Ottawa Rapid Transit Network developments

[c_speed3108]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

My impression is that all express buses will be terminated at Tunney's Pasture. The same from the south at Hurdman.

During earlier parts of the planning of the tunnel, there was a plan to build a new bridge across the Rideau to maintain service from the south end, but someone decided that this was too expensive and it would be unfair to cancel the express buses in the east end but not other parts of the city. As matter of fairness, the planners decided that all express buses should be cancelled by the time the first leg of LRT opens.

It doesn't surprise me that the second bridge got yanked. As for the west end there is really no technical reason why the bus can't stay since the LRT will be underground and the buses will already be on Scott and Albert streets during construction. This will probably be a question of the behaviour of the masses really. Very little of the route heads west so there would be a really strong argument to leave the west end roughly as it is. The commutes from there on the bus are considerably worse than the east end as it is.

People will vote with there feet. If the train the looks like the 95 at rush hour I suspect people will be screaming for express buses. If it looks like the current O-train I think the argument to transfer - particularly in the east end (as it is for a significant trip) will be there.

I was never an express rider when I lived in the east end, but I certainly knew more than a few. They are a real tricky bunch. They won't ride the 95 for sure. They want (demand!) seats most of the time. You here comments like "I am not going to stand at my age" and such and these people are not overly old - perhaps 40s or 50s.

The trouble with these people is they generally have the means to drive so they are really on the edge of who you can get to ride transit....discomfort, unreliability, strikes, or whatever and they jump in the car...or scream at their elected representatives.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by c_speed3108

It doesn't surprise me that the second bridge got yanked. As for the west end there is really no technical reason why the bus can't stay since the LRT will be underground and the buses will already be on Scott and Albert streets during construction. This will probably be a question of the behaviour of the masses really. Very little of the route heads west so there would be a really strong argument to leave the west end roughly as it is. The commutes from there on the bus are considerably worse than the east end as it is.

People will vote with there feet. If the train the looks like the 95 at rush hour I suspect people will be screaming for express buses. If it looks like the current O-train I think the argument to transfer - particularly in the east end (as it is for a significant trip) will be there.

I was never an express rider when I lived in the east end, but I certainly knew more than a few. They are a real tricky bunch. They won't ride the 95 for sure. They want (demand!) seats most of the time. You here comments like "I am not going to stand at my age" and such and these people are not overly old - perhaps 40s or 50s.

The trouble with these people is they generally have the means to drive so they are really on the edge of who you can get to ride transit....discomfort, unreliability, strikes, or whatever and they jump in the car...or scream at their elected representatives.

We will see how they deal with bus traffic during conversion. As it stands, all those express buses from the west continue to Hurdman. The tunnel will block the obvious access to Hurdman and force them onto the Nicholas and the Queensway. The alternative is to turn them back in downtown somewhere, but will that be easy to accomplish? Too many buses making too many turns downtown.

[DubberDom]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

You are muddling the figures here, picking and choosing facts as if they were in a buffet.

Return on investment does not only come from operating cost savings. Keeping the BRT also would also incur capital costs, like new buses and replacement facilities and roadways, which you have completely ignored.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't OC transpo's annual expenditures around $300Million? They will still need to buy buses and maintain when the LRT will be built. They are predicting expenditures to be $450Million /year by the time the LRT is built.
You seem to be picking and choosing your numbers.

http://www.octranspo1.com/about-octranspo/reports

If someone has the full numbers, please post

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by DubberDom

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't OC transpo's annual expenditures around $300Million? They will still need to buy buses and maintain when the LRT will be built. They are predicting expenditures to be $450Million /year by the time the LRT is built.
You seem to be picking and choosing your numbers.

http://www.octranspo1.com/about-octranspo/reports

If someone has the full numbers, please post

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

I am getting extremely angry that the only comparison is between the status quo and the alternate service delivery model as specified. I believe that the alternate service delivery model is unacceptable. We need a service delivery model that simply implements LRT and redesigns the bus network to properly accomodate it. Why are we implementing a proposal that increases walking distances and cuts service? And then to use this kind of unacceptable proposal to financially justify the implementation of LRT is infuriating. If we are expecting ridership to increase with LRT, why are we cutting bus routes that would feed into LRT?

