Impact of Cycling Infrastructure on Transit

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Transit is more than the Confederation Line. The current city council has had no interest in expanding public transit to make downtown more accessible. This is where bike and transit priorities come head to head. When you build bike tracks on transit routes, it becomes much more difficult to add transit priority, if not impossible.

In the case of Montreal Road it is utterly impossible, and the political decision has already been made to favour cycling over transit, condemning Vanier and the near-east end to a permanent transit ghettohood status.

And yet the cycling lobby insists it never wins. Very clearly they have in the Montreal Road project, but they are still complaining about it.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by zzptichka

There will be no cycle tracks on Elgin. The all-powerful cycling lobby somehow dropped the ball on this project.
And whoops, still no transit priority but heaps of car storage space instead. Who would've thought?

How much "car storage" space will there be in the redrawn Elgin, compared to status quo?

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Transit is more than the Confederation Line. The current city council has had no interest in expanding public transit to make downtown more accessible.

Well, not to make it more accessible to people who already live in fairly close proximity to it, anyway, but boy, if you live in a distant suburb, this council wants to whisk you downtown on a train in under half an hour.

They just have no interest in fixing the problems that cause buses coming along surface streets, from other close-in urban communities, to take up to an hour to accomplish the same thing.

If you live near the downtown core, and want rapid transit access to the downtown core, you have to move further away from the downtown core, a problem which is only going to get worse as trunk transit routes are degraded to make more room for cycle tracks.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Well, not to make it more accessible to people who already live in fairly close proximity to it, anyway, but boy, if you live in a distant suburb, this council wants to whisk you downtown on a train in under half an hour.

They just have no interest in fixing the problems that cause buses coming along surface streets, from other close-in urban communities, to take up to an hour to accomplish the same thing.

If you live near the downtown core, and want rapid transit access to the downtown core, you have to move further away from the downtown core, a problem which is only going to get worse as trunk transit routes are degraded to make more room for cycle tracks.

Personally, I would settle for increased frequency, especially off peak. I’d much rather know a bus will be there every 10 minutes than shave a couple minutes off my trip.

But there is no interest in true high frequency transit. They continue to cut frequency on busy routes through urban higher density neighbourhoods, and then blame government cuts and other factors on falling ridership. It’s as if they are unaware of the universal correlation between frequency cuts and ridership.

I still see cycle tracks as a very minor factor in transit speed, given that such a small percentage of transit routes are affected. Parking and driving lanes are much bigger culprits.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by phil235

Personally, I would settle for increased frequency, especially off peak. I’d much rather know a bus will be there every 10 minutes than shave a couple minutes off my trip.

But there is no interest in true high frequency transit. They continue to cut frequency on busy routes through urban higher density neighbourhoods, and then blame government cuts and other factors on falling ridership. It’s as if they are unaware of the universal correlation between frequency cuts and ridership.

I still see cycle tracks as a very minor factor in transit speed, given that such a small percentage of transit routes are affected. Parking and driving lanes are much bigger culprits.

On the east side every route except the 18 has been affected. The 6, 7, and 19 by Beachwood, the 14 by Mcarthur, and the 12 by the planned removal of transit lanes on Montreal Road. Meanwhile Donald, which has limited transit service has received no bicycle infrastructure.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by acottawa

On the east side every route except the 18 has been affected. The 6, 7, and 19 by Beachwood, the 14 by Mcarthur, and the 12 by the planned removal of transit lanes on Montreal Road. Meanwhile Donald, which has limited transit service has received no bicycle infrastructure.

Do we know what the impact has been, statistically speaking?

Not sure about Beechwood, but it would be hard to make the 12 slower. The real issue is the opportunity cost with respect to transit priorities measures.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by phil235

Do we know what the impact has been, statistically speaking?

Not sure about Beechwood, but it would be hard to make the 12 slower. The real issue is the opportunity cost with respect to transit priorities measures.

I don't know about that. You would be surprised what can be done.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by zzptichka

Not many pedestrians and moving cars either.

And yet lots of parked cars. Granted these are probably residents and employees rather than customers. But this forum tends to totally dismiss the need for street parking. Granted it is ridiculous that buses, bikers and cars all have to share one lane because outside of rush hour you can park in the small section closest to the Vanier Parkway.

[PHrenetic]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

And yet lots of parked cars. Granted these are probably residents and employees rather than customers. But this forum tends to totally dismiss the need for street parking. Granted it is ridiculous that buses, bikers and cars all have to share one lane because outside of rush hour you can park in the small section closest to the Vanier Parkway.

Good Day.
....and therein is a tiny tale.......
in that just after they had finished reconstruction of that two-block of Beechwood, (and ended left turns off Crichton to eastbound Beechwood),

there was NO parking on either side for that span..... and bicycles, cars, AND buses flowed so very smoothly. in both directions.

It lasted for two months...and magically thereupon reappeared that tiny three-car (if they park properly) spot. And eastbound traffic is now once again a disaster as the lanes come across the bridge, force-merge (with much anger), and then wildly split and re-split for the left turns to MacKay and Springfield.
No parking there would allow proper flow across the bridge, and proper left turn splits (which are necessary since there is no left onto Crichton).
And there is plenty of parking available just behind on Barrette.
So much for plans and traffic control.

Blech!

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by phil235

Do we know what the impact has been, statistically speaking?

Not sure about Beechwood, but it would be hard to make the 12 slower. The real issue is the opportunity cost with respect to transit priorities measures.

