OC Transpo

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

We could have had a pro environment federal government that massively funded capital and operating costs of transit but we didn't.

Good. As a country, we need to get out of this terrible political culture where lower levels of government keep trying to stick senior levels with the monthly bills, whether that's transit operating costs or Toronto trying to get Ontario and Canada to fill the gap left by artificially low municipal tax rates.

On the capital side, is there a federal government that has put more into big transit projects?

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Well death spiral implies cuts lower ridership which means more cuts are needed. I reject that premise. Given how little revenue comes from farebox there is likely no cut that reduces revenue more. Even if we got a per rider subsidy from the sky instead of a fixed revenue model most cuts wouldn't see a bigger drops than the savings. Transit elasticity is low based on service levels where we are now.

You do know that pre-pandemic, 50+% of operating costs were covered from fare revenues, right?
Even in this year's budget, fares are expected to cover ~43% of transit operations.
That's not exactly a small percentage.

If even just 5% of OC Transpo's budget is cut (like in 2011), resulting in a 5% drop in ridership (like in the years following that cut), that's effectively 10% of their operating revenues gone. We're talking tens of millions of dollars worth of transit service here.

The idea that ridership is somehow just immune to "small" service cuts is so incredibly arrogant.
When was the last time you took a bus in Ottawa?

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

You do know that pre-pandemic, 50+% of operating costs were covered from fare revenues, right?
Even in this year's budget, fares are expected to cover ~43% of transit operations.
That's not exactly a small percentage.

If even just 5% of OC Transpo's budget is cut (like in 2011), resulting in a 5% drop in ridership (like in the years following that cut), that's effectively 10% of their operating revenues gone. We're talking tens of millions of dollars worth of transit service here.

The idea that ridership is somehow just immune to "small" service cuts is so incredibly arrogant.
When was the last time you took a bus in Ottawa?

That's some wonky math. It ignores capital costs. Which matter. Three is no evidence a 5% budget cut will see a 5% ridership drop but that doesn't drop their operating revenues by 10% that is super wonky math.

I take the bus all the time and it's discretionary. The bad service often means I take an Uber instead or just walk down bank street. Do I want to pay $100 more in property taxes to make the 7 run more often. No? My neighbours all have 2 cars and never take the bus and you can bet they don't want to.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

That's some wonky math. It ignores capital costs. Which matter. Three is no evidence a 5% budget cut will see a 5% ridership drop but that doesn't drop their operating revenues by 10% that is super wonky math.

I take the bus all the time and it's discretionary. The bad service often means I take an Uber instead or just walk down bank street. Do I want to pay $100 more in property taxes to make the 7 run more often. No? My neighbours all have 2 cars and never take the bus and you can bet they don't want to.

Capital costs do matter, and while we have spent a ton more on transit expansion, the end result is service cuts, over and over again since 2019.

While you claim the weird math, just think about. The loss in ridership is most likely those who are paying full fares. The remainder are those who receive a discount, seniors, those with low incomes, students, those who are considered captive riders. This is how your loss in revenue is greater than the loss of ridership.

Recently, we have heard comments of the loss of so many monthly pass holders, which are the ones paying full fares. The loss of pass holders easily leads to dropping transit ridership. Those who used to pay for a pass, might have used transit a few more times per month, because it cost no more. It might be a stop on the way home to do some shopping, whereas without a pass, you might have to pay another fare. Every trip becomes monetized without a pass, so if you go downtown to the office twice a week, you might think that one Uber trip, or one day of parking which doesn't cost that much more than transit along with giving you more convenience. I know when I quit buying a pass, my use transit gradually declined. You develop different habits and make trips that are not transit friendly. Gradually, car convenience takes over.

Regarding those with 2 cars, that is a fair comment, however, not all 2 car households are managing that well financially. It costs a lot of money to operate a car, and some will switch, if transit served their purposes. While we are spending billions on Transitway to rail conversion, how does that really improve overall transit mobility? We have not really expanded our segregated transit system much in recent years. New enhanced routes, even if is just bus lanes, may convince a few people to switch to transit.