My own community has 3 bus routes and this stupid proposal eliminates 2 of them and leaves half the community with no bus service and parts beyond the increased walking limits specified. Incidentally, those areas beyond the limit according to the city's map, are as the crow flies and not based on real walking distances. You are assumed to be able to walk across bodies of water where there is no bridge or across locations where no streets exist to get to the new 'better' bus network. Why should we pay our property taxes for this? Why should we pay for a LRT plan that is behind all of this that will at least be 10 km from our community at its closest point? The closest point being downtown itself.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I am getting extremely angry that only comparison is between the status quo and the alternate service delivery model. I believe that the alternate service delivery model is unacceptable. We need a service delivery model that simply implements LRT and redesigns the bus network to properly accomodate it. Why are we implementing a proposal that increases walking distances and cuts service? And then to use this kind of unacceptable proposal to financially justify the implementation of LRT is infuriating. If we are expecting ridership to increase with LRT, why are we cutting bus routes that would feed into LRT?

My own community has 3 bus routes and this stupid proposal eliminates 2 of them and leaves half the community with no bus service and parts beyond the increased walking limits specified. Incidentally, those areas beyond the limit according to the city's map, are as the crow flies and not based on real walking distances. You are assumed to be able to walk across bodies of water where there is no bridge or across locations where no streets exist to get to the new 'better' bus network. Why should we pay our property taxes for this? Why should we pay for a LRT plan that is behind all of this that will at least be 10 km from our community at its closest point? The closest point being downtown itself.

lrt's comment piqued my interest so I went and read the reports. Seems to be all about cost savings and cutting. Not much in there about improving transit service for citizens.

The dominant theme is: "we can cut our costs by X% and still only turn X% of our riders off of transit completely".

Another point I found interesting (sic) is the assumption that Gatineau buses will come off the Rapibus at Bayview, after which Gatineau passengers will have to transfer to take the train to downtown.

When one considers that the Rapibus is being built from the east end of Gatineau, this will require passengers to travel westward all the way across and beyond downtown Gatineau, across the river into the inner west end of Ottawa, and then transfer to the train to travel (close to half the distance they just travelled) back eastward into downtown Ottawa. Sort of like making Kanata passengers transfer at St. Laurent station in order to get to downtown Ottawa.

Once again, I am not sure if this is consistent with a goal having more people take transit via better service.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Acajack

lrt's comment piqued my interest so I went and read the reports. Seems to be all about cost savings and cutting. Not much in there about improving transit service for citizens.

The dominant theme is: "we can cut our costs by X% and still only turn X% of our riders off of transit completely".

Another point I found interesting (sic) is the assumption that Gatineau buses will come off the Rapibus at Bayview, after which Gatineau passengers will have to transfer to take the train to downtown.

When one considers that the Rapibus is being built from the east end of Gatineau, this will require passengers to travel westward all the way across and beyond downtown Gatineau, across the river into the inner west end of Ottawa, and then transfer to the train to travel (close to half the distance they just travelled) back eastward into downtown Ottawa. Sort of like making Kanata passengers transfer at St. Laurent station in order to get to downtown Ottawa.

Once again, I am not sure if this is consistent with a goal having more people take transit via better service.

I do not know whether it is the intent to have STO buses transfer at Bayview because earlier reports indicated that by 2031, the tunnel could not handle passengers from both sides of the river. In any event, there is a disturbing assumption in doing this. At the present time, Gatineau residents pay to deliver passengers to downtown Ottawa. If we transfer passengers at Bayview, then Ottawa residents will presumably be footing the bill for transporting all of those Gatineau residents the rest of the way downtown. There would need to be some sort of cost sharing formula.

