Can the city really achieve 30% transit modal share by 2021?

[lrt's friend]

Discuss!

Personally, I think the city has totally lost its way. They do not have a hope in hell of achieving 30% modal share by 2021. It started with pressing the reset button, the unnecessarily long transit strike, the ongoing driver scheduling problem, a ridiculously expensive LRT plan and out of control costs. We are heading for a spiral downward like happened in so many other cities. Fare increases leading to lower ridership leading to higher costs per passenger leading to service reductions leading to repeat. We have just recovered to prestrike ridership with a growing city and a recovering economy. This means our modal share has decreased over the last few years. We have further replaced full fare passengers with discounted student passes. We are seeing the foolishness of the O'Brien years. We have to cut service because revenue is down. But service cuts lead to reduced ridership and most of those again will be full fare passengers. I do not see the future favourably. Our LRT plan does not speed up service and it is overly optomistic concerning ridership. It serves the same customer base at the same speed as the present Transitway. Why extraordinary ridership increases? I don't buy it. The extreme cost will rob the rest of the system from making improvements to draw in new passengers. And if the current round of cuts do not accomplish the desired result, or there are further budget pressures, what will be the next round of transit cuts?

[citizen j]

So, what do you propose to turn this around?

[c_speed3108]

I think they still can if they want. Orleans for instance already has 30% give or take.

The funny thing that if we look at Orleans it is easy to see that these numbers are not achieved by building some outstanding transit service, but rather dumping transit service on whoever will take it....rather than trying to sell it. Basically pandering to whatever easy to achieve. The case of Orleans it is commutes. Local service, weekends and anything else can pretty much be dammed save the odd school route.

Most of Orleans number has been achieved by two things. Park and Rides and Express services. Both cater to people who have no interest in transferring. Is this a great way to do transit? No! but it works.

Having lived previously in the east end I could easily say that the ridership is actually being chocked off by size of park and rides. For instance the Place D'Orleans one could probably do another 20 or 30% if the space was there.


So in summary simple pandering can achieve good numbers...but maybe not good transit. They can have the numbers if they want. Good transit is something we will all be left waiting for.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by c_speed3108

I think they still can if they want. Orleans for instance already has 30% give or take.

The funny thing that if we look at Orleans it is easy to see that these numbers are not achieved by building some outstanding transit service, but rather dumping transit service on whoever will take it....rather than trying to sell it. Basically pandering to whatever easy to achieve. The case of Orleans it is commutes. Local service, weekends and anything else can pretty much be dammed save the odd school route.

Most of Orleans number has been achieved by two things. Park and Rides and Express services. Both cater to people who have no interest in transferring. Is this a great way to do transit? No! but it works.

Having lived previously in the east end I could easily say that the ridership is actually being chocked off by size of park and rides. For instance the Place D'Orleans one could probably do another 20 or 30% if the space was there.


So in summary simple pandering can achieve good numbers...but maybe not good transit. They can have the numbers if they want. Good transit is something we will all be left waiting for.

Interesting comments, but what will be the long-term impact of getting rid of transfer free trips? What you say is not very encouraging. To get better transit service, we will end up with lower ridership? What are our objectives then?

I will tell you that the hub and spoke model is not all its cracked up to be. Travel times do get longer. We have implemented this model to some degree already with the Transitways during off-peak hours. Where I live, a trip to Billings Bridge would take 10 to 15 minutes before the Transitway. Now it is double. Travel times to my office have increased by about 50% since the Transitway opened. I used to be able to easily get to my office, doctor's office, dentist office and my bank by transit. Now all of this is difficult. So I use the car for all of those trips now.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by citizen j

So, what do you propose to turn this around?

I have no magic answers because we have made some big mistakes that have already cost us ridership and therefore revenue. Just remember that ridership has finally rebounded after the strike. Now we are attacking the system a different way and inevitably there will be a loss of ridership. If we keep doing this, we never see real growth and certainly not an increase in modal share.

I am sure that routes can be made more efficient but we have to do this carefully and strategically. This is being done based on a budget directive so this is only stategic from a cost point of view. This whole business of walking a little further to get more frequent service is a crock. The number of routes which will receive marginally better service will probably not exceed a handful. Most of those will not be convenient to many neighbourhoods.

If we want to increase modal share, we need to offer real service improvements. We need to make transit more competitive with cars. We need to have transit follow real travel patterns. Going out of the way, means extending travel times. Find ways, any way, to move people to their destination faster. It could be bus lanes during peak periods, which will also produce more efficiency. It has been years since we have considered bus lanes anywhere. It could be more direct routes, which we may be attempting to do. If we really want people to use transit, we need to create a transit culture like exists in many parts of Toronto. You can live without a car, because transit service is so good. But there is no indication that we are heading in that direction. We are not going to see buses running every 5 minutes on Ottawa's main streets at 10 pm. That will enable a lot of people to just forget the car. But we don't want or can't afford to do this even in the more central parts of the city. We are now seeing that even central routes are to be cutback. And I might add, that this has happened repeatedly over the last 30 years. No wonder you can't live without a car in this city, unless you simply can't afford one.

