OC Transpo

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by eltodesukane

Yesterday at Blair, sign says bus #12 in 5 min, but I waited 45m.
So at least 2 scheduled bus were no show.
And the ride to Parliament was so slow and overcrowded,
because of course at every stop people had been waiting for 45m.

And with so many people waiting for the bus on Jasmine,
it's a shame the future LRT won't stop there.

The best thing about the absolutely atrocious performance of OC Transpo, which is incapable of getting any of the urban bus routes to START on time, let alone RUN on time, is that we, long-suffering transit users of the "inner urban transect", were promised nineteen ways to Easter that the reliability issues of the 2010s were transient, and would magically disappear once LRT was in service, even if LRT doesn't directly do anything to improve transit along Bank or Rideau-Montreal.

That, needless to say, didn't end up happening. And here we are, five years into the LRT era, with urban bus service that continues to suck, and no one at city hall or transpo headquarters with any ideas, or ambition, to make anything better. In fact, they keep finding new ways to make our bus transit even worse.

[JCL]

This is a video of the R1 Expresses (to Blair) being staged last year along Albert Street for the afternoon rush hour during the extended unplanned disruption of LRT Line 1 Confederaiton Line.

• Video Link

[Uhuniau]

I really wish staging and laying up buses downtown for those routes which originate downtown was better handled. The on-time performance of buses which depart from Parliament is atrocious.

[J.OT13]

From Sutcliffe's rant this morning, Ottawa paying over 50% of capital transit projects, while GTA municipalities get full ride for their transit projects.



Toronto alone is getting $30 Billion in capital investment on subway lines (new money in 2019 for lines that were lines on a napkin). City of Toronto's contribution is $5 Billion on top of that... for operations and maintenance. That would translate to $10 Billion for Ottawa. We're getting like $70 million (?) for Kanata North BRT, on the condition the Feds and the City fund 1/3 each.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

From Sutcliffe's rant this morning, Ottawa paying over 50% of capital transit projects, while GTA municipalities get full ride for their transit projects.

.

True but as irrelevant as Alberta complaining about equalization or Newfoundland about getting ripped off on Churchill Falls.

What’s Sutcliffe’s strategy here? ( granted it’s hard to tell with him if he even has one)
A big cheque from Trudeau or Ford seems very unlikely.

Is this cover to blame another level of government for a big tax increase?

[lrt's friend]

This all relates to the Liberal-Conservative infighting that directly related to LRT from 2006 to 2010. Voters did not see the long term consequences. The sh*t has now hit the fan.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

From Sutcliffe's rant this morning, Ottawa paying over 50% of capital transit projects, while GTA municipalities get full ride for their transit projects.



Toronto alone is getting $30 Billion in capital investment on subway lines (new money in 2019 for lines that were lines on a napkin). City of Toronto's contribution is $5 Billion on top of that... for operations and maintenance. That would translate to $10 Billion for Ottawa. We're getting like $70 million (?) for Kanata North BRT, on the condition the Feds and the City fund 1/3 each.

Good on the province and feds for investing where they get both economic and political return. Gridlock in the GTA impacts the national economy, and drives up cost of living in so many ways that it drives voting behaviour. Gridlock in Ottawa? Few pissed off federal bureaucrats or government contractors doesn't impact much.

Also, gotta love how these analyses never consider the per capita cost, total transportation investment (like roads) and projected provincial population share. All of which would show that the disparity isn't nearly as huge.

Originally Posted by YOWetal

What’s Sutcliffe’s strategy here? ( granted it’s hard to tell with him if he even has one)
A big cheque from Trudeau or Ford seems very unlikely.

Is this cover to blame another level of government for a big tax increase?

Multiple bad decisions are coming home to roost and he wants somebody else to blame.

1) Higher governments are refusing to fund Stage 3. The same lot also facing bus cuts. This now means more angry suburbanites stuck in traffic.

2) He stuck a massive increase on development fees. The federal and provincial governments will be pushing to reverse some of those. More angry taxpaying suburbanites.

3) There's the Lansdowne boondoggle that is the cherry on top.

Ottawa is now going to see the kind of property tax increases a lot of the 905 gets, as they suburban ponzi scheme unravels. And he knows this is going to end his (and many other) municipal political career. It's going to be a spiral of decline. Transit was just the first cut. Next up, is libraries, roads, rec centres and eventually even police and fire. We'll all be paying more every year and getting progressively less. This is what Ottawa voted for. And I hope this city get it nice and hard. Hopefully no more provincial and federal bailouts for their bad decisions.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Multiple bad decisions are coming home to roost and he wants somebody else to blame.

1) Higher governments are refusing to fund Stage 3. The same lot also facing bus cuts. This now means more angry suburbanites stuck in traffic.

2) He stuck a massive increase on development fees. The federal and provincial governments will be pushing to reverse some of those. More angry taxpaying suburbanites.