Acajack: If you go to the Ottawa LRT website, you will see that cost savings is a major selling point. One of the others is time savings, which I have commented on many times and I simply do not buy.

[Kitchissippi]

Trying to provide transit services uniformly throughout the city is not that smart anyway. The farther out the suburbs people live, the less likely they made that decision with transit in mind. These people are the most expensive to service and most likely they have a car to use anyway. It is much cheaper to provide park and ride facilities and let them get to the main transit lines at their own expense.

Transit-conscious people will and do move close to where it is convenient — that is the very premise of TOD. It is smarter to concentrate efforts on areas where this is possible.

We have got to stop treating OC Transpo as if it were a slave to developers, where they build anything they want and then public transit has to respond to the needs they create. It needs to be turned around the other way.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I do not know whether it is the intent to have STO buses transfer at Bayview because earlier reports indicated that by 2031, the tunnel could not handle passengers from both sides of the river. In any event, there is a disturbing assumption in doing this. At the present time, Gatineau residents pay to deliver passengers to downtown Ottawa. If we transfer passengers at Bayview, then Ottawa residents will presumably be footing the bill for transporting all of those Gatineau residents the rest of the way downtown. There would need to be some sort of cost sharing formula.

This is a really good point. But if you were Gatineau, would you go for this? Your citizenry gets what might be less direct, worse service and on top of that you have to foot the bill for services delivered by another municipality on its territory?

[Franky]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

Why is the projected cost exponential and the alternate cost linear? How is this possible? Even if just inflation is considered, it should have a similar exponential curve (as least). That graph looks baked, who made it?

[Deez]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I am getting extremely angry that the only comparison is between the status quo and the alternate service delivery model as specified. I believe that the alternate service delivery model is unacceptable. We need a service delivery model that simply implements LRT and redesigns the bus network to properly accomodate it. Why are we implementing a proposal that increases walking distances and cuts service? And then to use this kind of unacceptable proposal to financially justify the implementation of LRT is infuriating. If we are expecting ridership to increase with LRT, why are we cutting bus routes that would feed into LRT?

My own community has 3 bus routes and this stupid proposal eliminates 2 of them and leaves half the community with no bus service and parts beyond the increased walking limits specified. Incidentally, those areas beyond the limit according to the city's map, are as the crow flies and not based on real walking distances. You are assumed to be able to walk across bodies of water where there is no bridge or across locations where no streets exist to get to the new 'better' bus network. Why should we pay our property taxes for this? Why should we pay for a LRT plan that is behind all of this that will at least be 10 km from our community at its closest point? The closest point being downtown itself.

A few notes about the alternative service delivery model and the comments above:

1) It is true to its name in the sense that it is merely a model; it is merely a network strategy that is being worked towards over the next decade and is not an end in and of itself. It fits the role of an intermediary between the strategic level planning put out by City Hall and the year-to-year route adjustments by OC Transpo. Obviously it will be vetted by service planners, politicians, and residents through various iterations of Transplans. The situation in your neighbourhood which you describe above is an example of something that would likely be looked at.

2) Reduced service coverage does not necessarily mean reduced service. If you had the option of walking 2 minutes to a bus that had a headway of 15 minutes or walking 5 minutes to a bus that had a headway of 5 minutes, which would you choose? The alternative delivery model is cognizant of the fact that wait time is perceived (almost universally in statistical models) as being longer than any other travel time component. Therefore, users' generalized cost of travel could actually be lower under the new scheme. Lower generalized cost=more competitive service.

3) Like it or not, the financial sustainability of a transit system is important. OC Transpo currently operates a network that will only continue to drop its revenue to cost ratio (already among the lowest among major cities in Canada - compare Ottawa's ~50% to Toronto's ~75%) as suburbs continue to sprawl outwards. The alternative service delivery model is a strategy to address that lack of sustainability.

