CITY OF OTTAWA TRANSIT
SERVICES
2009 TACTICAL PLAN
FOR TRANSIT OPERATIONS AND FINANCES
INTRODUCTION
Positioning the Tactical Plan
As shown in Figure 1, the Transportation Master Plan (TMP) sets out a long-term vision and goals for transit in the City of Ottawa, while the Strategic Branch Review of Transit Services establishes a shorter-term accountability framework to Council on delivery standards. The Tactical Plan is designed to fill a critical gap over the medium term. Together, these three reference documents provide the policy context for what constitutes a cycle of transit business components recurring every year.
Objective and Content of the Tactical Plan
The objective of the Tactical Plan is to provide a direction for both service delivery (Operations aspect of the Plan) and capital asset management (Financial aspect of the Plan) over the next decade. The Tactical Plan explores an alternative service delivery model for Transit Services. This is based upon a comprehensive understanding of transit planning essentials, a rigourous examination of travel demand over time, an analysis of variations in our policy standards and their financial and ridership consequences. The Tactical Plan also sets the course for the management of our capital assets in the future.
Inter-Provincial Transit
As part of the work involved in the development of the Transportation Master Plan, a panel of international experts urged us to think of transit in our region as one truly regional transit system. Accordingly, inter-provincial trips and services have been included throughout the analysis process supporting the Tactical Plan. Like any other travellers, transit users readily cross both provincial and municipal boundaries, as well as transit agencies’ service areas.
The Context Set by Rapid Transit Network Plans
When Council approved the TMP update in November 2008, it gave the go-ahead to the Rail Implementation Project, focussed over the next decade on the conversion of the Transitway to a core rail line between Blair Station and Tunney’s Pasture Station via a tunnel in downtown Ottawa. Meanwhile, the Société de transport de l’Outaouais (STO) is leading the implementation of the Rapibus, a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) infrastructure to run between the Northeast of Gatineau and its downtown.
An Alternative Service Delivery Model for the 10-Year Horizon
The Tactical Plan explores an Alternative Service Delivery Model for Transit Services. The development of this alternative service delivery model has involved the creation of multiple scenarios for a horizon of 10 years and their comparison with each other. These scenarios reflect future travel demand about the years 2019-2021 and are anchored upon the key element of the rapid transit network expansion context described above, namely the core rail line between Blair and Tunney’s Pasture, as well as the Rapibus between Gatineau and Bayview. Existing conditions analyzed as part of this report reflect the 2005-level travel demand applied to the 2008 network of bus routes.
Summary of Results
Table 1 summarizes the annual operating costs of the transit system and the estimated savings that would be generated by the key components of the Alternative Service Delivery Model. The components are discussed in more detail later in this document.
Table 1 – Summary of Annualized Operating Costs and Savings (in Millions of $)
|
|
2019 Rail and Bus Network Based on Current
Practices: Trunk-and-Branches, Existing Area Coverage |
2019 Alternative Service Delivery Model:
Trunk-and-Feeders around Core Rail Line |
2019 Alternative Service Delivery Model: Expanded
Trunk-and-Feeders |
2019 Alternative Service Delivery Model: Expanded
Trunk-and-Feeders + Lower Area Coverage |
|
Total Annualized Operating Costs |
522 |
496 |
453 |
416 |
|
Estimated Savings |
- |
(26) |
(69) |
(106) |
TRANSIT PLANNING ESSENTIALS
Analytical Foundation for the Plan
The Tactical Plan results from the analysis of three key areas, reported in each of the main sections further below: travel demand, policy standards and alternative service delivery models. But first, transit planning essentials relating to transit network configurations need to be discussed. They have guided this analysis, as well as the interpretation of customer survey results.
Transit Network Configurations
Irrespective of the transit mode or modes used, the configuration of a transit network features different types of lines and different types of operation. Transit lines may be regrouped under the following main types:
1. Radial lines: directly linking neighbourhoods or suburbs with downtown (whether as regular or express services);
2. Circulators:
short-haul local lines that are configured in a circular pattern; and
3. Cross-town
lines: linking other lines and/or neighbourhoods without serving downtown.
Radial
lines that merge together along a trunk – the common section closer to downtown
– operate as branches of that trunk (Figure 2). Local lines that
serve neighbourhoods or suburbs and terminate at or go by a station of a
higher-service trunk line operate as feeders to that trunk (Figure 5).
Figure 2 – Trunk Line with
Branches (Fewer Transfers)
Figure 3 – Trunk Line with
Feeders (More Transfers)
Original Trunk-and-Branches Bus Operation on the Transitway
Since its opening, the Transitway has been operated as a trunk with branches. The characteristics of the bus mode, the design of the Transitway itself and the level of travel demand have been conducive to that operating choice, which has translated in an approach aimed at minimizing transfers for transit users. Buses are very flexible for operation in any level of segregation, from mixed traffic to fully exclusive right-of-way such as the Transitway. Long platforms and passing lanes at every Transitway station preserve and enhance this flexibility. As long as the overall transit demand on the trunk (the Transitway here) is lower than capacity, it remains possible to merge buses from multiple branches with varying levels of demand and to make adjustments as necessary.
