[eternallyme]

I am just wondering what the board's opinion on this thought.

Suppose a new infusion of cash became available for transit (i.e. 2012 ends up with a budget surplus, or the provincial government ponies up extra cash for operations). Which of these would you prefer to see? Simply reverse the September 2011 cuts, a partial restoration with other improvements, increase the frequency on major routes (or similarly redesigned routes) without restoring lost routes or creating new routes and services? You can only pick one of the options.

I personally would go for a partial restoration but a heavy lean on frequencies (i.e. about 20/80 split). I think that would create a lot more ridership than restoring many local routes which never had great ridership.

[gjhall]

For me, it's all about frequencies. Making transit, particularly within the greenbelt, more seemless, more integrated into people's lives.

I think I would prioritize major corridors: Bank, Rideau, Wellington, etc. and get frequencies up to the point that, like on the Transitway, one wouldn't have to plan to catch "their" bus, so much as catch "a" bus when it's convenient.

[Uhuniau]

For me, it's all about frequencies. Making transit, particularly within the greenbelt, more seemless, more integrated into people's lives.

I think I would prioritize major corridors: Bank, Rideau, Wellington, etc. and get frequencies up to the point that, like on the Transitway, one wouldn't have to plan to catch "their" bus, so much as catch "a" bus when it's convenient.

If that's the case, the transitway itself should also be moved away from "catch your bus" to a "catch a bus" model.

[eternallyme]

If that's the case, the transitway itself should also be moved away from "catch your bus" to a "catch a bus" model.

It already is. Buses run every 10 minutes or less (often much less) along most of the Transitway most of the day, every day through a combination of routes.

[eternallyme]

For me, it's all about frequencies. Making transit, particularly within the greenbelt, more seemless, more integrated into people's lives.

I think I would prioritize major corridors: Bank, Rideau, Wellington, etc. and get frequencies up to the point that, like on the Transitway, one wouldn't have to plan to catch "their" bus, so much as catch "a" bus when it's convenient.

That makes sense. In deep suburban communities, the goal is just to provide some service at a decent frequency within at least reasonable walking distance (usually 30 minutes during most times) and ensure they can catch their bus. But on the main roads and in the inner city especially, they need to be often enough that they don't even need to read or memorize a timetable. The inner city routes tend to be the most overcrowded during off-peak periods, even more so than Transitway routes often.

[lrt's friend]

I believe that our transit strategy should include a high frequency network as already suggested. I remember a study from years ago that said that transit riders no longer worry about schedules once you get down to 10 minute frequency or better. Therefore, we should have a high frequency network that includes beyond the transitway routes (that connect suburban routes). 10 minute service should run from 6am to 10pm on weekdays, 9am to 10pm on Saturdays and 10am to 6pm on Sundays and holidays. This should include Bank, Bronson, Rideau, Wellington, Somerset, Richmond Rd, Montreal Rd, Carling, Baseline, Merivale and St. Laurent. This would provide great cross connections across most of the city inside the Greenbelt. This should be our goal regardless of special funding.

[eternallyme]

I believe that our transit strategy should include a high frequency network as already suggested. I remember a study from years ago that said that transit riders no longer worry about schedules once you get down to 10 minute frequency or better. Therefore, we should have a high frequency network that includes beyond the transitway routes (that connect suburban routes). 10 minute service should run from 6am to 10pm on weekdays, 9am to 10pm on Saturdays and 10am to 6pm on Sundays and holidays. This should include Bank, Bronson, Rideau, Wellington, Somerset, Richmond Rd, Montreal Rd, Carling, Baseline, Merivale and St. Laurent. This would provide great cross connections across most of the city inside the Greenbelt. This should be our goal regardless of special funding.

My target was a 15 minute minimum (10 or less on the busiest), but I agree. That will gain a lot more ridership than empty buses in the suburbs.

[Uhuniau]

It already is. Buses run every 10 minutes or less (often much less) along most of the Transitway most of the day, every day through a combination of routes.

