Baseline BRT EA

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

I still find it incredibly baffling that those mindsets - and the bike bros - are the only people urban councillors listen to.

LOL. The “all powerful bike lobby” is running the city!

[Lightspotting]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

And some councillors - hello, urban caucus - don't seem to want any urban transit in their wards at all, which is baffling.

Do you have any examples?

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Lightspotting

Do you have any examples?

Try and get McKenney interested in anything to do with transit that actually serves her community. Go ahead. I'll wait over here.

Fleury is still trying to sell minor tinkering with bus schedules as some sort of massive improvement for which his ward should be grateful. He is all-in on the Montreal Road plan which is going to downgrade transit on that corridor once it's in service, and never once took transit users' concerns seriously. He has no ambition to improve transit in Vanier, and along with Nussbaum screwed up the bus service on Beechwood a few years ago in order to satisfy the cyclists. The promised mitigation measures, surprise, surprise, never materialized. The only underground transportation dream plan Fleury is pushing for in his ward is the "truck tunnel", which would kill any possibility of ever extending underground transit east into Vanier/Overbrook. Enjoy those buses, poors!

Menard pays lip service to transit on Bank, and pushed for the reconfig of the Bank Street bridge without any consideration for transit impacts until after the fact, and has only committed to maybe thinking about kind of doing the absolute bare minimum possible elsewhere on Bank some time in the future to help undo that transit impact. And he's another urban councillor who is making zero effort to ensure that the urban core gets anything out of future transit plans.

If it's not a bike, they really don't care.

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Try and get McKenney interested in anything to do with transit that actually serves her community. Go ahead. I'll wait over here.

Fleury is still trying to sell minor tinkering with bus schedules as some sort of massive improvement for which his ward should be grateful. He is all-in on the Montreal Road plan which is going to downgrade transit on that corridor once it's in service, and never once took transit users' concerns seriously. He has no ambition to improve transit in Vanier, and along with Nussbaum screwed up the bus service on Beechwood a few years ago in order to satisfy the cyclists. The promised mitigation measures, surprise, surprise, never materialized. The only underground transportation dream plan Fleury is pushing for in his ward is the "truck tunnel", which would kill any possibility of ever extending underground transit east into Vanier/Overbrook. Enjoy those buses, poors!

Menard pays lip service to transit on Bank, and pushed for the reconfig of the Bank Street bridge without any consideration for transit impacts until after the fact, and has only committed to maybe thinking about kind of doing the absolute bare minimum possible elsewhere on Bank some time in the future to help undo that transit impact. And he's another urban councillor who is making zero effort to ensure that the urban core gets anything out of future transit plans.

If it's not a bike, they really don't care.

It sounds like your ideal vision for any mainstreet in the core is basically a 4-lane traffic sewer with narrow sidewalks, as long as it has bus lanes....

[J.OT13]

I think it was Menard who asked the City last week, during the STO debate and Sudd's motion on transit priorities. He asked if after Stage 3, the City would start focusing on urban transit needs. He thought he had heard that in a City report a while ago.

[On Edge]

Originally Posted by bradnixon

It sounds like your ideal vision for any mainstreet in the core is basically a 4-lane traffic sewer with narrow sidewalks, as long as it has bus lanes....

Maybe because it is more important for:
1. Hordes of people to get back and forth to work on time
2. Aunt Millie to get to her dialysis appointment
3. Halima schlep her 3 preschoolers to the supermarket and back
4. Joe get to his job interview in his suit with his portfolio
Than for:
5. Tarquin (he, his) to beat yesterday's time on his $3000 Shimano from the vegan cafe to the spandex shop.

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by On Edge

Maybe because it is more important for:
1. Hordes of people to get back and forth to work on time
2. Aunt Millie to get to her dialysis appointment
3. Halima schlep her 3 preschoolers to the supermarket and back
4. Joe get to his job interview in his suit with his portfolio
Than for:
5. Tarquin (he, his) to beat yesterday's time on his $3000 Shimano from the vegan cafe to the spandex shop.