To flip your property tax question back at you: Why should inner city residents pay for new extensions of service? Why should they pay for empty buses that cost 100$/hour to circulate around neighbourhoods that were never designed for transit service? And while I'm complaining, why did my income taxes fund a new subway line in Vancouver?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

It is much cheaper to provide park and ride facilities and let them get to the main transit lines at their own expense.

.

Although once they are in their cars most people are usually tempted to drive all the way. This may not be true if you are commuting from Connecticut to New York City, but in Ottawa the distances, traffic and parking costs are not so bad so as to dissuade most people from driving all the way under such a scenario...

[DubberDom]

Originally Posted by Franky

Why is the projected cost exponential and the alternate cost linear? How is this possible? Even if just inflation is considered, it should have a similar exponential curve (as least). That graph looks baked, who made it?

It was made by the same consultant who created the sales projections for Nortel.

That is the silliest graph I've ever seen.... if we used that logic, the DOW would be at 100,000+.

In their defence, the graph makes sense to city politicians since the graph pretty much represents the increases in our tax rates!!

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Deez

A few notes about the alternative service delivery model and the comments above:

1) It is true to its name in the sense that it is merely a model; it is merely a network strategy that is being worked towards over the next decade and is not an end in and of itself. It fits the role of an intermediary between the strategic level planning put out by City Hall and the year-to-year route adjustments by OC Transpo. Obviously it will be vetted by service planners, politicians, and residents through various iterations of Transplans. The situation in your neighbourhood which you describe above is an example of something that would likely be looked at.

2) Reduced service coverage does not necessarily mean reduced service. If you had the option of walking 2 minutes to a bus that had a headway of 15 minutes or walking 5 minutes to a bus that had a headway of 5 minutes, which would you choose? The alternative delivery model is cognizant of the fact that wait time is perceived (almost universally in statistical models) as being longer than any other travel time component. Therefore, users' generalized cost of travel could actually be lower under the new scheme. Lower generalized cost=more competitive service.

3) Like it or not, the financial sustainability of a transit system is important. OC Transpo currently operates a network that will only continue to drop its revenue to cost ratio (already among the lowest among major cities in Canada - compare Ottawa's ~50% to Toronto's ~75%) as suburbs continue to sprawl outwards. The alternative service delivery model is a strategy to address that lack of sustainability.

To flip your property tax question back at you: Why should inner city residents pay for new extensions of service? Why should they pay for empty buses that cost 100$/hour to circulate around neighbourhoods that were never designed for transit service? And while I'm complaining, why did my income taxes fund a new subway line in Vancouver?

1. I don't trust the politicians as they have made wild and illogical service cuts in the past and then reinstated some of them in a haphazard way.

2. I will point out to you that there is little likelihood that service will be increased on the remaining route. On the contrary, this is simply an elimination of service. Furthermore, the streamlining of service is designed to make it efficient to serve sprawl outside the Greenbelt. In other words, our loss is their gain. At some point, walking distance simply becomes too far and the alternative is to not use transit or clog up the limited number of park n ride spots.

3. I have no qualms about maintaining sustainability, but I thought LRT implementation on its own was going to reign in costs and it should by eliminating all the duplication in service towards downtown.

I should point out to you that I do not live in a new community and our community has had considerable infill housing in recent years and mostly a grid street pattern. My walking distance (on a major street) will increase from 20 m to 300 m and I am lucky. Those on back streets may exceed 1 km to the closest bus stop.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Franky

Why is the projected cost exponential and the alternate cost linear? How is this possible? Even if just inflation is considered, it should have a similar exponential curve (as least). That graph looks baked, who made it?

It makes sense, trains use a less expensive fuel, and use much less labour. If you reduce the base costs while simultaneously change what those costs are, you can change your slope. Basic econ.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

Trying to provide transit services uniformly throughout the city is not that smart anyway. The farther out the suburbs people live, the less likely they made that decision with transit in mind. These people are the most expensive to service and most likely they have a car to use anyway. It is much cheaper to provide park and ride facilities and let them get to the main transit lines at their own expense.