The other problem is that we are investing in more or less fixed cost transit. Rail ridership is running at 50% to 60% of pre-pandemic and bus ridership is running at 70% to 80%. Long-term contracts don't give us that much leeway in reducing operating costs with rail, so most cost savings have to come from buses as we are now seeing. But, if ridership recovery is best on buses, don't we risk more by bus service cuts?

Also, segregated busways or even bus lanes, without complicated electrical and signaling systems, can give us good bang for our buck. Buses running more quickly mean that we can run fewer buses to offer the same service on a particular route, or you can offer more service with the same number of buses.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Capital costs do matter, and while we have spent a ton more on transit expansion, the end result is service cuts, over and over again since 2019.

While you claim the weird math, just think about. The loss in ridership is most likely those who are paying full fares. The remainder are those who receive a discount, seniors, those with low incomes, students, those who are considered captive riders. This is how your loss in revenue is greater than the loss of ridership.

Recently, we have heard comments of the loss of so many monthly pass holders, which are the ones paying full fares. The loss of pass holders easily leads to dropping transit ridership. Those who used to pay for a pass, might have used transit a few more times per month, because it cost no more. It might be a stop on the way home to do some shopping, whereas without a pass, you might have to pay another fare. Every trip becomes monetized without a pass, so if you go downtown to the office twice a week, you might think that one Uber trip, or one day of parking which doesn't cost that much more than transit along with giving you more convenience. I know when I quit buying a pass, my use transit gradually declined. You develop different habits and make trips that are not transit friendly. Gradually, car convenience takes over.

Regarding those with 2 cars, that is a fair comment, however, not all 2 car households are managing that well financially. It costs a lot of money to operate a car, and some will switch, if transit served their purposes. While we are spending billions on Transitway to rail conversion, how does that really improve overall transit mobility? We have not really expanded our segregated transit system much in recent years. New enhanced routes, even if is just bus lanes, may convince a few people to switch to transit.

The other problem is that we are investing in more or less fixed cost transit. Rail ridership is running at 50% to 60% of pre-pandemic and bus ridership is running at 70% to 80%. Long-term contracts don't give us that much leeway in reducing operating costs with rail, so most cost savings have to come from buses as we are now seeing. But, if ridership recovery is best on buses, don't we risk more by bus service cuts?

Also, segregated busways or even bus lanes, without complicated electrical and signaling systems, can give us good bang for our buck. Buses running more quickly mean that we can run fewer buses to offer the same service on a particular route, or you can offer more service with the same number of buses.

I don't dispute most of this. A question for the half (or more) of this thread saying we must not cut service. What is your solution? Are you actually saying we should double the bus frequency and that will more than pay for itself? Borrow money and it will come back? The only answer is tax increases. That's a legitimate position but those of us on the other side of this thread convinced is a bad one. There is no magic money tree.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

I don't dispute most of this. A question for the half (or more) of this thread saying we must not cut service. What is your solution? Are you actually saying we should double the bus frequency and that will more than pay for itself? Borrow money and it will come back? The only answer is tax increases. That's a legitimate position but those of us on the other side of this thread convinced is a bad one. There is no magic money tree.

I don't have magic solutions, other than to point out that possibility of a spiral downward. Becoming even more a car dependent city has large costs affixed to it as well, although those road expansion costs may hit in 10 years or more. So, short-term savings, for long-term higher costs, typical of politicians. But as we see, we are investing a ton of money on capital projects for transit, and then we cut service. What is the wisdom of doing this? When rail expansion became feverish following the 2006 cancellation, there are all kinds of claims suggesting the tremendous operating cost savings we would get, that would give us tax savings and also reinvestment into the bus network. Also, the suggestion that we would end up with faster service. None of this turned out to be true.