OK, lots to unpack here. First of all, I don't think those on the $3000 bikes give a fig about cycling improvements to main streets, because they're comfortable cycling in traffic. Cycle tracks are not for high speed cycling, and in fact they are for exactly the people in scenarios #1-4 above, all of which can be done by bike when distances are fairly short.

You can buy a bike on Kijiji for $100 or less. It is probably the cheapest form of transportation next to walking. I'm not sure where this idea came from that bikes are somehow for the elite.

Also, lots of the above trips might be completed by walking, which is much better when sidewalks are wide and buses aren't speeding by within 6 inches.

Now to transit. I also agree that good transit service is important. There's lots of things that can be done even without putting in dedicated bus lanes everywhere to improve transit:

• Off-board fare collection and all-door boarding
• Better shelters and passenger information amineties
• Cameras to enforce bus lanes
• Traffic signals that know when the bus is coming so the green light can be held
• Moving bus stops to the far-side (though Uhuniau doesn't like that one either)

Now for Montreal Rd specifically, some compromises were made to the cycling design to minimize the impacts to transit, e.g. it will remain 4 lanes between North River and Vanier Pkwy and cyclists need to take an alternate route. Also they added a bus queue jump at Vanier Pkwy going east. It would be great if bus lanes fit along with bike lanes and wide sidewalks, but there isn't enough space.

As far as I can tell, there will be no difference for buses westbound since there will still be a peak period bus lane. There might be a small impact eastbound which some of the things above could mitigate.

And besides all of that, wasn't transit on Montreal Rd crappy even before the rebuild? And that was when it had 4 lanes and peak period bus lanes. Clearly those are not a panacea in and of themselves.

[Catenary]

Originally Posted by bradnixon

It sounds like your ideal vision for any mainstreet in the core is basically a 4-lane traffic sewer with narrow sidewalks, as long as it has bus lanes....

I see you've caught on to the line of thinking. It's as if the enemy isn't cyclists and pedestrians, but rather cars and parking.

Originally Posted by On Edge

Maybe because it is more important for:
1. Hordes of people to get back and forth to work on time
2. Aunt Millie to get to her dialysis appointment
3. Halima schlep her 3 preschoolers to the supermarket and back
4. Joe get to his job interview in his suit with his portfolio
Than for:
5. Tarquin (he, his) to beat yesterday's time on his $3000 Shimano from the vegan cafe to the spandex shop.

So as a student who didn't have a car, couldn't always bus (worked later than the 6 ran) and biked to work up Bank Street from Hunt Club to the Glebe, where do I fit in? Bank is a 4-6 lane traffic sewer for that entire stretch, I sure didn't feel like anyone thought my needs were important.

[On Edge]

Originally Posted by Catenary

I see you've caught on to the line of thinking. It's as if the enemy isn't cyclists and pedestrians, but rather cars and parking.



So as a student who didn't have a car, couldn't always bus (worked later than the 6 ran) and biked to work up Bank Street from Hunt Club to the Glebe, where do I fit in? Bank is a 4-6 lane traffic sewer for that entire stretch, I sure didn't feel like anyone thought my needs were important.

Somehow you made it work. We cannot always design the city around how students feel.

[On Edge]

Originally Posted by bradnixon

OK, lots to unpack here. First of all, I don't think those on the $3000 bikes give a fig about cycling improvements to main streets, because they're comfortable cycling in traffic. Cycle tracks are not for high speed cycling, and in fact they are for exactly the people in scenarios #1-4 above, all of which can be done by bike when distances are fairly short.

You can buy a bike on Kijiji for $100 or less. It is probably the cheapest form of transportation next to walking. I'm not sure where this idea came from that bikes are somehow for the elite.

Also, lots of the above trips might be completed by walking, which is much better when sidewalks are wide and buses aren't speeding by within 6 inches.

