Impact of Cycling Infrastructure on Transit

[lrt's friend]

The planners time transfers. If the plans don't work, that is your problem. We tried, didn't work this time. Better luck next time.

Timed transfers are planned late at night. I have seen this before. Your bus leaves just before the train arrives or more likely the reverse, you arrive on the your bus just after the train departs. At least trains will hopefully follow schedules better.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Are you measuring bus travel time, or human travel time? Because when I can't make an infrequent and unpredictable bus-to-bus connection because my bus is stranded on the near side of an intersection where a stop has been removed, while the connecting bus I would otherwise have been able to transfer to comes, and then goes, before I can even get off the bus I'm on, then backtrack across a six-lane suburban-geometry intersection, possibly twice depending on travel direction, to meet that other bus, then my travel time, as the human, is not improved.

Nope, but as the non-transferring human on the 12, I save a minute on my trip.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by phil235

Nope, but as the non-transferring human on the 12, I save a minute on my trip.

Where is this minute saved?

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The planners time transfers. If the plans don't work, that is your problem. We tried, didn't work this time. Better luck next time.

Timed transfers are planned late at night. I have seen this before. Your bus leaves just before the train arrives or more likely the reverse, you arrive on the your bus just after the train departs. At least trains will hopefully follow schedules better.

Given the completely atrocious performance of drivers on the incumbent system, who can never seem to depart from major hub stations or non-hub origins on anything resembling time, I have zero confidence in "timed transfers".

In any even, timed transfers are only planned (and will fail) at the bus-LRT interface. It is impossible to co-ordinate such things from bus to bus where major trunk routes intersect, which is why it is so valuable to have those intersecting stops as close together as possible at the intersection. It is also why it is so frustrating that OC Transpo's endless stop "optimization", "Better Bus Stop" projects, and far-side-fetishism keep ripping apart these little seams of the non-LRT/BRT transit system.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Given the completely atrocious performance of drivers on the incumbent system, who can never seem to depart from major hub stations or non-hub origins on anything resembling time, I have zero confidence in "timed transfers".

In any even, timed transfers are only planned (and will fail) at the bus-LRT interface. It is impossible to co-ordinate such things from bus to bus where major trunk routes intersect, which is why it is so valuable to have those intersecting stops as close together as possible at the intersection. It is also why it is so frustrating that OC Transpo's endless stop "optimization", "Better Bus Stop" projects, and far-side-fetishism keep ripping apart these little seams of the non-LRT/BRT transit system.

This becomes a little less problematic if we offer real frequent service (10 minutes or better) so that we never wait long for a transfer. 'Timed transfers' always scare me because it goes hand and hand with lousy frequency. If you miss the 'timed transfer', you are screwed.

Perhaps this discussion should be relocated to a better thread since we are no longer talking about cycling.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Where is this minute saved?

The bus doesn’t stop twice in the span of 50 metres.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by phil235

The bus doesn’t stop twice in the span of 50 metres.

That only saves a minute if one of those stops always takes a minute to serve.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

That only saves a minute if one of those stops always takes a minute to serve.

Sometimes the delay is a full minute if you miss the light for a stop before the light and then stop again after. How many transfers do we really have most of the time on the Ottawa bus system? The 40 people on the bus saving 1-2 minutes should outweigh 2-3 people transferring missing their transfer 20% of the time and waiting another 10 minutes.

All this is way off topic of cycling in Ottawa but is somewhat related like the three parking spots on Beechwood is indicative of the Ottawa attitude to do everything for the minority even if it inconvenience the majority.

[zzptichka]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

All this is way off topic of cycling in Ottawa but is somewhat related like the three parking spots on Beechwood is indicative of the Ottawa attitude to do everything for the minority even if it inconvenience the majority.

In Ottawa there is minority, there is majority and there is BIA that trumps everything.

[Catenary]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

And yet it still requires transit service, so that's a thing.

There are some more sanctimonious members of the cycling lobby in this town who want buses off the streets entirely. This is not conducive to building a non-auto transportation balance.

I know quite a few people who would consider themselves advocates for cycling in Ottawa. I've never met one who thinks we should get rid of buses. If you advocate for cycling, you almost certainly understand that the issue is cars and not buses.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Catenary

I know quite a few people who would consider themselves advocates for cycling in Ottawa. I've never met one who thinks we should get rid of buses. If you advocate for cycling, you almost certainly understand that the issue is cars and not buses.

I've encountered more than a few anti-bus members of the local cycling community.

At one or another of the open houses of late (either Elgin or Montreal Road), I had a member of the bike local explain that there was no need for bus service along the street once LRT opens. Because LRT. Kilometers away.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

I've encountered more than a few anti-bus members of the local cycling community.

At one or another of the open houses of late (either Elgin or Montreal Road), I had a member of the bike local explain that there was no need for bus service along the street once LRT opens. Because LRT. Kilometers away.

buses are the biggest threat to bicycles, correct? Get rid of them.

[zzptichka]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

I've encountered more than a few anti-bus members of the local cycling community.

At one or another of the open houses of late (either Elgin or Montreal Road), I had a member of the bike local explain that there was no need for bus service along the street once LRT opens. Because LRT. Kilometers away.