The thought that there is any possibility that we need to cut service in order to fund the construction of the tunnel or to mitigate the costs of implementing the tunnel is totally offensive. If that is what it comes down to, we need a more affordable plan.

I will tell that part of the answer towards long-term sustainability is fares. We need people to pay a reasonable fare for the service delivered. Why should a person traveling from Bank and Gladstone to the Rideau Centre pay the same fare as someone using the 96 traveling from Stittsville to the Rideau Centre? Ottawa is geographically is becoming a very large city. Why shouldn't people traveling longer distances not pay a higher fare? I have already suggested to Diane Deans that a higher fare should be charged for traveling across the Greenbelt. If we don't do this, and the city continues to grow outside the Greenbelt as it will, then we will face further service cuts again in future years. This is not just a cost issue. It is also a revenue issue. If you are traveling a long distance by transit, it is easier to justify paying a higher fare, than for someone who routinely only travels 15 blocks.

[OttawaSteve]

To be a viable option for non-captive ridership, I think transit needs to be four things: frequent, fast, reliable, and convenient/comfortable. Transit only works when you have all four of these; remove any one and transit ceases to be competitive. (in a subsidized system, the question of affordability is a separate issue entirely)

Meeting these four requirements in turn requires three kinds of commitments, as I see it: transit-oriented infrastructure/capital investment, planning and scheduling, and day-to-day operation. Here are a few initial thoughts.

Capital investment can improve both speed and reliability of service. Setting aside the question of the nature of the transit fleet itself (the future of which is to be determined, apparently, by criteria such as Rainer Bloess's tallness), I can think of two broad issues that require addressing: 1) implementation of transit priority measures throughout the city – bus lanes, traffic signal priority, etc. Frequent service is meaningless if buses on a given route are waiting three traffic light cycles to make a left turn, or taking twenty minutes to get from the Rideau Centre to Bank and Sparks (to use a real example from the other day). These kinds of bottlenecks (and there are many, both on the transitway and across the city) both add to travel time and decrease reliability of service across the network. 2) short-term improvements to transitway infrastructure, with the aim of maximizing throughput / minimizing dwell time at busy transitway stations and improving the overall customer experience. Install real-time next bus information displays ASAP. Re-think the layout of physically large and/or busy stations and the way buses serve them (Mackenzie King, Laurier, Hurdman).

Planning and scheduling determine frequency and, to a certain extent, comfort and convenience (minimizing the impact of walking and waiting time, transfers, and on-board crowding). A financial commitment needs to be made to offering all-day frequent service on trunk routes (as has already been suggested on this board). Conduct audits not just of route efficiency but also of seemingly minor things like existing bus-stop placement (stop spacing, benefits of farside vs. nearside placement at intersections, etc.) throughout the city.

Strategies of day-to-day operation determine the difference between what a transit system looks like on paper and how it is actually experienced by its ridership, and are therefore essential to reliability, speed, and comfort. Line supervisors should be monitoring headways and crowding and adjusting service accordingly in real-time (GPS should be making this easier). In theory this is already happening, but one gets the distinct sense that there aren’t nearly enough supervisors or spare resources (extra buses on standby, e.g.) to make a meaningful difference. Delays due to traffic should be resolved in co-operation with the city’s traffic operations centre (the folks with the traffic cameras who control the traffic lights, again happening already in theory). The success of day-to-day operation should be measured by reliable on-time performance reports (not left to the Ottawa Citizen).

[lrt's friend]

Very good stuff OttawaSteve

I would add to your day to day operations comment. Get one or two people out actually riding the bus. Different routes everyday. See exactly what the average person is experiencing. Get candid opinions from riders. This may point out all kinds of issues regarding routing, timing, transfers and who knows what else.

I seem to remember a video talking about service quality measures that the TTC is implementing, all designed to make the customer experience better. OC Transpo should be looking at what the TTC is doing to try to keep customers happy.

[acottawa]

Interesting topic. I think they already have most of the low-hanging fruit: downtown workers who don't want (or can't afford to) drive downtown, students, the carless, etc. While I think it is certainly possible to increase ridership significantly, I think the types of measures necessary are not politically feasible (large tax increases to pay for more/better service, congestion charges, tolls, areas closed to traffic, disincentives for sprawl, etc.) - at least not right now.

[eternallyme]

What percentage of the ridership is on the key corridors? If those are beefed up, a 30% modal share city-wide is certainly possible even if some areas have much less transit access.