Now to transit. I also agree that good transit service is important. There's lots of things that can be done even without putting in dedicated bus lanes everywhere to improve transit:

• Off-board fare collection and all-door boarding
• Better shelters and passenger information amineties
• Cameras to enforce bus lanes
• Traffic signals that know when the bus is coming so the green light can be held
• Moving bus stops to the far-side (though Uhuniau doesn't like that one either)

Now for Montreal Rd specifically, some compromises were made to the cycling design to minimize the impacts to transit, e.g. it will remain 4 lanes between North River and Vanier Pkwy and cyclists need to take an alternate route. Also they added a bus queue jump at Vanier Pkwy going east. It would be great if bus lanes fit along with bike lanes and wide sidewalks, but there isn't enough space.

As far as I can tell, there will be no difference for buses westbound since there will still be a peak period bus lane. There might be a small impact eastbound which some of the things above could mitigate.

And besides all of that, wasn't transit on Montreal Rd crappy even before the rebuild? And that was when it had 4 lanes and peak period bus lanes. Clearly those are not a panacea in and of themselves.

None of the examples I gave are doable by bicycle or walking. Are we really set to design things so that frail elderly and moms with small kids ride bikes around or walk through storms because we can't stand cars and prioritize bikes above transit?

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by bradnixon

It sounds like your ideal vision for any mainstreet in the core is basically a 4-lane traffic sewer with narrow sidewalks, as long as it has bus lanes....

That's your characterization, not mine, but yes, where possible, we should retain our urban main streets with lane configurations that allow for transit buses to have priority over general automotive traffic, which in some cases (see the North River-Parkway portion of the Montreal Road project)means putting water in the bike lobby's wine.

Instead, we keep rebuilding our urban main streets in ways which mean buses, the only transit that we are allowed to have any ambitions for in the inner urban area, will continue to move slowly, even slower than the status quo, will continue to bunch and bundle, will not have priority at signals and turns, will put bus passengers and cyclists into physical conflict with one another, and which minimize the opportunity to provide the passengers who wait for the irregularly bunched buses with basic amenities like seating and shelter.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I think it was Menard who asked the City last week, during the STO debate and Sudd's motion on transit priorities. He asked if after Stage 3, the City would start focusing on urban transit needs. He thought he had heard that in a City report a while ago.

I don't know what report or document this would be in, as I have never seen anything from the city that would suggest that this is even remotely the case. Quite the contrary, Watson made it clear after the Phase III dream was unveiled that if your community wasn't in the plan now, it won't be in our lifetimes.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by bradnixon

[*]Off-board fare collection and all-door boarding[*]Better shelters and passenger information amineties[/LIST]
As far as I can tell, there will be no difference for buses westbound since there will still be a peak period bus lane. There might be a small impact eastbound which some of the things above could mitigate.

And besides all of that, wasn't transit on Montreal Rd crappy even before the rebuild? And that was when it had 4 lanes and peak period bus lanes. Clearly those are not a panacea in and of themselves.

We are already set up for all-door boarding, with artics and DD's that have rear-door boarding and card-readers, but in practice, OC Transpo drivers go out of their way to minimize rear-door boarding because of revenue loss. Anything more than that would require space in the ROW that is politically unpalatable to give up to transit - it is ALWAYS politically unpalatable to give up main street space to transit, and main street space for transit has steadily eroded since the 1990s.

See also shelters: to satisfy the cycling demands on Beechwood, bus passengers lost shelter and shelter capacity, which has not been replaced, and never will be.

The planning docs for Montreal Road forecast that buses will take longer to transit Montreal Road along the rebuilt portion once it is in service.

And yes, Montreal Road transit sucked before, which is (A) why people demanded improvements, (B) why it is unjust that transit plans for the east end have become steadily less ambitious with each decade and each new, successively less ambitious transit plan, and (C) why it stinks that the new Montreal Road is going to be an even poorer transit corridor than it already was. I don't think "it sucks, so let's make it worse" is much of a solution to any problem.