Yes, but the stupid expresses clog the system and mean you can have a "train" of four 95s separated in space and time by a host of half-full local routes. The system is still geared towards getting most peak-period riders onto "their" bus. There should be pretty well no such thing as "their" bus, other than a handful of trunk lines bound east, west, southeast, and southwest.

[lrt's friend]

Yes, but the stupid expresses clog the system and mean you can have a "train" of four 95s separated in space and time by a host of half-full local routes. The system is still geared towards getting most peak-period riders onto "their" bus. There should be pretty well no such thing as "their" bus, other than a handful of trunk lines bound east, west, southeast, and southwest.

As long as we are working with bus based Transitways, I have to fundamentally disagree with you. I know that the express bus in our neighbourhood is very crowded and it makes no sense to transfer a full articulated bus onto another articulated bus. The last time
I took the 'local bus', it was so crowded that it caused problems on the connecting Transitway bus that could not pick up all the passengers on the way to downtown. Demand should be an indicator of when direct service should be provided. Also, as long we are working with Transitways, we should make use of its flexibility to reduce transfers. Transit riders dislike transfers and study after study has confirmed that. It is a myth that the hub and spoke system is some magical ideal solution. It will generate lower ridership, guaranteed.

[gjhall]

As long as we are working with bus based Transitways, I have to fundamentally disagree with you. I know that the express bus in our neighbourhood is very crowded and it makes no sense to transfer a full articulated bus onto another articulated bus. The last time
I took the 'local bus', it was so crowded that it caused problems on the connecting Transitway bus that could not pick up all the passengers on the way to downtown. Demand should be an indicator of when direct service should be provided. Also, as long we are working with Transitways, we should make use of its flexibility to reduce transfers. Transit riders dislike transfers and study after study has confirmed that. It is a myth that the hub and spoke system is some magical ideal solution. It will generate lower ridership, guaranteed.

You're both right here. AM Peak, these buses make sense, as they fill up and head to a semi-common destination of "downtown" stations. But PM peak, they're a disaster. You end up with hundreds of people on the sidewalk craning their neck to see if their bus is coming, running for it, etc. I'm not sure if their elimination is the answer, but as it is it doesn't work.

[eternallyme]

Yes, but the stupid expresses clog the system and mean you can have a "train" of four 95s separated in space and time by a host of half-full local routes. The system is still geared towards getting most peak-period riders onto "their" bus. There should be pretty well no such thing as "their" bus, other than a handful of trunk lines bound east, west, southeast, and southwest.

The Transitway is probably where the most wasteful bus allocations are, and it is mostly due to short-running buses and uneven frequencies. Also, buses crossing the Greenbelt twice are exceptionally long and unreliable.

IMO, there are too many 95s and all the Transitway routes should work in tandem (even if adding one or two more for other major destinations and lines) to provide the capacity on the Transitway. All the 95s that do not go at least from Place d'Orleans to Baseline (there are nearly 100 in each direction on weekdays) should be removed and those resources re-allocated to other routes. Baseline would become the 95 terminus and the Barrhaven section should be reallocated to a new route (say, 92) as there are not very many people going from Orleans to Barrhaven. The 92 would replace parts of the 94 and 95 and have a similar or better frequency, basically just by reallocating wasteful 95 trips that stop at Blair (or Hurdman). If someone is boarding a 95, they should know that it is going to Orleans, and likewise if they board a 92, they would know it is going to Barrhaven.

I would also make frequencies more consistent as well. For example, the 97 and 98 on weekends work well together, but on weekdays during midday they run 1 minute apart then only a 97X in between. Those 97X's should be eliminated as they are confusing when they end at Tunney's Pasture or Hunt Club Loop, the 97 and 98 should run 7/8 minutes apart (or 6 minutes if the frequency is adjusted to 12 minutes on each) with the 99 providing extra capacity every 30 minutes during midday. If capacity on the West Transitway is an issue, the 98 could be extended to Lincoln Fields or Baseline.