3) There's the Lansdowne boondoggle that is the cherry on top.

Ottawa is now going to see the kind of property tax increases a lot of the 905 gets, as they suburban ponzi scheme unravels. And he knows this is going to end his (and many other) municipal political career. It's going to be a spiral of decline. Transit was just the first cut. Next up, is libraries, roads, rec centres and eventually even police and fire. We'll all be paying more every year and getting progressively less. This is what Ottawa voted for. And I hope this city get it nice and hard. Hopefully no more provincial and federal bailouts for their bad decisions.

I think your predictions are right on. I have predicted this since phase 2 was funded and they basically said it only worked if ridership stayed the same and interest rates stayed the same. But what could McKenney have done differently? Or do you mean voted for the last 15 years? Ottawa chose to abandon the 1/3 1/3 1/3 split when costs escalated. They could have abandoned expensive stations, branches and let the feds or province pitch in to add them back in. I think that is how the airport station got funded.

It's obvious the 37% tax increase he is talking about is what is needed to stabilize transit. Better to bite the bullet and just do it while also consolidating bus lines and focussing on value. The transit levy should also not be service dependent since the whole city benefits from transit and most of us don't use it in every ward anyway.

[Truenorth00]

Ottawa isn't dealt the fairest hand. But Sutcliffe and this council have been exceptionally bad. It makes the argument for a federal/provincial bailout bad. Why throw good money after bad?

Mark Sutcliffe begging the federal and provincial government to clean up his mess.

As Mayor, he's:

- passed the biggest tax hike in Ottawa history on new housing
- planning two more massive tax hikes on new housing
- rejected up to $200M in funding from the federal government for housing because he thought raising taxes was better
- lost out on potentially hundreds of millions of dollars in housing accelerator fund (HAF) money because he refused to submit an ambitious housing plan
- planning billions in new capital spending that will force even bigger taxes on our city
- sided with Shawn Menard at Lansdowne to block new housing and add millions to the cost

The provincial and federal governments have been extremely generous with Ottawa, even when we didn't deserve it.

- received $150M in HAF money despite not meeting any of the criteria for funding
- received millions from the provincial Building Faster Fund because Ontario changed the criteria so they could qualify after Ottawa badly missed their housing targets
- just received a $500M "New Deal for Ottawa" from the province

I don't remember the Mayor campaigning on blocking housing, huge tax hikes, and a massive expansion of capital spending that will crush our city finances...

... but that's the way we're headed.

The Mayor has broken essentially every campaign promise he made. He's been one of the worst NIMBY mayors in Ontario. He's completely given up. And now he's pointing fingers at the federal and provincial government?

Give me a break.

https://x.com/DeanTester/status/1821580405096456413?t=5SPRSNpZx6ecknTiDzFTnQ&s=19

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

I think your predictions are right on. I have predicted this since phase 2 was funded and they basically said it only worked if ridership stayed the same and interest rates stayed the same. But what could McKenney have done differently? Or do you mean voted for the last 15 years? Ottawa chose to abandon the 1/3 1/3 1/3 split when costs escalated. They could have abandoned expensive stations, branches and let the feds or province pitch in to add them back in. I think that is how the airport station got funded.

It's obvious the 37% tax increase he is talking about is what is needed to stabilize transit. Better to bite the bullet and just do it while also consolidating bus lines and focussing on value. The transit levy should also not be service dependent since the whole city benefits from transit and most of us don't use it in every ward anyway.

Have you see how much this city spends on suburban road expansion in rather low traffic areas? Have you seen how much this council opposed density? That's arguably the greatest return on investment for the city, especially in-fill. Those are all fundamental issues. Transit mismanagement is on top of all that. And it's driven by the same flawed attitude: "Suburbanites first.". As long as they keep forcing OC Transpo to design services around serving the occasional Suburbanite commuter over regular transit users, their cost efficiency as a service will be terrible. They know what needs to be done. They don't want to do it. Don't see why federal and provincial taxpayers should pay though.

[harls]

'Who will save us from this problem we created?' - Mayor Chucklehead.

[zzptichka]

Why won't he try to "find some efficiencies"???

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Have you see how much this city spends on suburban road expansion in rather low traffic areas? Have you seen how much this council opposed density? That's arguably the greatest return on investment for the city, especially in-fill. Those are all fundamental issues. Transit mismanagement is on top of all that. And it's driven by the same flawed attitude: "Suburbanites first.". As long as they keep forcing OC Transpo to design services around serving the occasional Suburbanite commuter over regular transit users, their cost efficiency as a service will be terrible. They know what needs to be done. They don't want to do it. Don't see why federal and provincial taxpayers should pay though.

Those are choices. The suburbanites outvote us urban dwellers. The whole city is a bit szhitophrenic though. We choke traffic with "complete" streets then widen roads and underfund transit. I guess we get the wishy washy try to do everything government we vote for but personally I think we need decisive action in one way or the other.