Customers’ Disposition for a Shift to Trunk-and-Feeders Bus Operation
As the frequency of buses along
the downtown corridor of Albert and Slater Streets approaches capacity,
however, average operating speed is reduced and the reliability of service
toward each branch is impacted. In practice, transit users are then exposed to
the uncertainty of delays and the discomfort of congestion, leading them to
trade off their preferred, direct service for an earlier-arriving service with
a transfer. Recent customer surveys suggest this trade-off between transferring
and service quality. Having faced long waiting times and high congestion on
certain routes during service resumption following the labour strike,
respondents’ likelihood of using transit more did not seem to depend as much on
direct service or short access distance as it did before the strike. The
results of both focus groups and customer surveys over the past 2 years
consistently link customers’
resistance to transfers with a concern about long waiting times between buses.
Managing Transfers
The most celebrated transit systems in the world manage transfers successfully. Customers transferring to a high-frequency line will not experience a long wait for the next service. The waiting time associated with transferring between two low-frequency lines may be minimized through appropriate bus schedule development (timed transfers). The most challenging situation occurs when customers transfer from a high-frequency line to a low-frequency line, e.g. from a trunk to a feeder. The best strategy then would be to consider maintaining as high a frequency of service as possible on the feeder line, given the passenger volumes to carry.
Table 2 – Transferring Situations
|
To From |
High Frequency |
Low Frequency |
|
High Frequency |
||
|
Low Frequency |
Managing
Transfer Points
Given any of the transferring situations
described above, the design of the transfer points themselves should focus on
minimizing walk time between transit services (Figures
4 and 5) and, where suitable, provide amenities to turn transfers into
opportunities for customers. Large systems such as London or Sydney have retail
outlets such as convenience stores, flower shops and dry cleaners right onto
the platform of limited-size stations in the suburbs.
Figure 4 – Across-the-platform inter-modal transfer in Cologne
Figure 5 – Minimized distance between rail and bus services in Zurich.
Merits of Trunk-and-Feeders Bus Operation for Capacity
Before 2004, a maximum number of routes branched onto the Transitway and a maximum number of buses operated along its downtown section. The facility could be observed to fail regularly – that is, buses would be backed up and the volumes carried passed any particular point at such times would fall well below capacity. Operating a limited number of very high-frequency trunk routes on the Transitway could reduce pressure on the capacity of curb stops downtown by improving the boarding flow of passengers arriving at the stops. Trunk-only services would lead to better capacity utilization, by improving the distribution of passenger loads on buses and by avoiding the issue of different branches – and the buses that serve them – catering to different volumes of demand.
Merits of Trunk-and-Feeders Bus Operation for Reliability
By improving the boarding flow of passengers at curb stops along the downtown section of the Transitway, trunk-and-feeders operation could reduce delays on the Transitway. Buses serving trunk routes and buses serving feeder routes would mostly operate independently from each other, on and off the Transitway respectively. Like firewalls, separating the operation in this fashion would protect each type of service from issues experienced on the other, be they delays, breakdowns, accidents, etc. The result would be increased on-time performance and increased reliability of scheduled transfers at Transitway stations. Where Transit Services has introduced this model of higher-frequency local feeders off the Transitway (Elmvale, St. Laurent, Smyth-Hospital corridor), service reliability and ridership have improved.
Merits of Trunk-and-Feeders Bus Operation for Operating Cost
Through improvements in bus capacity utilization on the Transitway and increased on-time performance, buses would be made more productive. As a result, the total number of buses required to serve on the Transitway could be less than that operated with a trunk-and-branches structure. Feeder routes would replace local routes and the duplicating portion of longer express branches, and because of their short length, offering higher frequency of service could be more affordable. This would help address transferring from high-frequency trunk services to lower-frequency feeder services.
The Alternative Service
Delivery Model: Integrating Inter-Modality
The introduction of a new mode in a transit system is an opportunity to review its network configuration. Other cities have gone through this experience and turned what had become a complex trunk-and-branches network into a simpler trunk-and-feeders network. Vancouver, Seattle and Sacramento significantly reduced the number of distinct routes they operated through such a process. From the discussion in this main section of the report, the alternative service delivery model favoured for the City of Ottawa Transit Services is one featuring a trunk with feeders, supplemented by a system of cross-town routes approaching a grid structure. The resulting transit network reflects both the continuum of transit modes – from lower capacity and operating speed to higher capacity and operating speed – and the hierarchy of service types. In so doing, it preserves high area coverage, offers superior connectivity and achieves increased efficiency, including improved occupancy. These characteristics of this model will be demonstrated further below.