Another issue point is the West Transitway, where the 96 runs varying frequencies - 10 minutes on Saturdays, 12 minutes at midday on weekdays, 15 minutes other times except in the peak direction. IMO, a consistent 15 minute frequency should be provided there (every second trip to Stittsville), with the 93 also extended to Hurdman every 30 minutes during off-peak periods that the 96 runs more frequently (currently extended early evening trips would also be extended from LeBreton to Hurdman from roughly 6:30 to 9:00 pm). During peak periods, the terminus should remain LeBreton due to downtown capacity issues and those buses often are coming on or off an east-end express route.

[OttawaSteve]

Also, as long we are working with Transitways, we should make use of its flexibility to reduce transfers. Transit riders dislike transfers and study after study has confirmed that.

In an ideal world, yes, we would take advantage of this greatest strength of the Transitway system. But in reality the Transitway's greatest strength has become its greatest weakness. The fact is that, during afternoon rush hours, the Transitway between Tunney's and Hurdman is operating at capacity. Even with two OC supervisors on locaton (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ottawabusgallery/6173973320/) at Mackenzie King eastbound on weekday afternoons to speed buses through the station, backlogs as far as Bank or Kent are now a daily occurrence (I recently clocked a trip between Kent and Mackenzie King as taking about 20 minutes -- although OC still schedules 17 minutes for trips on trunk routes eastbound between LeBreton and Hurdman during PM peak... tellingly, though, the timetables for eastbound express routes no longer give a Hurdman time point).

You are absolutely correct in stating that "riders dislike transfers." Riders hate transfers. However, the obstacle we are facing here is not the limitations of budget or infrastructure or political will, but rather passenger psychology. And while psychology may be irrational (as it certainly is in this case), it is also malleable.

Passengers! You can stand on Slater Street for 30 minutes "craning your neck" and then battling crowds to try to catch your express bus. Or you can arrive at the stop and jump onto the first bus -- any bus! -- that shows up, and be whisked out a spacious, heated, amenity-filled suburban transit hub, where you then wait in comfort and luxury for your local route to arrive, which it does, more frequently and more reliably, since there are fewer operational challenges to running a short local feeder route than a tripper that must cross the entire city two or three times in the course of an afternoon.

Express routes are killing the viability of the entire system, and it's time to fight back with a war on customers' perception that they are the only desirable option.

[eternallyme]

The inner city routes, on the other hand, during peak periods seem to be less crowded than during off-peak periods. That is a pure sign that frequencies need to be increased. Since they should all be on Rideau Street and other streets, the main overcrowding issue does not apply to them during peak periods as much, although the excess of STO buses can be an issue.

[Kitchissippi]

At the very least, they should think about the morning and afternoon rush hours differently. Maybe keep the AM express buses, but then in the afternoon, have a trunk service to the suburbs with frequent local routes — the buses at the suburban stations could even cue up and "go-as-they're-filled" so that waiting times are minimized. If the express routes and (truncated) local routes are consistently numbered to share the same last digits as most already are, there should be little confusion.

People are usually more in a rush in the morning. A different set-up in the afternoon could even be a boost to the shopping centres located at the transfer stations.

[Uhuniau]

In an ideal world, yes, we would take advantage of this greatest strength of the Transitway system. But in reality the Transitway's greatest strength has become its greatest weakness.

It always was its greatest weakness.

[Uhuniau]

You are absolutely correct in stating that "riders dislike transfers." Riders hate transfers.

A) that's crap.

B) that's crap.

C) what do riders hate more? transfers, or spending up to 25 minutes moving three blocks in GOOD traffic conditions? I'll take transfers.

The key to making transfers more attractive, besides getting the damn buses out of downtown in better time in the pm rush, is to have transfer points that are themselves attractive. Give people something to do if they have to kill 10 or 20 minutes at a transfer hub. The Transitway fails at this, miserably, and deliberately; there are now fewer transitway stations with mere convenience stores in them than there were a decade ago; new transitway stations have been built with maximum user-inconvenience built into them (Bayshore, New Baseline), and with opportunities for integration with surrounding uses utterly squandered (Terry Fox).

This is because the people who plan such things never, ever, ever take the transit system they design for the rest of us.

[Uhuniau]

Express routes are killing the viability entire system, and it's time to fight back with a war on customers' perception that they are the only desirable option.

No.

It's time to end that war.