Transit-conscious people will and do move close to where it is convenient — that is the very premise of TOD. It is smarter to concentrate efforts on areas where this is possible.

We have got to stop treating OC Transpo as if it were a slave to developers, where they build anything they want and then public transit has to respond to the needs they create. It needs to be turned around the other way.

In other words, we should emulate every other city where transit is less successful. This really makes sense. We spend $2.1 billion to have a less successful transit system.

It is about time that we impose on developers to make sure that their developments fit in with an overall transit plan. It is time to give our transit plan equal footing to our road network plan.

As far as the use of Park n Ride lots, this is a waste of land use and inevitably they are closer to the city than where the low density sprawl is located. Park n Ride lots are not entirely successful because so often demand exceeds supply and therefore they are not a reliable way to access transit. In any event, our plan is to eliminate direct transit service to most or all of those lots once we open LRT.

I should also point out that every taxpayer within the urban transit area pays a substantial amount of their tax bill towards transit and therefore there should be a reasonable level of transit service provided throughout. I am not saying that it should be uniform service but there should be a minimum standard. Furthermore, the city collects development charges for transit in all new development. I am getting the impression that this money collected in the suburbs may not be used within those communities.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

As far as the use of Park n Ride lots, this is a waste of land use and inevitably they are closer to the city than where the low density sprawl is located. Park n Ride lots are not entirely successful because so often demand exceeds supply and therefore they are not a reliable way to access transit. In any event, our plan is to eliminate direct transit service to most or all of those lots once we open LRT.

Not to mention that the current system has succeeded in luring tens of thousands of people in Orleans, Kanata, Barrhaven, etc. (*choice* transit users) out of their cars and onto transit. Getting a significant number of North American suburbanites to leave their cars at home in the garage is something of an achievement if you ask me. So now they are going to force these people to start driving again?!?

Ottawa's park and ride system should be expanded, but this should be generally for people in outlying areas like Carleton Place, Arnprior, Cumberland Village, Russell, Embrun, Rockland, etc. Not for places like Orleans, Kanata, Barrhaven where densities are in fact quite comparable to places inside the Greenbelt like Alta Vista and Overbrook, and all of which are definitely serviceable by some form of local transit.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Deez

3) Like it or not, the financial sustainability of a transit system is important. OC Transpo currently operates a network that will only continue to drop its revenue to cost ratio (already among the lowest among major cities in Canada - compare Ottawa's ~50% to Toronto's ~75%) as suburbs continue to sprawl outwards. The alternative service delivery model is a strategy to address that lack of sustainability.

And just how financially sustainable is your average city's road network?

Most public services, be they schools, hospitals, transit and even roads, are not "financially sustainable". Sure, they try to be as creative and resourceful as they can when it comes to financing them, but in the end the reality is that taxpayers have to pay if they want the services (and also benefit from the positive *social outcomes* of the said services).

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by Acajack

And just how financially sustainable is your average city's road network?

Most public services, be they schools, hospitals, transit and even roads, are not "financially sustainable". Sure, they try to be as creative and resourceful as they can when it comes to financing them, but in the end the reality is that taxpayers have to pay if they want the services (and also benefit from the positive *social outcomes* of the said services).

A lot more than Ottawa's. Ottawa's sprawl is horrendous compared to other Canadian cities.

Basically, it's time to draw the line on developments and require grid road networks.

[eemy]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

A lot more than Ottawa's. Ottawa's sprawl is horrendous compared to other Canadian cities.

Basically, it's time to draw the line on developments and require grid road networks.

A grid network, while having certain merits (such as being easily serviced by transit and lowering travel distances), actually increases the ratio of roadway to land and doesn't necessarily reduce sprawl. Reduced lot sizes would increase household density. More importantly, how do you change commercial land use practices to be more friendly? A big box development is still a big box development, grid road network or not.