TRAVEL DEMAND, TODAY AND IN THE FUTURE
Background
Understanding future travel demand is a fundamental requirement upon which to base an operations and financial plan. Good travel demand forecasting requires comprehensive travel demand data and rigourous modelling tools. The City of Ottawa enjoys both. The 2005 Origin-Destination (O-D) Survey has been referred to as the Census of transportation as it represents the most crucial source of information on travel patterns. The TRANS regional travel demand forecasting model went through an in-depth overhaul in 2007 on the strength of the O-D Survey. Both have actually received enthusiastic accolades from the national and international transportation planning community. The calibration of the travel demand model was further fine-tuned as part of the work involved in developing this Transit Tactical Plan (Appendix for details).
What Does a
Regional Travel Demand Forecasting Model Do?
The travel demand model simulates the person trips made by all modes in the National Capital Region during the morning peak, both today and in the future. The driving input of the state-of-the-art model is based on the population forecasts prepared by staff and approved by Council. The model reflects important factors that determine trip-making patterns such as the evolution in the make-up of households (including the aging of population) and the availability of cars to household members, the growth in and distribution of employment by type, how individuals sometimes organize their trips in sequences, the deterrent effect of traffic congestion on use of the car and the relative attractiveness of the Transitway as a fast and reliable infrastructure, etc.
Where Transit Trips Are
Produced from and Attracted to
The travel demand forecasting model helps understand where transit trips are generated from and where they go to. Figure 6 shows the focal areas where transit trips either start or end. Some of the major focal points outside of the Inner Urban Area (that area between the Ottawa River, the Rideau River and the O-Train corridor) include:
- Carleton /St. Paul’s - Tunney’s/Westboro/Hintonburg
- Blair/Ogilvie - Blackburn/Chapel Hill/Orléans Village
- Longfields/Davidson
Heights -
Riverside/Hospital
- Centrepointe and Algonquin - Bayshore/Lincoln Heights
- South Keys/Bank/Conroy - etc.
Figure 6 – Transit Trips from and/or to Large Zones during the AM Peak Hour in 2008
Where Growth in Transit Trips
Will Occur
Figure 7 shows that downtown Ottawa will continue to be a strong magnet of transit trips over the years. The Inner Urban Area will attract over 42% of all morning peak transit trips by 2019. Figure 7 also shows how the growth at focal areas where transit trips either start or end will be unevenly distributed across the region. Of 92 large zones dividing up the region, the top 12 listed in Table 3 will produce 30% of the transit trips to take place in 2019 during the morning peak hour. The bottom 51% of those large zones will produce only 25% of all transit trips. Looking at trip destinations, the top 11 large zones will attract 49% of the transit trips to take place during the morning peak hour. The bottom 64% will attract only 25% of the transit trips.
Figure 7 – Transit Trips from and/or to Large Zones during the AM Peak Hour by 2019
Table 3 – Major Focal Areas for Transit by 2019
|
Large Zone |
Transit Trips Produced There during AM Peak Hour by
2019 |
Growth from 2008 to 2019 |
|
Longfields
/ Davidson Heights |
2,096 |
112% |
|
South Keys / Bank / Conroy / Blossom |
1,954 |
17% |
|
Centrepointe / Ben Franklin |
1,738 |
15% |
|
Blackburn / Chapel Hill / Orléans Village |
1,513 |
17% |
|
Kanata Town Centre |
1,463 |
68% |
|
Lincoln Heights / Bayshore |
1,357 |
30% |
|
Chapel Hill / Orléans South |
1,286 |
150% |
|
Orléans Town
Centre / Convent Glen |
1,187 |
20% |
|
Mont-Bleu / Parc de la
Montagne |
1,148 |
16% |
|
Kanata Lakes / Beaverbrook |
1,020 |
121% |
|
Kanata South Business Pk /
Bridlewood |
1,019 |
79% |
|
Vanier / McArthur / Overbrook |
1,015 |
41% |
|
Large Zone |
Transit Trips Attracted There during AM Peak Hour by
2019 |
Growth from 2008 to 2019 |
|
Sparks Street / Esplanade |
6,659 |
28% |
|
Sparks Street West / Minto |
4,786 |
26% |
|
Hôtel de Ville / du Musée
(Gatineau) |
2,683 |
93% |
|
Lowertown / Byward Market |
2,608 |
27% |
|
U Ottawa / Sandy Hill |
1,995 |
27% |
|
Carleton / St. Paul's |
1,955 |
32% |
|
Blair / Ogilvie / Bathgate |
1,651 |
49% |
|
Parliament / City Hall |
1,547 |
-7% |
|
Algonquin / Crestview |
1,428 |
33% |
|
Tunney's / Westboro / Hintonburg |
1,342 |
73% |
|
Hurdman
/ Riverside/ Hospital |
1,048 |
52% |
Radial Transit Trips vs. Self-Containment
While radial
transit trips from the suburbs to downtown Ottawa will remain predominant, the
Official Plan aims at increasing the self-containment of urban communities
outside the Greenbelt for working, living and playing. This should indeed take
place, but to various degrees, as shown in Table 4. For instance, Kanata
already has the largest proportion of transit trips produced locally that also
have the local area as their destination, and this is
expected to increase even more.