The question has to be asked, why spend several billion if the end result is worse service? This all shows how we made far too many presumptions when we decided to make this kind of enormous investment. It is rather interesting that all these issues were put out (fixed operating costs, potentially slower service) to cancel the 2006 plan, believing there would be a much better outcome with the replacement Line 1. If Phase 2 delivers more of the same (worse service), what does transit face in the future? Let's hope that Phase 2 turns out really well, but I am not confident with redesign of Line 2, which could be an enormous money loser.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

That's some wonky math. It ignores capital costs. Which matter. Three is no evidence a 5% budget cut will see a 5% ridership drop but that doesn't drop their operating revenues by 10% that is super wonky math.

I mean whether you want to accept or keep denying the correlation between service cuts and ridership drops is up to you, but two of them coinciding is still a cumulative decrease in operating resources for OC Transpo.

I take the bus all the time and it's discretionary. The bad service often means I take an Uber instead or just walk down bank street. Do I want to pay $100 more in property taxes to make the 7 run more often. No? My neighbours all have 2 cars and never take the bus and you can bet they don't want to.

A $100 increase per household would do a hell of a lot more than just a minor frequency bump on your local route and I think you're arguing in bad faith if you're suggesting that such a large increase would only result in negligible changes to service.

Originally Posted by YOWetal

I don't dispute most of this. A question for the half (or more) of this thread saying we must not cut service. What is your solution? Are you actually saying we should double the bus frequency and that will more than pay for itself? Borrow money and it will come back? The only answer is tax increases. That's a legitimate position but those of us on the other side of this thread convinced is a bad one. There is no magic money tree.

For starters, not cutting service doesn't mean those resources can't be reallocated to other parts of the transit network to bolster service where ridership is higher.

I have no idea what you mean by a service increase "paying for itself", but I do think increasing service levels would absolutely lead to a measurable increase in ridership as a result.

If you really think it isn't worth investing in the quality and level of transit service we have in Ottawa because there's "no financial benefit"-- then fine, I clearly can't change your mind.
OC Transpo can keep circling the drain and you can keep insisting that there's nothing to be done about it. Enjoy your Uber bills. Hopefully one day you get a nice transit levy bill to go with it.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

I mean whether you want to accept or keep denying the correlation between service cuts and ridership drops is up to you, but two of them coinciding is still a cumulative decrease in operating resources for OC Transpo.



A $100 increase per household would do a hell of a lot more than just a minor frequency bump on your local route and I think you're arguing in bad faith if you're suggesting that such a large increase would only result in negligible changes to service.



For starters, not cutting service doesn't mean those resources can't be reallocated to other parts of the transit network to bolster service where ridership is higher.

I have no idea what you mean by a service increase "paying for itself", but I do think increasing service levels would absolutely lead to a measurable increase in ridership as a result.

If you really think it isn't worth investing in the quality and level of transit service we have in Ottawa because there's "no financial benefit"-- then fine, I clearly can't change your mind.
OC Transpo can keep circling the drain and you can keep insisting that there's nothing to be done about it. Enjoy your Uber bills. Hopefully one day you get a nice transit levy bill to go with it.

Pay for itself means you seem to think that if we increase bus frequency we will get more revenue that pays for the cost of that gas and labour and I guess wear and tear on the vehicle. This is obviously nonsense. Almost certainly cuts therefore do save money as the reverse is also true. Admitting we do lose some customers. OCTranspo managment aren't stupid they are dealing with a fixed pot of general tax revenue.

I understand you think we should "invest" more but there is no magic solution that doesn't involve more taxes to do this. That is certainly a reasonable proposal. Just don't claim it all pays for itself.

[lrt's friend]

I presume that you are also in agreement, that we should not build roads either, as they also don't pay for themselves.

There are all kinds of examples that targeted investment in transit, results in better than expected results, ie more ridership and more revenue. Kingston was the poster child about 10 years ago, and Brampton today, where they can't acquire buses and hire drivers fast enough. There are reasons for these successes that may or may not fully apply to Ottawa, but there is no justification to suggest that service cuts are going to produce good long-term results if we are hoping for a better Ottawa with a more functional transportation network.