Go nuclear.

"OC Transpo announced today that, effective Tuesday, January 3, 2012, all afternoon peak-period and express routes are cancelled, permanently. All resources previously devoted to the cancelled routes will be re-allocated to provide additional service on regular Transitway routes 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 101, and 102, and on regular local routes in Orleans, Beacon Hill Riverside South, South Keys, Barrhaven, Kanata, and Stittsville.

OC Transpo sincerely apologizes for the past thirty years of fucking this up."

[Uhuniau]

The inner city routes, on the other hand, during peak periods seem to be less crowded than during off-peak periods.

I don't share that observation at all.

[eternallyme]

No.

It's time to end that war.

Go nuclear.

"OC Transpo announced today that, effective Tuesday, January 3, 2012, all afternoon peak-period and express routes are cancelled, permanently. All resources previously devoted to the cancelled routes will be re-allocated to provide additional service on regular Transitway routes 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 101, and 102, and on regular local routes in Orleans, Beacon Hill Riverside South, South Keys, Barrhaven, Kanata, and Stittsville.

OC Transpo sincerely apologizes for the past thirty years of fucking this up."

It needs to be a multi-year process, not a sudden sharp change like that.

The first thing I would do is align the local and express routes to be nearly identical in the suburbs, at least on weekdays. That way, there is consistency between the two routings so that passenger patterns can be established. Orleans comes fairly close to such but Kanata and Barrhaven need significant reorganization. Some of those local routes will require deviations on weekends as not all will operate then. Some renumbering is also in order where the express route and implied local route (i.e. 21 and 121) both exist but are nowhere near each other.

Once that is done, it should be time to ween out some express routes. Orleans will likely need to be done first since the LRT terminus at Blair provides an opportunity for a full-scale transfer point by extending most local routes there. In Kanata and Barrhaven it will be trickier since just ending express routes requires two transfers to get downtown, which would not help ridership at all. One transfer is generally acceptable, but two is not, especially for work trips. Once the LRT is extended westward, then those areas can be adjusted as well.

Inside the Greenbelt, there are only seven direct-to-downtown routes during peak periods: 24, 40, 41, 43, 67, 69 (an express route) and 176.

24 should be realigned alongside the nearby 194 into a single route, allowing for two-way local service in Beacon Hill during peak periods. Later on (perhaps 2014 or so), they should be truncated back to Blair under another designation, say 125.

40 would lose all its value if the O-Train is extended south towards Leitrim and across to Gatineau. At that time, the 40 should be eliminated or converted to a peak feeder.

41 should be renumbered as 110, combined with parts of the 8, 112 and 192, and cut back to Hurdman with all-day service provided. That should take place in 2012.

43 is an odd one. Since it provides service in conjunction with the 143, it has some value while the 143 is practically useless as I propose realigning the 114. One possibility is to cut the 43, convert the 143 to a peak feeder to Hurdman and run the 114 all day on that route. But that is a big step in one year. I'd wait for the O-Train to be extended and improved then cut it.

67 runs on its own for much of the route, and would need to exist at least to Lincoln Fields. It might be logical to cut it back, and operate the 67 as a feeder under another number (say, 174, as I propose the current 174 should be eliminated).

69 is the only express-fare route within the Greenbelt. With the alternatives quite poor at the moment, I would do that one in stages. First step is to make it cover more ground (get it out of the shadow of the 97) and also drop the express fare. Once the LRT gets going, then cut it back to Lincoln Fields as a peak feeder under another number (say, 179).

176 should be truncated back to Tunney's Pasture at all time periods, except in the morning peak southbound and afternoon peak northbound where it should run to/from LeBreton for transfer connections. That should take place in 2012.

[Uhuniau]

Soaking off the bandaid will only give time, in the context of a four-year municipal election cycle, for everyone and his dog and his dog's fleas to put political pressure on City Clowncil.

Rip off the bandaid all at once, and well before 2014.

[Ottawan]

Soaking off the bandaid will only give time, in the context of a four-year municipal election cycle, for everyone and his dog and his dog's fleas to put political pressure on City Clowncil.