Table 4 – Morning Transit
Trips within, from and to Outside-Greenbelt Communities
|
|
|
% of trips going there that also start there |
Volume of trips coming from there that go elsewhere |
|
|
Orléans |
2008 |
68% |
33% |
33,000 |
|
|
2019 |
66% |
38% |
34,000 |
|
Barrhaven |
2008 |
59% |
28% |
18,000 |
|
|
2019 |
58% |
36% |
26,500 |
|
Kanata |
2008 |
54% |
44% |
22,000 |
|
|
2019 |
59% |
50% |
30,000 |
The Way Transit Trips Would
Take if They Could
Figure 8 is the result of an exercise in which the transit trips predicted to be made by 2019 were allowed to take any road or Transitway segment they’d “like”, subject to car traffic, in order to minimize transit travel time. The merit of such an exercise is to identify corridors of transit travel with the most potential, unbiased by the types and levels of transit service contemplated. The planned core rail line is noticeable as a “natural” choice, with the predominant use of its corridor by transit trips. The Highway 417 corridor in the west, the A-50 corridor in Gatineau and the Highway 174 corridor in the east also stand out. The O-Train and southeast Transitway corridors are of similar appeal. Also of note is the convenience of some arterials: Innes Road, Baseline-Heron Roads and Hunt Club Road in particular. What the results suggest is that these are the corridors the transit system should focus on and serve with frequent and high-quality service.
Figure 8 – Preferred Paths of Transit Trips during the AM Peak Period by 2019
Transit Transfer Points
Figure 9 shows where transfers are predicted to take place over the transit system by 2019. Blair and Tunney’s Pasture dominate as ends of the core rail line in that year. Bayview (with trips from Gatineau) and Hurdman are also major transfer points, as is Rideau Centre.
Figure 9 – Transfer Points on the Transit Network during the AM Peak Period by 2019
Inter-Provincial Travel
Figures 10 and 11 are the result of that same exercise described above in which transit trips were allowed to take any road they’d “like”, subject to car traffic, in order to minimize transit travel time. The two figures single out inter-provincial transit trips predicted to be made by 2019. The figures show that inter-provincial transit trips from both sides of the Ottawa River favour the Chaudières and Portage pair of bridges as a “natural” choice. The Ottawa catchment of morning trips going to Gatineau is quite broad, whereas the Gatineau catchment of morning trips going to Ottawa is much concentrated on the Rapibus corridor. It must be borne in mind that this is independent of any level of transit service contemplated. What these results suggest is that this is the general area of crossing the Ottawa River that the transit system should focus on with high-quality service. Focus on this area can channel the broad northbound traffic of Ottawa residents working in Gatineau and provide capacity to serve Gatineau residents accessing the employment nodes of both the Ottawa CBD and Tunney’s Pasture.
Figure 10 – Preferred Paths of Morning Transit Trips from Ottawa to Gatineau by 2019
Figure 11 – Preferred Paths of morning Transit Trips from Gatineau to Ottawa by 2019
POLICY STANDARDS: WHAT THEY
MEAN
Background
Through the Strategic Branch Review of Transit Services, Council “contracted” with Transit Services for the delivery of services according to 11 standards which form a policy framework within which Transit Services is to manage the services it provides. This is shown, conceptually, in Figure 12. Different values for Area Coverage and Occupancy are compared to their standards below, along with the implications for ridership and cost.
Standard for Area Coverage
(Reach)
One mandate of the City’s transit system is to provide service to all of the Urban Transit Area (UTA). Area coverage is the degree of transit reach to households and job locations. The standard is for 95% of households and 95% of workers at their work locations to be within a 5-minute walk (400 meters) of a transit stop or station during peak periods and for 95% of households to be within a 10-minute walk of transit in the midday and on evenings and weekends.
Table 5 – 2008 Households within the UTA with Different Access Distance to a Bus Stop during Peak Periods
|
% of Households within |
Peak Periods |
Off-Peak Periods |
|
200 m |
82.0% |
77.6% |
|
400 m |
98.6% |
95.8% |
|
600 m |
99.8% |
98.3% |
|
800 m |
99.9% |
99.2% |
Variations in Area Coverage
Area coverage must be
balanced against the achievement of other transit policy standards, such as
occupancy and economic efficiency, but also toward increasing ridership. Table 6 shows that reducing the
current extent of area coverage, when done carefully, could generate
substantial operating cost savings with very limited impact on ridership.