The Ontario government has already told the City of Ottawa, that if we can't get our transit act together, we should not expect further capital investment. This is a loss for Ottawa, as this money will go to other cities.

When I was looking at ridership losses in the early 2010s, it was mentioned that Ottawa lost money (provincial gas tax rebates for transit) as a result of service cuts. Ottawa has had a rather bad track record in wasting money because of questionable transit decisions.

[Richard Eade]

This is an interesting discussion – although it appears to be quite polarized.

Camp #1: “I don’t want to spend anything more than necessary to provide a basic public transit network. Anyone who needs to use transit can adjust their life to live within those confines.”

Camp #2: “If we reduce public transit to the bare minimum, we will force more people into private cars, and that will be horrible for society.”

It seems to me that Camp #1 regards public transit as a business; which should be revenue neutral, at worse, to eliminate any required tax-payer subsidy. While Camp #2 sees it as a necessary public service; which has a benefit far beyond any cost to the tax-payer who subsidizes it.

OC Transpo has been ‘generously’ given an annual increase of about 2.5% for the past many years. Its operating costs have increased by much more than that. Fortunately, through wizardry, and perhaps a little Black Magic, OC Transpo has been able to provide almost as much service year after year. Unfortunately, working with such a bare-bones budget, has meant that the quality and reliability of service has dropped; and those are things that make people look for other travel options.

[Interestingly, water rates have increased by over 4% each year; because the cost to process water and sewage has increased by more than the rate of inflation; as has the cost of the infrastructure maintenance. But, for that, it is acceptable to increase the cost to the average household by more than $40 per year; because water is essential for life – transit is not.]

There is no doubt that OC Transpo needs to reconfigure its service, due to usage changes, but it also needs to be funded fairly. Car drivers are not asked to pay 45% of the road cost every time they enter a street. In Ontario, drivers used to be forced to pay a portion of the cost to maintain roads through their licence renewals – but that has been replaced by a tax-payer contribution. There is a portion of the fuel tax that gets applied to road work – so that could be considered a ‘user pay’ portion. I doubt, that the road network in Ontario is completely paid for by fuel tax (which currently is being held low). I’d expect that there is a large component that is tax supported through other taxes. Do the ‘user fees’ even pay for 50% of roads, in Ontario?

There is, of course, something to keep in mind, when you read the news stories of the OC Transpo budget. When the media says that OC Transpo will be spending $731.2M for operation in 2024, it is true, but a bit deceiving; because OC Transpo has revenue. The cost to the tax-payer is not $731.2M; it is $409M, because the rest is covered by other revenue. When the city budget for road work says that it will spend $141M, it is using $139M of tax-payer money for that; collecting only $2M in ‘Fees and Services’.

That is not to say that I agree with all of OC Transpo’s choices for spending money. An example is the latest roundabout proposal for Orleans. This proposal is purely a transit ‘requirement’ so that buses can turn around. The plan is to spend $8M just so buses can turn around. It would be far less expensive to use the existing bus-loop at the school, or modify the fire station driveway, or even buy a corner property to make it a turn-around (and lay-up) area. There is also a corner at Jeanne d’Arc and the OR174 off-ramp that might be useful. There must be other options for turning a bus around that don’t cost $8M to implement.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

This is an interesting discussion – although it appears to be quite polarized.

Camp #1: “I don’t want to spend anything more than necessary to provide a basic public transit network. Anyone who needs to use transit can adjust their life to live within those confines.”

Camp #2: “If we reduce public transit to the bare minimum, we will force more people into private cars, and that will be horrible for society.”

It seems to me that Camp #1 regards public transit as a business; which should be revenue neutral, at worse, to eliminate any required tax-payer subsidy. While Camp #2 sees it as a necessary public service; which has a benefit far beyond any cost to the tax-payer who subsidizes it.