But, as has become abundantly clear, transit does not matter in the urban area of Ottawa. Not politically, not economically, not to anyone. Service can be slashed and run into the ground, and even the councillors who represent us transit users won't care until they are finally pressured into brief moments of performative concern. We have already had that performance for the past decade, so the councillors can sit back and do nothing again until their next performance in about 2027.

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by On Edge

None of the examples I gave are doable by bicycle or walking. Are we really set to design things so that frail elderly and moms with small kids ride bikes around or walk through storms because we can't stand cars and prioritize bikes above transit?

Really? None of them? There's nobody who cycles to work in this city? Nobody who bikes in a suit? Nobody who bikes with kids? News flash: there are a lot of people who do a lot of everyday things on their bikes.

I'll be heading out the door in about 5 minutes. To go pick up my kids from school. On my bike.

[silvergate]

Originally Posted by On Edge

Somehow you made it work. We cannot always design the city around how students feel.

If you think about it not as the perspective of a student, but the perspective of someone who cannot afford a card, might put some thing in perspective. Our city doesn't seem too concerned about the mobility of these people. And so they send higher-order transit to destinations where everyone owns a car, rather than through areas where residents actually need it.

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

We are already set up for all-door boarding, with artics and DD's that have rear-door boarding and card-readers, but in practice, OC Transpo drivers go out of their way to minimize rear-door boarding because of revenue loss. Anything more than that would require space in the ROW that is politically unpalatable to give up to transit - it is ALWAYS politically unpalatable to give up main street space to transit, and main street space for transit has steadily eroded since the 1990s.

See also shelters: to satisfy the cycling demands on Beechwood, bus passengers lost shelter and shelter capacity, which has not been replaced, and never will be.

My understanding was that the Montreal Rd project is consolidating stops, but there will be more shelters and much higher proportions of the stops will have shelters. (Also, consolidating stops is a way to speed up transit service).

The planning docs for Montreal Road forecast that buses will take longer to transit Montreal Road along the rebuilt portion once it is in service.

And yes, Montreal Road transit sucked before, which is (A) why people demanded improvements, (B) why it is unjust that transit plans for the east end have become steadily less ambitious with each decade and each new, successively less ambitious transit plan, and (C) why it stinks that the new Montreal Road is going to be an even poorer transit corridor than it already was. I don't think "it sucks, so let's make it worse" is much of a solution to any problem.

But, as has become abundantly clear, transit does not matter in the urban area of Ottawa. Not politically, not economically, not to anyone. Service can be slashed and run into the ground, and even the councillors who represent us transit users won't care until they are finally pressured into brief moments of performative concern. We have already had that performance for the past decade, so the councillors can sit back and do nothing again until their next performance in about 2027.

Well, urban transit matters to me. That's why I'm in favour of all of those things I suggested in my previous post. It's even why I was in favour of retaining the four lane section of Montreal Rd from North River to Vanier Pkwy, because the impacts to transit if that section was narrowed were unacceptable. (Now, we need to make sure the curb lanes are dedicated to buses during peak. If we could get bus lane cameras, even better.)

I think we should have a tram on Carling. I think we should have BRT on Baseline, Heron, Walkley, St Laurent, Montreal Rd (east of St Laurent), March Rd, Vanier Pkwy, etc. I think all the "Frequent" routes should have 10 minute service.

But when we're talking about a narrow mainstreet, I'm not in favour of sacrificing the livability of the local neighborhood so that others (whether in cars or on transit) can speed through.

For Bank Street in Centretown, I think we should try something like the King pilot in Toronto to divert car traffic to parallel streets but allow buses to travel straight through. It's probably doable north of Catherine, and it would make a huge difference for the 6 and 7. (The problem is that Kent and O'Connor are the wrong way around- ideally the northbound street would be to the east and the southbound street would be to the west, to enable right turns off the main street).

Montreal Rd is tougher because there are no good parallel streets. That's why there's so much competition for space, because there are no good parallel bike routes either.