Table 6 – 2008 Ridership and Service Changes for Changes in Peak Period Area Coverage
|
% of Households within 400 m of a Bus Stop |
Decrease in Households |
Decrease in Ridership |
Decrease in Revenue Kms |
Decrease in Operating Cost |
|
|
98.6% |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
95% * |
-3.6% |
-1.9% |
-3.1% |
-3.3% |
-2.8% |
|
93.4% |
-5.2% |
-2.6% |
-4.3% |
-4.7% |
-4.1% |
|
91.0% |
-7.6% |
-3.7% |
-7.8% |
-8.2% |
-7.4% |
* Existing standard; numbers in italic are estimates
Future Area Coverage with the
Alternative Service Delivery Model
The alternative Service Delivery Model lines up with the bottom row of Table 6 above, at 91.1% of UTA households within 400 meters of a bus stop or station during peak periods and 99.4% within 800 meters. Figure 13 shows graphically the coverage attained, the light grey areas being within 800 meters and the darker areas within 400 meters. Small areas in black indicate where most of the 0.6% of households are that would have an access distance to transit exceeding 800 meters.
Figure 13 – 2019 Peak Period Area Coverage within the UTA
Standards for
Occupancy
Occupancy is a key measure of transit efficiency. It measures how much of transit supply is “consumed” by customers (passenger-km per capacity-km). Because the nature of travel demand varies across route types and by direction of travel (inbound to downtown vs. outbound), occupancy of a route must be compared with that of routes of the same type; function of route, direction of peak flow. The standard is to exceed 0.58 for the inbound legs of radial routes, 0.28 for circulators and the inbound legs of feeder routes, 0.40 for cross-town routes and 0.60 for express routes.
Future Occupancy with the
Alternative Service Delivery Model
Figure 14 positions today’s occupancy of existing bus routes with respect to the average occupancy of routes of a given type. In each graph, the crosshair shows the average number of passenger-kilometres and the average number of seats-kilometres offered. Under-performing routes, those with the most seat-kilometres offered for the number of passenger-kilometres actually carried, would be found in the lower right-hand corner of each graph. The figure shows that most routes perform well, except for some circulators that may warrant a review. For underperforming routes, there may be some potential for service investment and promotion, or the latent capacity may benefit other transit users by being redeployed elsewhere in the system, or alternative service delivery mechanisms, such as demand-responsive transit (taxi, “taxibus”, etc.), could be explored. Figure 15 shows the predicted occupancy of future bus routes against the future average occupancy for their type of route. It suggests that the alternative Service Delivery Model succeeds in preserving the good occupancy results observed today for bus routes, in spite of the fact that the largest passenger volumes would be carried by the core rail line by then.
Figure 14 – Transit Occupancy of Existing Routes (2008)
Figure15 – Transit Occupancy of Future Routes (2019)
Network Speed
The Transit Services Annual Performance Report has published network speed for the past few years. This is the average speed experienced by passengers on board buses. It stays fairly constant – and constantly high because of the Transitway – from year to year at about 26 to 27 km per hour. An alternative Service Delivery Model would maintain a network speed of 26 km per hour, as the speed gains realized by the core rail line would counteract the system-wide speed reductions of increased local service and increased traffic congestion on the streets as the region grows.
Total Travel Time
Total travel time is made up of walking to a transit stop or station, waiting for service, riding transit, transferring to another service as the case may be, and walking to a destination. Figure 16 suggests that the new rail line would be a major contributor to a reduction in total travel time experienced by transit users. Before 2004, when the number of peak hour buses operated along the downtown section of the Transitway reached a maximum, transit customers would recurrently experience substantial delays of 15 minutes and more, whenever the facility failed and became congested. It has previously been established that, if the downtown section of the Transitway were to stay as it is and cross intersections at grade, it would reach capacity by 2017, due to ridership growth. As an illustration, Figure 16 shows minimum time savings going to Parliament compared to today’s normal operation, as well as estimates of time savings compared to operation under congestion (with a delay of 15 minutes). In practice, the enhanced reliability brought about by the alternative service delivery model should reduce occurrences of congestion delays, making the time savings accumulated day after day more substantial yet.
Figure 16 – Minimum Total Travel Time Saved in 2019 Going to Parliament Compared to Today’s Normal Operation and Operation under Congestion
ALTERNATIVE SERVICE DELIVERY
MODEL
Overview of the Alternative
Service Delivery Model
An alternative Service Delivery Model is being explored for the City of Ottawa Transit Services that could be implemented over a period of a few years. Ultimately, it is predicted to generate substantial savings in operating costs, at the price of a marginally negative impact on ridership. This alternative delivery model favours the trunk-and-feeders type of network structure and operation described in the Transit Planning Essentials section above and focuses on enhancing transit services where transit demand is, as per the patterns identified in the Travel Demand section above. In terms of policy standards, the alternative delivery model would improve occupancy and economic efficiency, while contemplating a decrease in the area coverage standard for a limited portion of the transit market in return for significant cost savings.