There is no doubt that OC Transpo needs to reconfigure its service, due to usage changes, but it also needs to be funded fairly. Car drivers are not asked to pay 45% of the road cost every time they enter a street. In Ontario, drivers used to be forced to pay a portion of the cost to maintain roads through their licence renewals – but that has been replaced by a tax-payer contribution. There is a portion of the fuel tax that gets applied to road work – so that could be considered a ‘user pay’ portion. I doubt, that the road network in Ontario is completely paid for by fuel tax (which currently is being held low). I’d expect that there is a large component that is tax supported through other taxes. Do the ‘user fees’ even pay for 50% of roads, in Ontario?

There is, of course, something to keep in mind, when you read the news stories of the OC Transpo budget. When the media says that OC Transpo will be spending $731.2M for operation in 2024, it is true, but a bit deceiving; because OC Transpo has revenue. The cost to the tax-payer is not $731.2M; it is $409M, because the rest is covered by other revenue. When the city budget for road work says that it will spend $141M, it is using $139M of tax-payer money for that; collecting only $2M in ‘Fees and Services’.

Philosophically I think most of this is correct. As I have pointed out there is another higher tax more transit oriented model even with our low density suburban model. It requires massive investment that we aren't willing to make. At least not unless a money fairy pays for it. It's better to be realistic.
If you want car owners to pay more that is a fair idea but it seems unlikely as a winning campaign platform.

Should we increase the transit tax by 4% to match water? Maybe but that is still not going to avoid cuts altogether. If 4% why not 5, 6 or 7. What is the level needed for a transformative transit system? What do we get with that level of funding?

[Truenorth00]

Taxes are not going up. And OC Transpo's operating costs. That's reality. So accepting that reality, the question then is how to allocate resources. Maximum ridership or maximum coverage. Those are the opposing ends of the spectrum. Can't span more of that spectrum without more resources.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Taxes are not going up. And OC Transpo's operating costs. That's reality. So accepting that reality, the question then is how to allocate resources. Maximum ridership or maximum coverage. Those are the opposing ends of the spectrum. Can't span more of that spectrum without more resources.

Not sure even OCTranspo management has accepted reality. The last we heard from them they were hoping to be rescued by the Feds. I don't see medium term from Ford or PP a bailout either.

We will soon be sitting on a lot of debt for what we have. The LRT operating costs should help a bit but they will probably have to double down on cutting anything not feeding the LRT.

[rocketphish]

Orléans roundabout proves unpopular with east end residents
Proposed traffic circle intended to give buses easier access to Jeanne d'Arc LRT station

Safiyah Marhnouj · CBC News
Posted: Apr 30, 2024 10:51 AM EDT | Last Updated: 2 hours ago



The first public meeting since OC Transpo unveiled a design proposal for a new roundabout in Orléans turned into a tense and sometimes heated exchange between residents and staff Monday night.

More than 100 people packed a room at the Bob MacQuarrie Recreation Complex to hear about the single-lane roundabout proposed for the intersection of Jeanne D'Arc Boulevard and Fortune and Vineyard drives.

Transit staff told residents the roundabout is a necessary step toward Stage 2 of the Confederation Line's extension east, allowing buses easier access to the Jeanne d'Arc LRT station.

"The buses that are coming from the south dropping people off need to be able to turn around to go back south again," said Pat Scrimgeour, OC Transpo's director of transit customer systems and planning.

He said other locations were considered but ultimately failed to meet certain requirements because they were too far from the station or required the city to expropriate land.

"We looked at the map and didn't like the idea of running on residential streets to turn the buses around and having the buses stop there and wait, so we started to look for other alternatives and this is the one that we think is best," Scrimgeour said.

But that explanation didn't sit well with many in attendance. They sometimes heckled staff, and the room occasionally erupted into cheers of support when an audience member voiced common concerns about the proposal.

Heather O'Connell said she typically likes roundabouts and appreciates how they can improve traffic flow, but this particular proposal has left her with "a lot of concerns."