According to the open-house boards for the Montreal Road project, the new traffic-and-bike-lanes configuration is expected to increase the amount time it takes the 12 to pass through the affected portion of Montreal Road by at least a minute.

That's part of the reason why they are pulling out so many bus stops in the process, trying to buy back a few of those lost seconds.

And now the 12 won't even go all the way into the downtown core any more.

Progress!

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by PHrenetic

No parking there would allow proper flow across the bridge, and proper left turn splits (which are necessary since there is no left onto Crichton).

It would also allow for Beechwood routes to get back their stops closer to the Vanier Parkway and Crichton, and re-establish a convenient transfer to/from route 9 and between routes 6, 7, and 19.

Why OCTranspo is hell-bent on destroying every bus-to-bus connection that it can, and eliminate any network functionality, is hard for a transit user to comprehend.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

And yet lots of parked cars. Granted these are probably residents and employees rather than customers. But this forum tends to totally dismiss the need for street parking. Granted it is ridiculous that buses, bikers and cars all have to share one lane because outside of rush hour you can park in the small section closest to the Vanier Parkway.

I don't think anyone is arguing that the city should totally ban street parking. Many (myself included) do question the need for on street parking on arterial roads and many major collectors. It is rare to get a parking spot directly in front of the business you are visiting. Instead, people can walk a block or two from the nearest side street.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

According to the open-house boards for the Montreal Road project, the new traffic-and-bike-lanes configuration is expected to increase the amount time it takes the 12 to pass through the affected portion of Montreal Road by at least a minute.

That's part of the reason why they are pulling out so many bus stops in the process, trying to buy back a few of those lost seconds.

And now the 12 won't even go all the way into the downtown core any more.

Progress!

Well, there were way too many stops. Not on the portion in question, but my favourite were the eastbound stops on both sides of St. Laurent.

A minute doesn't sound like a huge impediment, if it is a tradeoff for a better pedestrian environment and safer bike routes. As I mentioned, I would always make that trade if we could get higher frequencies on those kind of streets.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by phil235

Well, there were way too many stops. Not on the portion in question, but my favourite were the eastbound stops on both sides of St. Laurent.

A minute doesn't sound like a huge impediment, if it is a tradeoff for a better pedestrian environment and safer bike routes. As I mentioned, I would always make that trade if we could get higher frequencies on those kind of streets.

The current city council (and particularly the mayor) will not invest in higher frequencies. Even if savings could be found, that money would be put back into general city finances to hold the budget.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by phil235

Well, there were way too many stops. Not on the portion in question, but my favourite were the eastbound stops on both sides of St. Laurent.

Given the configuration of the signals, and the adjacent stops for north-south service on St-Laurent, the both-side stops make perfect sense from a transit-user perspective.

A minute doesn't sound like a huge impediment, if it is a tradeoff for a better pedestrian environment and safer bike routes. As I mentioned, I would always make that trade if we could get higher frequencies on those kind of streets.

If a minute isn't a huge impediment, then why is OC Transpo trying to squeeze a few seconds of time-savings out of routes by slashing the number of stops, then calling it a massive improvement?

Service on the 12 (and other routes, like those on Bank) have steadily lost a minute here, a minute there, for a decade or more. What's a minute? It's one more damn minute that I'm getting kind of tired of having quietly stolen.

There is absolutely zero indication that OC Transpo plans to increase frequencies on the 12 or any other trunk line in the urban core. Even if they did, without other measures to stop clusterbusing, there's not a great deal of advantage, other than that it would add much-needed physical capacity.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The current city council (and particularly the mayor) will not invest in higher frequencies. Even if savings could be found, that money would be put back into general city finances to hold the budget.

If savings can be found within OC Transpo's envelope, that resource will be put into bolstering transit service in the suburbs.

The old 2, and for a while the 12 post-split, ran almost exclusively on artics. Starting in about 2010 or 2011, a very large proportion of the 12's daily runs were shifted over to 40-footers. Why?

Because the artics were "needed" for suburban routes.

So operating (and capital) resources are prioritized for the suburbs. Road space is prioritized for drivers and now cyclists.

What's left for truly urban transit? Not a hell of a lot.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Given the configuration of the signals, and the adjacent stops for north-south service on St-Laurent, the both-side stops make perfect sense from a transit-user perspective.

Well, it does and it doesn't. If improved travel time is your objective, having a stop on either side of the intersection does not further that objective (at least for passengers riding through on the 12). I've never seen that configuration anywhere else, so it can't be a best practice.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by phil235

Well, it does and it doesn't. If improved travel time is your objective, having a stop on either side of the intersection does not further that objective (at least for passengers riding through on the 12). I've never seen that configuration anywhere else, so it can't be a best practice.

It also happens where there is no transfer at that intersection. It was the first thing I noticed when I moved to Ottawa. A full number 1 on Bank street it might be faster to walk without even heavy traffic.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

It also happens where there is no transfer at that intersection. It was the first thing I noticed when I moved to Ottawa. A full number 1 on Bank street it might be faster to walk without even heavy traffic.

Some of these problems are often caused by the fact that there is a traffic signal every block and none of them are coordinated. Some locals may like this as a traffic calming measure. So, slow transit may be by design or as a result of keeping traffic in general very slow.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by phil235

Well, it does and it doesn't. If improved travel time is your objective, having a stop on either side of the intersection does not further that objective (at least for passengers riding through on the 12). I've never seen that configuration anywhere else, so it can't be a best practice.

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.