Network Structure
Inside the Greenbelt and within each of the three urban communities outside the Greenbelt, the alternative Service Delivery Model features the operation of a trunk with feeders. Inside the Greenbelt, this structure is supplemented by a system of cross-town routes roughly approaching a grid structure. Figures 17 and 18 show schematically the transit network structure. In these figures, some small areas are shaded where access distance to transit is greater than 800 metres and where the potential of alternative service delivery mechanisms, such as demand-responsive transit (taxi, “taxibus”, etc.), could be explored.
Table 7 – Overall Description of the Network Structure during the Morning Peak
|
South |
High-frequency Transitway bus route between Barrhaven and Tunney’s Pasture |
|
Two circulator routes through Barrhaven radiating in to Tunney’s Pasture |
|
|
Cross-town service linking Riverside South, Manotick and Barrhaven |
|
|
One cross-town route linking Riverside South and Fallowfield via the Woodroffe transit priority corridor |
|
|
West |
High-frequency Transitway bus
routes between Kanata and Tunney’s Pasture |
|
Three circulator routes through Kanata – one south of Highway 417, one north and one linking neighbourhoods on either side – radiating in to Tunney’s Pasture |
|
|
A feeder route serving areas in Stittsville not already served by the Transitway route |
|
|
East |
High-frequency Transitway bus route between Trim Road and Blair |
|
A feeder route between Millenium and Blair |
|
|
Three circulator routes through Orleans, serving the eastern, centre and western neighbourhoods of Orleans, from north of the Queensway to south of Innes |
|
|
One cross-town route intersecting the three circulators described above |
|
|
Gatineau |
High-frequency Rapibus route between Gatineau and Bayview Station via Prince of Wales Bridge |
|
High-frequency Transitway bus route between Southwest, Tunney’s Pasture and downtown Gatineau via Chaudières Bridge |
Figure 17 – Alternative Service Delivery Model: Network Structure inside the Greenbelt
Figure 18 – Alternative Service Delivery Model: Network Structure outside the Greenbelt
Alternative Service Delivery
Model: Basic Comparisons
Table 8 compares the Alternative Service Delivery Model with what would be the future of the existing trunk-and-branches operation. Reduced area coverage and the transfers brought about by trunk-and-feeders operation would be key factors in the decrease of 1.4% in overall ridership. However, the operating cost savings generated by the alternative delivery model would be very substantial, up to a 20.3% reduction. Even if allowing for adjustments for a potential increase in the area coverage or further increases in service frequency to compensate for transfers, the cost savings could almost reach $100 million.
Table 8 – Alternative Service Delivery Model: Comparison with Current Trunk-and-Branches Operation Type
|
|
2008 Existing |
2019 Network Based on Current Practices (Trunk-and-Branches Operation, Existing
Area Coverage) |
2019 Alternative Service Delivery Model (Trunk-and-Feeders Operation, Lower Area Coverage) |
|
|
Total Ottawa-Based
Passengers in AM Peak Hour |
31,100 |
44,720 |
44,110 |
(1.4%) |
|
Total Annualized Operating
Cost |
280,245,000 |
522,022,000 |
416,176,000 |
(20.3%) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BUS |
|
|
|
|
|
Annualized Revenue Hours |
1,780,000 |
3,168,000 |
2,527,000 |
(20.2%) |
|
Annualized Revenue Kms |
47,182,000 |
81,623,000 |
66,412,000 |
(18.6%) |
|
Annualized Operating Cost |
275,981,000 |
498,904,000 |
393,058,000 |
(21.2%) |
|
CORE RAIL LINE |
|
|
|
|
|
Total Boardings
in AM Peak Hour |
- |
20,670 |
25,310 |
22.5% |
|
Maximum Hourly Volume
between Stations |
- |
7,410 |
11,480 |
54.9% |
|
Annualized Revenue Hours |
- |
46,840 |
46,840 |
0.0% |
|
Annualized Revenue Kms |
- |
1,926,800 |
1,926,800 |
0.0% |
|
Annualized Operating Cost |
- |
18,854,000 |
18,854,000 |
0.0% |
|
O-TRAIN
Line |
|
|
|
|
|
Total Boardings
in AM Peak Hour |
410 |
430 |
850 |
97.7% |
|
Maximum Hourly Volume
between Stations |
290 |
280 |
590 |
110.7% |
|
Annualized Revenue Hours |
8,440 |
8,440 |
8,440 |
0.0% |
|
Annualized Revenue Kms |
329,970 |
329,970 |
329,970 |
0.0% |
|
Annualized Operating Cost |
4,264,000 |
4,264,000 |
4,264,000 |
0.0% |
Alternative Service Delivery
for the Urban Communities Outside the Greenbelt
As a variation to the Alternative
Service Delivery Model that introduces longer bus feeder services from the
suburbs to the trunk services at Blair, Tunney’s Pasture and Baseline, shorter feeder
services were considered that would connect to Transitway stations along
Highway 174 in Orléans, Highway 417 in Kanata and at
Fallowfield in Barrhaven. Bus trunk services on the Transitway would link those
transfer points to the rail stations at Blair and Tunney’s Pasture. Table 9
shows that, while the bus operating costs are further reduced with this concept
compared with the Alternative Service Delivery Model, the impact on ridership
is significant. For this reason, this alternative was not retained.
