainability. If we are going to be moving more passengers longer distances over time, then the average cost per passenger will continue to increase.

This is why so many transit systems have zones. Travelling within a single zone $2.00, travelling between 2 zones $3.50, travelling between 3 zones $4.75.

Each suburban area is a zone, as well as inside the greenbelt. So travelling around Barrhaven is $2.00, Travelling downtown is $3.50, and if you chose to live in Barrhaven and work in Orleans you pay $4.75. IMHO taxes should pay a set percentage of the cost say 60% and the remainder should be the ticket price. This has to be averaged over a zone, but still the idea is that longer trips with greater cost should be absorbed at least in part by the direct benefactor.

Cheers,
Josh

[reidjr]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I am not trying to be anti-suburban. And yes, my idea of the premium would work both ways. It is an attempt at fairness but also to better match revenue with costs. Also an attempt to address sustainability of the overall system. I question whether the current process really addresses long-term sustainability. If we are going to be moving more passengers longer distances over time, then the average cost per passenger will continue to increase.

I have personally been driven away from transit and a good part of it was cost. I could no longer justify the cost of a rapidly increasing bus pass price when my trip distance to my job was quite short. It is now far cheaper to drive to work, considering that I have a car anyways. The other major factor was repeated rounds of service cuts that made my trip to the office too long and too unreliable even during peak hours. And then, the opening of the Transitway made short distance travel much slower and more awkward. Strangely, the Transitway in our neighbourhood created the 'milk runs'. No longer did the bus routes follow normal direct travel patterns. What used to be a 5 minute trip to where I had to transfer, now takes 15 or 20 minutes. Unfortunately, this is the hub and spoke model in action, and when it is fully implemented for LRT, a few more minutes will be added to that trip time again.

If its a fair system i have no issues with it and would support it 100%.

[eternallyme]

Agreed with a premium fare (equivalent to the current express fare), at least on weekdays for Greenbelt-crossing trips. Trips within Kanata, Barrhaven, Orleans, etc. would still be regular fare though, as would trips that are entirely within the Greenbelt.

I wouldn't charge the premium on weekends or holidays though, since that would be expensive for suburban families. Also to discourage drinking and driving in the late evening, there should be no premium after 9 pm on weekdays.

[OttawaSteve]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

Agreed with a premium fare (equivalent to the current express fare), at least on weekdays for Greenbelt-crossing trips. Trips within Kanata, Barrhaven, Orleans, etc. would still be regular fare though, as would trips that are entirely within the Greenbelt.

I wouldn't charge the premium on weekends or holidays though, since that would be expensive for suburban families. Also to discourage drinking and driving in the late evening, there should be no premium after 9 pm on weekdays.

This would be similar to, say, BC Translink's fare zone system, where the single zone fare applies after 6:30 weekdays, as well as weekends and holidays.

Ottawa's map might look something like this:

[miketoronto]

lrt's friend. Do you feel that the Transitway really has not improved transit.
You mentioned that your trips actually got worse after the opening of it.
Do you think this is just because of how the new routes were routed, or do you think it is because of the Transitway, and can't really be fixed?

What was service like before the Transitway? Were buses fast, or were they slow?

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by OttawaSteve

This would be similar to, say, BC Translink's fare zone system, where the single zone fare applies after 6:30 weekdays, as well as weekends and holidays.

Ottawa's map might look something like this:

That's what I recommend. Zone 3 is outside the Urban Transit Area (increasing in number as you move farther and farther away), so you have something right there. Agreed with having Bells Corners and Blackburn Hamlet as split zones as they are embedded within the Greenbelt. Within the Greenbelt rural portions (i.e. 3701 Carling Avenue at the DND facilities) would also be a split zone. Since there is no southbound service from the airport, the airport area is entirely Zone 1.

The only routes that provide local service within the Greenbelt and cross it completely are 118, 125, 127, 133, 144, 169, 176, 181, 182, 189, 197 and 199.

[miketoronto]

You guys might find this interesting. I finally did the map of Ottawa bus routes operating until at least midnight, seven days a week. I am surprised, but there are large gaps in the system. Mostly from Sunday service ending early.

Red routes are 24 hours.
Blue are routes that operate until at least midnight.

http://maps.google.ca/maps/ms?hl=en&...,0.727158&z=11

[Cre47]

Originally Posted by miketoronto

You guys might find this interesting. I finally did the map of Ottawa bus routes operating until at least midnight, seven days a week. I am surprised, but there are large gaps in the system. Mostly from Sunday service ending early.

Red routes are 24 hours.
Blue are routes that operate until at least midnight.

http://maps.google.ca/maps/ms?hl=en&...,0.727158&z=11

With the SW Transitway opening up, that gap for a chunk of Barrhaven will be covered and same thing for Innes Road, since apparently hours of operation on the 94 will be extended on weekends again. That would also cover the Woodroffe South area as well.

Although at least routes 1, 4, 14, 86, 87 (Hurdman to Greenboro), 114 (Elmvale to Hurdman) and 176 should be running until midnight seven days a week and perhaps also the 96 portion west of Terry Fox and the 99. There should be enough ridership to justify increasing a bit the hours (in most cases it's just one or two additionnal runs). In fact, it might be enough ridership to have the 96 running 24-hours as well.

[Cre47]

As follow-up

Seems STO has lesser gaps in the system then OC Transpo, since almost all their major routes and some local ones ends after midnight each day. (except Christmas and New Year's Day where it runs from 11 AM to 7 PM)

Aylmer: The main Ottawa route (59) and two of its local routes (51, 52) runs after midnight with their third one (53) - serving the sections south of the Upper Aylmer Rd - ending just before 12 AM. So almost, all the Aylmer sector main areas have service until or near 12 each day.

Hull: Routes 31, 33, 37, 39 all run until 12:30 or so, covering almost all areas. The Casino route (21) ends at around 11:30.

Gatineau, Buckingham, Masson-Angers: There are some gaps but parallel service does at least give some service to most areas within a 5-10 minute walk. Routes 64 (Serving the Touraine and Limbour areas), 71 (portions of the route only), 77 and 96 are running until midnight each day - though the 96 don't run very often on weekends. Route 67 that parallels the 77 runs until 11:30.