Navigation
User login
Be Honest, Will the FOTO plan make you use transit more often?
Price tag comparisons are one thing, but if we don't get new transit riders, what's the point of spending any money?
In my case, the FOTO plan does not make it any easier to get to places I want to go by transit. It does not go where I live. It doesn't go where I work. I occasionally go downtown but the FOTO plan will require 2 transfers to reach downtown, while now there is a direct bus. I occasionally take in an event at Scotiabank Place which is a real pain to reach by car or transit. FOTO does not include it in its plan. Most of the major shopping malls are more accessible by bus than by the FOTO plan.
The city's plan was going to allow trains to run directly into downtown, and one of their planned lines was going to run directly by my place of work and also to Scotiabank Place.
My point, I don't see myself using transit any more often even if we build all the FOTO extensions. It simply does not go where I want to go.
I want to hear other people's honest comments. Does the FOTO plan take you where you want to go? Will the FOTO plan actually get you to use transit more?
The FOTO plan NOT practical!
The FOTO plan will not get me to use transit more. In my case some of my trips are either downtown or past downtown and the thought of two transfers to get past downtown is not something that makes me want to embrace the plan. People want direct connections, either express buses or the 95,96 or 97. But how many people will want to transfer out of a bus and to an LRT vechicle just to go the extra few stops? Plus the FOTO plan uses existing tracks some of whom are in empty areas. Scotiabank place and most major gathering/tourist destanations are not served by the plan and that seems like a lost opertunity................using existing infastructure to go into areas people do not really want to go is a waste.
Plus the Orleans area is not served well at all by the FOTO plan, just using existing rail to go nowhere is pointless.
I also see no crossing in the FOTO plan from Barehaven, east past the Rideau river. Seems people would have to take their cars or bus to go north to Hunt Club to get across.
Baseline, Carling and Montreal (heavy built up/traffic areas) road seem to be left with the crappy service currently in use.
The FOTO plan relies MUCH to heavily on existing infastructure and thankfully it will not get built if anyone with some sense has to pay for it.
Re: The FOTO plan NOT practical!
Hi Ciemny,
Compared to the Chiarelli/Deans/Doucet plans, the base FOTO plan is practical in as much as:
- It builds low capital & operating cost transit capacity along high-demand commuter corridors that currently experience high levels of either road congestion, bus congestion, or both
- It does this over the same corridor as the Chiarelli/Deans/Doucet plans for between $345M and $435M less cost to the Ottawa taxpayer. This is money could ultimately be used to provide additional transit projects for other corridors
- It does this by creating more transit capacity, better transit network utilization
- It implements LRT service to Riverside South 3 years sooner and with no service interruptions
- By removing buses from the ~25min slow trip across downtown, ALL former Express routes can increase service frequencies between 20-40% at no extra capital or operating cost to the city
"People want direct connections":
- No rail transit system in the world, of any consequential size, provides direct service for the majority of its riders unless they choose to both live and work along a single corridor.
- The Express bus system is a broken network model. I waste more time every day waiting for late buses or missing early ones than anyone would with the guarranteed 3 min transfer in the FOTO plan. Albert & Slater is an atrocity every afternoon and has been unable to accommodate more buses or riders for over 5 years.
- The Chiarelli plan leveraged the myth of no transfers (fool some of the people some/all of the time) yet it required bus to bus/rail transfers for 30% of Express riders and could not support the future addition of LRT entering downtown from either east or west without introducing a requirement for rail-to-rail transfers
Barrhaven service:
- here is your answer: http://www.friendsoftheotrain.org/?q=node/11
Ciemny, you are a current transit user as are we. The LRT project is not about making us use transit more as much as it is about getting non-users to leave the car at home. Invest the time to really understand what we are proposing and you will see there is currently no rational argument against our base plan. City planning staff have been offered, tried, and failed to respond with anything other than empty rhetoric. And sadly some Councillors have committed themselves so deeply into the old plans they have blinded their ability and undermined their credibility. Perhaps now, having fought their "good fight" and lost, we can all move on to something better. One thing you can count on, if there is a better way found, we will be at the forefront championing to get it adopted.
PS: nice picture in livejournal/octranspo!
3 minute transfer promise
I challenge the Friends of the O-Train to come clean about the 3 minute transfer time. This will only apply from 6:30AM-9:30AM and 3:00PM-6:00PM Monday to Friday. Outside of those hours, the waits will be significantly longer. I suspect 15 minute frequency on weekends and evenings. This will really create an impediment to downtown and cross-town travel by transit during off-peak hours. How could the city justify running empty trains on a 3 minute frequency during off-peak hours? Even if they did initially, they would be subject to service rationalization because of budget pressures.
off-peak usage
It's true. There won't be 3 minute service levels outside of 6:30am to 6:30PM. At night the levels will
be lower. What's your point? Do you actually take any transitway or local bus service at night?
I do. I wait 15 plus minutes for a bus, and then I get an completedly packed 95, with an empty 97
after it, and then an empty 95, and then an empty 96 after it. And then a 20 minute wait.
How is this efficient or effective?
I'd rather take a #16, since it takes me to my door, but it already stopped running.
I think that we can sustain 6 or 8 minute service until at least midnight. What to do between midnight
and 5am, I am not sure. Eventually, we will run the trains later and later at night, eventually all
night long. What happens right now at 3am? there is a 95 every hour. So, likely there will
be some kind of night-bus service like in all other places with rail.