Table 9 – Alternative Service Delivery for the Urban Communities Outside the Greenbelt
|
|
2019 Alternative Service Delivery Model |
2019 Trunk and Feeders with Shorter Feeders within the Urban Communities |
|
|
Total Ottawa-Based
Passengers in AM Peak Hour |
44,110 |
42,240 |
(4.2%) |
|
Total Annualized Operating
Cost |
416,176,000 |
344,449,000 |
(17.2%) |
Alternative Service Delivery for Inter-Provincial Transit Trips
Table 10 shows that
trunk-and-feeder operation would also benefit the STO system compared to
trunk-and-branches operation. The option of all Ottawa-bound STO services
terminating at Bayview in the morning would require modification to the Prince
of Wales Bridge. It would however reduce STO operating costs the most, for a
marginal negative impact on ridership. This option is in line with on-going
co-operative work being done with the STO to set a direction for
inter-provincial transit. Bayview would become a key intermodal transportation
centre for the regional transit system, with a predominance of bus-to-rail
transfers that would have to be reflected in the design of the station.
Table 10 – Alternative Service Delivery for Inter-Provincial Transit Trips
|
|
2019 Trunk-and-Branches Operation of the Rapibus |
2019 Trunk-and-Feeder Operation of the Rapibus Route to Rideau Centre via Chaudières Bridge, and Aylmer/ Downtown Ottawa and
Aylmer/Tunney’s Bus Routes |
2019 Trunk-and-Feeder Operation of the Rapibus via
Prince of Wales Bridge(both directions) to Bayview, with Aylmer Services as
Branches |
||
|
Total Gatineau-Based
Passengers in AM Peak Hour |
13,730 |
12,580 |
(8.4%) |
12,250 |
(10.8%) |
|
BUS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Annualized Revenue Hours |
524,600 |
365,900 |
(30.3%) |
331,700 |
(36.8%) |
|
Annualized Revenue Kms |
11,892,000 |
9,187,000 |
(22.7%) |
8,890,000 |
(25.2%) |
Alternative Service Delivery
for Express Service Operation on the Core Rail Line
As an alternative to operating dual tracks on the core rail line between Blair and Tunney’s Pasture, the alternative was explored of operating a third track that would accommodate trains made faster by their not serving Cyrville, St.Laurent, Train, Lees, Campus and LeBreton stations. Table 11 shows no clear benefit, due to the modest time gain for passengers. The operating cost (assumed to be driven by revenue kilometres) would be low, but the required capital investment should be very significant, and therefore not justified.
Table 11 – Alternative Service Delivery
for Express Service Operation on the Core Rail Line
|
|
2019 Alternative Service Delivery Model |
2019 Trunk and Feeders With Express Rail Service |
|
|
Total Ottawa-Based Passengers in AM Peak Hour |
44,110 |
43,860 |
(0.6%) |
|
Total Annualized Operating
Cost |
416,176,000 |
416,332,000 |
0.0% |
CONSTRUCTION PHASE SERVICE DELIVERY MODEL
Network Structure of the
Construction Phase Service Delivery Model
During construction of the core rail line, major portions of the Transitway would be closed: between Blair and Campus and between LeBreton and Tunney’s Pasture. The Alternative Service Delivery Model could already have been implemented for portions of the bus network, but until the core rail line opens, some routes along the Transitway would have to follow temporary alignments. Transitway routes between Blair and Westboro Stations could have to be re-routed onto the Queensway in the east and onto the Ottawa River Parkway and Scott Street in the west during the construction phase. Stations like St. Laurent and Hurdman in the east and Westboro and Bayview in the west could have to be served by selected services only, not to increase travel time to an undue number of services. Some minor stations such as Cyrville and Train may best be served through some special form of service. LeBreton Station could be temporarily relocated onto Wellington Street. Routes from Gatineau would cross either the Chaudières or Portage Bridge and continue to the Rideau Centre during the construction phase.
Construction Phase Network Speed
During the construction phase, the network speed is expected to fall slightly, to 24.6 km/h, or 1.5 km/h slower than that of the post-construction alternative service delivery model. This reduction in speed would be attributed in part to the re-routing of bus routes off a major portion of the Transitway.
Impact of Construction Phase
on Service Delivery Model
With the simulated closure of the Transitway, Table 12 shows that the operating costs incurred during construction to maintain system capacity and minimize ridership loss.