Namely, she's worried about the possible risks that come with placing a roundabout in a high-pedestrian area, directly beside Convent Glen Catholic School where her children attend classes.

"We're in that intersection quite often, so I have a nervousness about the increase of buses that are certainly going to be going through that intersection every single day when we're trying to enjoy the community," O'Connell said.

OC Transpo staff told the gathering they anticipate an extra six to eight buses per hour will use the roundabout, on top of the approximately 15 buses per hour that currently serve the area.

"I've seen buses take roundabouts before and they often clip the sidewalk or they clip the side of the roundabout itself," O'Connell said.

"Kids who aren't really paying attention, who are maybe standing close to the end of the curb … I think that's a danger there."

Cheryl Turpin offered a different perspective on the roundabout, and offered a potential solution to a problem she's witnessed firsthand as a crossing guard.

"What I see every day is a flagrant disregard for kids' safety," she told CBC. "People just ... thinking they have to get to school, [and that] is more important than some kid's life."

Turpin believes the roundabout would eliminate some of the problems she sees on a daily basis, including reckless right-hand turns.

"That's the worst thing ever, because people keep cutting kids off, cutting me off, cutting each other off," she said.

Turpin said a red light camera installed at the intersection has been a relief and has helped reduce those dangerous incidents, but she'd like to see more done to improve safety.

Despite welcoming the idea of the roundabout, Turpin criticized what she characterized as a lack of proper consultation and said she understands why so many people in the neighbourhood are frustrated.

"Did anybody come and talk to me, the crossing guard?" she asked. "No. And this is a real problem."

OC Transpo told residents the design for the proposed roundabout is still in its first draft, and promised community feedback will be incorporated before it's sent to tender.

The aim is for construction to start this summer, to be completed by summer 2025.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottaw...ting-1.7189003

[DTcrawler]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKNlo4XIpts&t=0s

Here's a solution that would allow buses to turn around while also saving local residents from the horror of a roundabout.

For added safety, the city could install a tornado siren and loudspeaker that announces, "CAUTION, BUS ROTATION IN PROGRESS" every time the system is in use. Very safe for the children.

[eltodesukane]

"...need to be able to turn around to go back south again"

Why need to turn around?
Why not continue on Jeanne-d'Arc Blvd?

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by eltodesukane

"...need to be able to turn around to go back south again"

Why need to turn around?
Why not continue on Jeanne-d'Arc Blvd?

Good question. Right now there are different bus routes north and south of the transitway. This makes sense as they continue on the transitway to Blair. Now they will turn around. I guess because north and south will have different service levels/schedules.

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by eltodesukane

"...need to be able to turn around to go back south again"

Why need to turn around?
Why not continue on Jeanne-d'Arc Blvd?

Because there are more buses coming from the south of the 174 than are required to service the area north of the 174.

If they all continued on Jeanne d'Arc, there would be a lot of unnecessary capacity north of the 174 and higher costs. The roundabout would reduce operating costs and allow the service hours to be directed to where they are more needed.

[lrt's friend]

Why do people not want to use transit anymore?

I was talking to a coworker today, and he commented about a schedule gap during peak periods that directly impacts his trip home.

There is a missing trip, so that frequency is lower during the afternoon peak period than off-peak hours.

There is a one hour gap in the schedule between 3:30 and 4:30 pm and when I checked further there was a missing trip going in the peak direction as well.

When Line 1 opened in 2019, there was 7 to 8 minute service during peak periods from Hurdman. This was reduced to 15 minutes during Covid, now there is a 30 minute schedule gap between 4:30 and 5:00 p.m., the middle of peak period.

This is Route 93.

Do we wonder why the civil service does not want to go back to the office? Transit has become unreliable crap. Why can we not have predictable service, and how can we end up with worse service during peak periods than off-peak periods?

[FrostyMug]

Why not have the roundabout at the highway exit off and on the 174? Gets it away from the school, puts it next to the bus stop area, reduces time for turn around and would potentially improve flow off and onto the highway at Jeanne D'arc.