Once I wait the 6 to 8 minutes for the train. (not MY bus), I will then get to the east (Hurdman)
or west (Bayview/Lebreton) transfer stations. At that location there will be numerous things which there presently is not at downtown bus stops, namely: heat, security, light, and bathrooms. I also think that we will be able to sustain later service for buses like the #16, or we may move towards having actual local routes (see http://otra.sandelman.ca/wiki/index.php/Westboro%20Route%20Renovations for my ideas of what I want in my neighbourhood. Note: this predates all LRT plans).
So, you are right. At 11pm at night, there will still be a 20 minute wait. 5-8 minutes will be in the cold.
10 minutes will be in warm safety.
I've waited 20 minutes for a TTC subway at Yonge/Bloor on a Sunday. Have you?
Volunteer researcher, Friends of the O-train.
night service
After 6PM, during mid-day and on weekends, no suburban bus routes run beyond the local shopping mall or suburban Transitway station. They do not run to Bayview or Hurdman Station. You will therefore end up waiting downtown, then at Bayview or Hurdman, and then again at the suburban transfer station. This 20 minute wait that you describe will be excessive when your local bus only runs every 30-60 minutes. A 20 minute wait equals the total travel time between downtown and South Keys on a Transitway bus and except late at night, the 97 bus will run just as frequently as you suggest for the downtown shuttle train. As I said originally, the downtown shuttle will be an impediment to downtown travel during off peak hours. I am tired of listening to comments that more transfers are necessary and we better get used to it because it is a fact of life in some other city and will be in Ottawa as well because the FOTO plan will save so much money compared to the other plan. If we are going to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on any rapid transit plan, it better provide faster service than presently offered. If not, why are we doing it?
Local feeder routes perhaps?
Hey GC, I do agree that most local buses during the off-peak hours only go as far as the nearest suburban station (such as Place d'Orleans, Blair, Terry Fox, etc.) However, since the FOTO plan would involve an extra transfer it would make more sense, in my opinion, to extend most (if not all) local buses as far as Hurdman or Bayview. The buses in the east and south already do in most cases. The 124, 126, 128, 140, 146, 148, and 149 for example all end at Hurdman on weekdays. The service level for all the routes combined could be made to equal the current service frequencies on the 95-97 routes currently, which would remove that extra transfer that would be involved.
In regards to the proposed Westboro changes that were made I do agree that it would make travelling from some of the residential neighborhoods to the Transitway more effective. However, as I stated above it would be more beneficial (especially to suburban to downtown riders) to extend all local routes to Hurdman/Bayview to make it more appealing to have to transfer only once (instead of twice) if you live beyond the Transitway corridor.
Anthony Gagne
Gloucester, Ontario
Frequency during off-peak hours
I agree that the FOTO should give us an idea of what the frequency will be during off-peak hours and weekends. If you take an average of the frequencies during the midday and evenings on weekdays and on weekends, the average frequency for Routes 95-97 would be every 7-8 minutes during the midday, every 10 minutes during the evening, and every 15 minutes during the late evening. On weekends, it would be probably every 10-15 minutes during Saturdays and Sundays. I agree that it is difficult to fathom getting off a bus at Bayview, waiting 7-8 minutes for a train that will only take you a few stops. We will see what FOTO says regarding service levels on the eLRT. Here's to hoping!
Anthony Gagne
Gloucester, Ontario
Re: 3 minute transfer/service frequency
Hi GC & Anthony,
We proposed 3 minute headway the same as the city did (the environmental assessment spec'd 3-5 minute frequency). The difference was that the Chiarelli plan spread single eLRT vehicles across 30km and the practical plan concentrated all 22 plus 11 more on a 6km downtown section in larger 3-vehicle trains. By doing this, we had enough peak hour capacity to replace all the transitway buses. Outside of peak hours, unneeded capacity can be scaled back by simply running 11 single vehicles. Peak or off-peak, 11 operators are all that is needed to service all the downtown in both directions with 3 minute service levels.
Ok you have a valid point on
Ok you have a valid point on some of my points about the FOTO plan, I still wonder IF the city would adopt even a part of it and if the Transport Canada would actually allow for passing tracks to be constructed on one of their main lines or would they just refuse the line to be used for an LRT.
P.S. Im in WW2 re-enacting, thats where the pic came from, its creepy I know.
Transport Canada, etc.
Thanks. All of our optional extensions have no material regulatory hurdles whatsoever. Also, sound business cases exist for VIA and OCR partnerships for the use (& upgrade) of their lines. We have good reason to believe there is nothing to worry about.
Regarding city adoption of our plans, there is reason for cautious optimism. Did you notice that the Deans/McRea/Harder/Doucet motion last week actually acknowledged two of the central features of our plan?
- eLRT replacement & elimination of all 'transitway' buses from Albert & Slater streets
- extension of the downtown eLRT to Hurdman
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery!
Now is the time for all transit & LRT enthusiasts to challenge their councillors and the city to be ready to move on LRT as soon as the Mayor's task force reports in June. Nothing in the FOTO base proposal needs to take longer to implement than the Chiarelli plan. It re-uses all the NS LRT environmental assessments (EAs) and would have used the Siemens-PLC procurement winners. The extension to Riverside South could be in service within a few months of a "go" decision by council. The downtown portion would have been built on the same schedule as the Chiarelli plan.* EAs for the Hurdman extension an terminals could run in parallel and result in an system-wide completion by 2011.
*There is significant interest in some circles for a downtown tunnel. If this is pursued then it is likely that it will cause a delay, especially if everything has to wait for the results of a tunnel EA. IMO, a feasibility study should be started immediately and could provide clear answers about the cost/benefit for a tunnel within months.