Table 12 – Construction Phase Service Delivery Model: Basic Comparisons
|
|
2018 Construction Phase Service Delivery Model |
2019 Alternative Service Delivery Model |
|
Total Ottawa-Based
Passengers in AM Peak Hour |
42,210 |
44,110 |
|
Total Annualized Operating
Cost |
490,427,000 |
416,176,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
BUS |
|
|
|
Annualized Revenue Hours |
3,154,000 |
2,527,000 |
|
Annualized Revenue Kms |
78,520,000 |
66,412,000 |
|
Annualized Operating Cost |
486,163,000 |
393,058,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
O-TRAIN
Line |
|
|
|
Total Boardings
in AM Peak Hour |
560 |
850 |
|
Maximum Hourly Volume
between Stations |
340 |
590 |
Alternative Service Delivery
for Opening of Blair-Campus Section of Core Rail Line
To mitigate the impacts of higher operating cost and revenue loss during construction, an alternative would be – if feasible – to open the Blair-Campus portion of the rail line as soon as completed and before the rest of the line. Most of this portion of the rail line would be built at grade. Table 13 suggests that the bus and rail network operated under this approach would generate significant operating costs savings and a nominal increase in ridership. Staff will pursue this option as implementation of the rail project continues.
Table 13 – Early Opening of Blair-Campus Section of Core Rail Line
|
|
2018 Construction Phase Service Delivery Model |
2018 Blair-Campus Section of Core Rail Line Open |
|
|
Total Ottawa-Based
Passengers in AM Peak Hour |
42,210 |
42,640 |
1.0% |
|
Total Annualized Operating
Cost |
477,633,000 |
460,464,000 |
(3.6%) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
BUS |
|
|
|
|
Annualized Revenue Hours |
3,071,000 |
2,851,000 |
(7.2%) |
|
Annualized Revenue Kms |
77,163,000 |
70,432,000 |
(8.7%) |
|
Annualized Operating Cost |
473,369,000 |
445,446,000 |
(5.9%) |
|
CORE RAIL LINE |
|
|
|
|
Total Boardings
in AM Peak Hour |
- |
9,280 |
- |
|
Maximum Hourly Volume
between Stations |
- |
5,880 |
- |
|
Annualized Revenue Hours |
- |
25,320 |
- |
|
Annualized Revenue Kms |
- |
1,099,000 |
- |
|
Annualized Operating Cost |
- |
10,754,000 |
- |
|
O-TRAIN
Line |
|
|
|
|
Total Boardings
in AM Peak Hour |
560 |
630 |
11.7% |
|
Maximum Hourly Volume
between Stations |
340 |
360 |
4.7% |
DETAILED OPERATING COSTS OF THE ALTERNATIVE SERVICE DELIVERY MODEL
Costing Model Assumptions
As part of the tools developed
for the Tactical Plan, a costing model was built to fully capture the operating
costs of Transit Services and simulate the costs under the Alternative Service
Delivery Model. Among the key assumptions made are: $9.3 million in efficiency
achieved in 2010; an inflation rate of 2.5% annually (including wages and
fuel); fares set to match inflation after 2010 (when the Revenue/Cost ratio of
Transit Services is 50%); ridership growth of 3% per year and matched by
equivalent service increases. The risk of fuel price increases beyond core
inflation is quite high beyond 2011 when current hedging programs have no
effect. It is anticipated that fare increases would compensate for this
eventuality or additional efficiencies would need to be explored.
The alternative service delivery model explored here would be gradually implemented through the annual Transplan process over a period extending to 2019, when the Core rail line is expected to open.
Findings
The
fiscal model, in light of continued ridership growth of 3% to achieve a higher
modal split will result in a 1.5% - 2% pressure on the overall taxbase of the City. The implementation of the alternative
service delivery model would be a key contributor to bringing the Revenue/Cost
(R/C) ratio of Transit Services back to above 50% starting in 2011. Table 14
suggests that the investment in the core rail line could eliminate
this tax pressure from transit, as savings from the economy of scale of the new
system would be realized. The R/C ratio could be set at 55% when the
Blair-Tunney’s rail section opens and the alternative service delivery model is
in place. It is envisaged that the R/C ratio could be as high as 60% when the
Tunney’s-Baseline rail section opens at a future stage.
For the City of Ottawa, about 10 million liters of fuel would be saved
annually with the opening of the core rail line and the alternative service
model, resulting in a 27 million kilogram reduction in GHG emissions based on
today’s engines.
The construction period would require increases in service to maintain the system capacity. Table 14 shows that this would push the R/C ratio down to slightly below 50% between 2015 and 2018. A total of $149 million has been funded for operating support during construction. With service growth aimed at maintaining capacity, Table 15 shows how ridership per capita would continue to increase every year throughout the construction period.