IIRC, the projected impact to eastbound buses with Montreal Rd narrowing will be 1-2 minutes. But in return, the cycling and pedestrian environment will improve immensely, and transit riders will get better shelters and better sidewalks to get to the bus stops. I think that's an acceptable trade-off. You clearly disagree, but I'm not sure what would make transit on Montreal Rd significantly faster short of a tunnel.

[silvergate]

Originally Posted by bradnixon

For Bank Street in Centretown, I think we should try something like the King pilot in Toronto to divert car traffic to parallel streets but allow buses to travel straight through. It's probably doable north of Catherine, and it would make a huge difference for the 6 and 7. (The problem is that Kent and O'Connor are the wrong way around- ideally the northbound street would be to the east and the southbound street would be to the west, to enable right turns off the main street).

Montreal Rd is tougher because there are no good parallel streets. That's why there's so much competition for space, because there are no good parallel bike routes either.

IIRC, the projected impact to eastbound buses with Montreal Rd narrowing will be 1-2 minutes. But in return, the cycling and pedestrian environment will improve immensely, and transit riders will get better shelters and better sidewalks to get to the bus stops. I think that's an acceptable trade-off. You clearly disagree, but I'm not sure what would make transit on Montreal Rd significantly faster short of a tunnel.

If the city wants to make transit work on urban main streets, maybe it's time to start rethinking how they build them. I like the King Street Idea, but why not implement it on Montreal at the Vanier Pkwy intersection?

Make Montreal west of Vanier 2-way, but make Montreal between St. Laurent and Vanier 1-way (westbound) with bus service in both directions. Divert eastbound car traffic along the Vanier pkwy north to Beechwood or South to McArthur and they can get back on Montreal east of St. Laurent.

[J.OT13]

I'm not sure the King pilot could work in Ottawa. In Toronto, it's a near perfect solid grid all over downtown, with high-density, high-activity commercial and institutional uses all over, along wide streets. In Ottawa, for Bank, we have a near solid grid but the side streets are narrow, quiet residential. Along Montreal, we have a broken grid of narrow lower density residential.

It might work along Bank if people had to turn right on Gladstone, Somerset and Laurier, but we would need to set the light cycles to make that possible as so many people cross, it's near impossible to turn with the current set-up.

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I'm not sure the King pilot could work in Ottawa. In Toronto, it's a near perfect solid grid all over downtown, with high-density, high-activity commercial and institutional uses all over, along wide streets. In Ottawa, for Bank, we have a near solid grid but the side streets are narrow, quiet residential. Along Montreal, we have a broken grid of narrow lower density residential.

It might work along Bank if people had to turn right on Gladstone, Somerset and Laurier, but we would need to set the light cycles to make that possible as so many people cross, it's near impossible to turn with the current set-up.

Yeah, it would be more challenging for sure. The other problem is that vehicles need to turn left to access either Kent or O'Connor to keep going int the same direction.

Maybe you could have some sort of special signalling that allowed left turns from the right lane, with a separate signal so transit can continue from the centre lane. The signal phasing (at Gladstone, Somerset & Laurier) would work like this:

1) Green for E-W street
2) Green for N-S pedestrians+transit (straight through)
3) Green for NB left + right turns (from curb lane)
4) Green for SB left + right turns (from curb lane)

[silvergate]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I'm not sure the King pilot could work in Ottawa. In Toronto, it's a near perfect solid grid all over downtown, with high-density, high-activity commercial and institutional uses all over, along wide streets. In Ottawa, for Bank, we have a near solid grid but the side streets are narrow, quiet residential. Along Montreal, we have a broken grid of narrow lower density residential.

It might work along Bank if people had to turn right on Gladstone, Somerset and Laurier, but we would need to set the light cycles to make that possible as so many people cross, it's near impossible to turn with the current set-up.

Force cars off Bank at Catherine onto Kent. Only allow local auto traffic to access Bank via right turns, and only allow them to travel a single block before they have to turn off.

Seems to me most problems are caused by allowing unimpeded car access on every street. Plus, convoluting car routes is one way transit can actually become a competing mobility service.