City Clowncil. Sometimes you give us some real gems.

[lrt's friend]

40 would lose all its value if the O-Train is extended south towards Leitrim and across to Gatineau. At that time, the 40 should be eliminated or converted to a peak feeder.

You don't know what you are talking about. An O-Train extension is not a substitute. First of all, the 40 does not go to Leitrim and the O-Train provides no service to the neighbourhood involved. Also, while it is true that the 40 provides direct service to Gatineau, many of those passengers are picked up along the Transitway. The O-Train simply bypasses most of those passengers. Also, the 40 provides direct service not only to downtown but also Billings Bridge and Hurdman. The O-Train does not accomplish any of that. What are we trying to accomplish? Maximum inconvenience for the most people? It has been said that one transfer is acceptable. The problem is that more and more people have a destination other than downtown. This means 2 or 3 transfers in many cases. This is not a winning proposition for new transit riders. In fact, it will turn off many existing riders. The fact of the matter is that while Calgary's C-Train has been enormously successful, part of its success revolves around a plan to concentrate employment in downtown Calgary. That is not the case in Ottawa and is not possible in Ottawa given the geography and other limitations. Calgary's transit system is not effective for moving people between two non-downtown destinations.

[lrt's friend]

Give people something to do if they have to kill 10 or 20 minutes at a transfer hub.

Good grief, if we are expecting people to wait 10 or 20 minutes during peak periods, then my previous statement is unequivocal, you are going to lose ridership. This is also totally unrealistic given the location of Baseline, Lincoln Fields and Hurdman stations, incidentally the busiest transfer stations. This is another symptom of a problem where we are trying to convert a commuter rapid transit system into an urban transit system. This is simply not going to work well.

[Uhuniau]

City Clowncil. Sometimes you give us some real gems.

I totally stole that, as all great artists do.

[Uhuniau]

Good grief, if we are expecting people to wait 10 or 20 minutes during peak periods, then my previous statement is unequivocal, you are going to lose ridership.

10 minutes outbound at peak isn't unreasonable.

If the transfers are short, no one cares.

If the transfers are longer, don't let the pax get bored.

Basic shit. OC Transpo doesn't get it, though. Never have. Never will until the outfit is burned to the ground (metaphorically) and rebuilt.

[Uhuniau]

That is not the case in Ottawa and is not possible in Ottawa given the geography and other limitations. Calgary's transit system is not effective for moving people between two non-downtown destinations.

What geography?

What limitations?

If not downtown, far larger amounts of Ottawa's employment (and its unemployment, for that matter) could be built within humping distance of the existing Bus Crappid Transitway, next century's LRT, and the existing O-Train.

We keep making different decisions, though, and wonder why the outcome doesn't change.

[lrt's friend]

What geography?

What limitations?

If not downtown, far larger amounts of Ottawa's employment (and its unemployment, for that matter) could be built within humping distance of the existing Bus Crappid Transitway, next century's LRT, and the existing O-Train.

We keep making different decisions, though, and wonder why the outcome doesn't change.

The city has height restrictions downtown and I support those restrictions. Plus, we have placed our rapid transit system in possibly the most inconvenient location possible, running through green space and next to the Queensway. This really limits development possibilities. So we end up building employment centres far from rapid transit. For example, the former Nortel site, the former JDS site, even the Kanata North business park is no where near rapid transit. And of course, future plans for rapid transit involve park n ride lots, not employment next to many of the stations.

[Uhuniau]

The city has height restrictions downtown and I support those restrictions. Plus, we have placed our rapid transit system in possibly the most inconvenient location possible, running through green space and next to the Queensway.

Calgary's C-Train is even more highway-oriented than the Transitway is. That's one of the big hits against it.

This really limits development possibilities. So we end up building employment centres far from rapid transit. For example, the former Nortel site, the former JDS site, even the Kanata North business park is no where near rapid transit. And of course, future plans for rapid transit involve park n ride lots, not employment next to many of the stations.

None of those things say anything about our downtown. And Calgary has plenty of equivalents of the suburban business park.

One major thing Calgary does have going for it: no stupid "Green" belt.