[Uhuniau]

It's not going to happen as long as transportation is viewed in isolation from land use, and as long as we keep permitting gross-segregated land use policies and stupid stupid stupid street layouts in new residential and commercial suburban areas.

If you build low-density, loopy, swirly, mono-use "communities", guess what: people will drive. Everywhere. For everything. All the time. You create a vicious cycle: everyone drives, no one takes transit, which means more land use has to cater to more car movements and car parking, which means you have to drive there to live there, which means less demand for transit, which continues the cycle.

So Ottawa, stop building around the car, and pull your head out of your 1950s ass, and maybe you'll get somewhere. Enforce a grid or semi-grid pattern on developers who insist on building swirls. Zone for main streets, not main drags. Stare down the NIMBYs, and, if need be, get Ontario laws changed to bludgeon them into oblivion.

Until Ottawa does those things, Ottawa will continue, outside a few small pockets in the core area, spiral into being a pallid, awful, wasteful, tacky, sleepy, suburb of itself. If that's what the suburbanites want, fine, but raise their taxes to pay for the actual cost of living that way; I'm sick of subsidizing it.

[McC]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

It's not going to happen as long as transportation is viewed in isolation from land use, and as long as we keep permitting gross-segregated land use policies and stupid stupid stupid street layouts in new residential and commercial suburban areas.

If you build low-density, loopy, swirly, mono-use "communities", guess what: people will drive. Everywhere. For everything. All the time. You create a vicious cycle: everyone drives, no one takes transit, which means more land use has to cater to more car movements and car parking, which means you have to drive there to live there, which means less demand for transit, which continues the cycle.

So Ottawa, stop building around the car, and pull your head out of your 1950s ass, and maybe you'll get somewhere. Enforce a grid or semi-grid pattern on developers who insist on building swirls. Zone for main streets, not main drags. Stare down the NIMBYs, and, if need be, get Ontario laws changed to bludgeon them into oblivion.

Until Ottawa does those things, Ottawa will continue, outside a few small pockets in the core area, spiral into being a pallid, awful, wasteful, tacky, sleepy, suburb of itself. If that's what the suburbanites want, fine, but raise their taxes to pay for the actual cost of living that way; I'm sick of subsidizing it.

wow, so all it will take is a tiny minority of voters' interests declaring war on the majority of voters' interests, eh? when you put it that way, it's amazing these "solutions" to Ottawa's problems haven't been implemented already. twice. yeesh. I think someone else needs to consider where his/her head is.

[Dado]

With all these middle eastern dictators being deposed, we have a unique opportunity to grant one or more of them asylum and hire them as, ahem, planning czars, to push through these needed changes.

[McC]

Originally Posted by Dado

With all these middle eastern dictators being deposed, we have a unique opportunity to grant one or more of them asylum and hire them as, ahem, planning czars, to push through these needed changes.

Mubarak single-handedly built the Cairo Metro afterall...

[Proof Sheet]

Originally Posted by Dado

With all these middle eastern dictators being deposed, we have a unique opportunity to grant one or more of them asylum and hire them as, ahem, planning czars, to push through these needed changes.

Great idea...and while we are at, we could invite the Dear Leader over...he could get things done quickly here. I hear that he can play a mean game of golf so he would get invited to lots of summer golf tournaments which is where we know most City business gets done in Ottawa.

[Proof Sheet]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Stare down the NIMBYs, and, if need be, get Ontario laws changed to bludgeon them into oblivion.

I like your can do, git er dun attitude.

[flar]

Outlaw parking lots, then people will have no choice but to ride the bus.

That's probably the deciding factor for me, the cost and hassle of parking in Gatineau, where I work. I'm a daily transitway rider, I've driven to work exactly once in the nearly two years I've been here. I get lots of reading done on the bus.

[reidjr]

Originally Posted by flar

Outlaw parking lots, then people will have no choice but to ride the bus.

That's probably the deciding factor for me, the cost and hassle of parking in Gatineau, where I work. I'm a daily transitway rider, I've driven to work exactly once in the nearly two years I've been here. I get lots of reading done on the bus.

Banning parking lots is not the way to go it would cause to to much harm to stores etc people are not going to take the bus to go out for dinner etc.The other thing is the city would have to build the lrt east-west alot faster then they want to.Now with all that said what they coiuld is do what they do in montreal charge a tax if your driving downtown.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by reidjr

.Now with all that said what they coiuld is do what they do in montreal charge a tax if your driving downtown.

What kind of tax do they charge for driving downtown in Montreal?

[reidjr]

Originally Posted by Acajack

What kind of tax do they charge for driving downtown in Montreal?

I am not sure all i know as select times they charge cars that go downtown atleast that is what i have been told.

[flar]

Never had to pay to go downtown in Montreal.

I was half joking about getting rid of parking lots. I absolutely never take the bus except to and from work. But I almost always drive aruond looking for on-street parking when I drive somewhere.