Cool story bro.

I once saw a man defecate on a floor in a bus. Not saying that all bus advocates do that but I think i'm on to something.

Seriously though, you are exactly this guy you described in your post. You are explaining everyone here that there is no need for cycling service along this street because bus can take you everywhere within mere 2 hours and 3 transfers.

[Catenary]

Originally Posted by zzptichka

Cool story bro.

I once saw a man defecate on a floor in a bus. Not saying that all bus advocates do that but I think i'm on to something.

Seriously though, you are exactly this guy you described in your post. You are explaining everyone here that there is no need for cycling service along this street because bus can take you everywhere within mere 2 hours and 3 transfers.

And let's remember that cyclists are generally just trying to get somewhere without dying; which can be accomplished easily with proper street design. The real issue is cars, but that seems to have been overlooked with the creation of this thread.

And regarding cycling advocates who don't like transit, I'll clarity my statement. I've never met a cycling advocate who is a member of a bicycle advocacy group who thinks buses should be removed. These people are well aware that the bus is their backup plan in some situations, and that the real enemy is the single passenger automobile and curbside parking.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by zzptichka

You are explaining everyone here that there is no need for cycling service along this street because bus can take you everywhere within mere 2 hours and 3 transfers.

I don't recall having said anything of the sort, but the 80s were a hell of a time.

I'm all for adding all kinds of cycling infrastructure.

I'm not all for adding it where it creates physical conflict with transit passengers, and results in impaired performance of transit buses.

And I'm super-skeptical of the mindset that wants dedicated cycling infracture on ALL of Wellington AND Sparks AND Queen AND Albert AND Slater along with the highly-successful lanes on Laurier. Because believe me, that's what a good chunk of the bike lobby wants, and will likely get, no matter how badly it screws up bus service within the core and out into the older inner ring of suburbs and back.

Thanks, mods for creating a separate thread.

[Catenary]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

I don't recall having said anything of the sort, but the 80s were a hell of a time.

I'm all for adding all kinds of cycling infrastructure.

I'm not all for adding it where it creates physical conflict with transit passengers, and results in impaired performance of transit buses.

And I'm super-skeptical of the mindset that wants dedicated cycling infracture on ALL of Wellington AND Sparks AND Queen AND Albert AND Slater along with the highly-successful lanes on Laurier. Because believe me, that's what a good chunk of the bike lobby wants, and will likely get, no matter how badly it screws up bus service within the core and out into the older inner ring of suburbs and back.

Thanks, mods for creating a separate thread.

There is no dedicated infrastructure on Queen, nor is any planned on the remaining bit of street that haven't opened yet. In addition, the bike lane on Lyon was removed to facilitate bus service.

On Elgin, the city decided against overwhelming public opinion to reject cycle tracks, keep street parking, and instead reduce the speed limit to 30 km/h and paint sharrows down the middle of the road. This will negatively affect bus service and cycling, but hey the "bike lobby" gets what they want right?

[lrt's friend]

It is insanity to allow bicycles to drive down the middle of traffic lanes.

[Multi-modal]

Originally Posted by Catenary

On Elgin, the city decided against overwhelming public opinion to reject cycle tracks, keep street parking, and instead reduce the speed limit to 30 km/h and paint sharrows down the middle of the road. This will negatively affect bus service and cycling, but hey the "bike lobby" gets what they want right?

I'm actually of the opinion that traffic will want to move close to 30-40 km/h with the raised intersections and other measures they are implementing... so I would be comfortable cycling in the middle of the lane between approximately Gladstone and Lisgar. Its south of Gladstone under the highway that they really dropped the ball.

Besides, I'd rather see wider sidewalks on Elgin than cycle tracks and narrow sidewalks. I am normally pro cycle track, but I can make exceptions: that section of Elgin, Montreal Road through Vanier, and some others.

[Catenary]

Originally Posted by Multi-modal

I'm actually of the opinion that traffic will want to move close to 30-40 km/h with the raised intersections and other measures they are implementing... so I would be comfortable cycling in the middle of the lane between approximately Gladstone and Lisgar. Its south of Gladstone under the highway that they really dropped the ball.

Besides, I'd rather see wider sidewalks on Elgin than cycle tracks and narrow sidewalks. I am normally pro cycle track, but I can make exceptions: that section of Elgin, Montreal Road through Vanier, and some others.

I don't disagree with you, more just making the point that the "bike lobby" doesn't always get their way. I agree that wider sidewalks would be great, the real issue is that virtually nobody was asking for parking.

The real disappointment is Hawthorne, which is basically getting nothing, despite connecting the canal pathways to Main street.

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by Catenary

I don't disagree with you, more just making the point that the "bike lobby" doesn't always get their way. I agree that wider sidewalks would be great, the real issue is that virtually nobody was asking for parking.

The real disappointment is Hawthorne, which is basically getting nothing, despite connecting the canal pathways to Main street.

IIRC Hawthorne is supposed to get a westbound cycle track, with eastbound cyclists routed to Graham Ave.

Agree that the real fail with the Elgin design is the 4 lane traffic sewer arterial with no bike facilities whatsoever between Gladstone and the Pretoria bridge.