I also think there are some outside the box ideas like selling of land next to LRT stations no strings attached. Pay off the debt and lower our operating costs and deliver TOD riders. Quick example. The empty field next to Tom Brown Arena and frankly the dilapitated arena itself are worth 10s of millions of dollars and wasted space right now with a wind swept field and a suburban style arena surrounded by surface parking.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by zzptichka

Why won't he try to "find some efficiencies"???

Yeah, wasn't that part of his campaign, find 1% efficiency in the City Budget? Media - "How will you do that sir?" Sutcliffe - "You can't tell me there's no way to find a 1% efficiency, a dollar for every hundred dollars" Media - "Yes, we know what 1% is, but how will you do it?" Sutcliffe - "You can't tell me there's no way to find a 1% efficiency, a dollar for every hundred dollars".

I think he found that "efficiency" by limiting OC's budget and ended it there. Much easier than looking through efficiencies in every department.

Or was that Doug?

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Those are choices. The suburbanites outvote us urban dwellers. The whole city is a bit szhitophrenic though. We choke traffic with "complete" streets then widen roads and underfund transit. I guess we get the wishy washy try to do everything government we vote for but personally I think we need decisive action in one way or the other.

Those complete streets move more people at a lower cost. They aren't the problem. The billion dollars being spent on suburban road expansions to do nothing but add lanes for roads that are only contested a fraction of the day is the problem. Not only is that capital cost. It creates large recurring maintenance costs.

Originally Posted by YOWetal

I also think there are some outside the box ideas like selling of land next to LRT stations no strings attached. Pay off the debt and lower our operating costs and deliver TOD riders. Quick example. The empty field next to Tom Brown Arena and frankly the dilapitated arena itself are worth 10s of millions of dollars and wasted space right now with a wind swept field and a suburban style arena surrounded by surface parking.

TOD is not "outside the box" thinking. Except for the suburban brained. It's the best return on investment. Adds a ton of ridership to transit and tax revenue with very little new capital expenditure. Allowing, four storeys for in-fill suburban redevelopment does the same. They fought that. Requiring more density for new developments also improves ROI for the city. They fought that. And taxed it heavily.

All of this actually runs counter to both provincial and federal goals. Including the stated policy of the next Prime Minister. So kicking same in the face of higher governments and then expecting a bailout is a bit rich. All right after they just got a half a billion dollar bailout. Time for this council to do their job.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Those complete streets move more people at a lower cost. They aren't the problem. The billion dollars being spent on suburban road expansions to do nothing but add lanes for roads that are only contested a fraction of the day is the problem. Not only is that capital cost. It creates large recurring maintenance costs.

The do not add capacity because pedestrians and bikers are not over capacity anywhere in the city. A few people might bike with better lanes but it's very marginal. Main street for example is mere blocks from the Canal or River so removing a lane for cars that pushes people on to Riverside does not move more people for less.

I also don't like the only busy a few hours a day trope. Imagine we built transit with the idea you have to wait 3 trains to get on because it's too full but it's only like that a few hours a day. If people will live in suburban cookie cutter houses we need to connect them to roads. Not doing so is one of the biggest reasons for the cost of housing exploding.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

TOD is not "outside the box" thinking. Except for the suburban brained. It's the best return on investment. Adds a ton of ridership to transit and tax revenue with very little new capital expenditure. Allowing, four storeys for in-fill suburban redevelopment does the same. They fought that. Requiring more density for new developments also improves ROI for the city. They fought that. And taxed it heavily.

All of this actually runs counter to both provincial and federal goals. Including the stated policy of the next Prime Minister. So kicking same in the face of higher governments and then expecting a bailout is a bit rich. All right after they just got a half a billion dollar bailout. Time for this council to do their job.

It's fine to say in theory but my point is city owned land is a goldmine and we don't need a 10 year process to have some subsidized housing in every project. We also don't need to protect scrub green space next to transit stations. Many of our above ground stations are surrounded by it. I mentioned Bayview as it's city land but Hurdman is another example with scrubby green space on three sides. I think we traded with the NCC and some is owned by them but if they city still owns any corner that is a quick $10 million in our pocket.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

The do not add capacity because pedestrians and bikers are not over capacity anywhere in the city.

You really gotta inform yourself before responding. I'm talking about projects like Bank St. South widening or the Airport Road reconfiguration. That doesn't have to do with bike lanes or pedestrians. These suburban projects are all about car lanes. Bikes lanes and sidewalks are secondary goals. And these are routes that are congested maybe less than an hour in total per day. And there's literally a billion dollars budgeted towards low yield projects like this.

You can rant all you want. But there's no getting around physics. Car lanes are expensive to build and maintain. The more of them we build, the bigger the fiscal hole. So either they raise taxes or cut services. Or both. Not liking this choice and whining doesn't take it away.

Originally Posted by YOWetal

It's fine to say in theory but my point is city owned land is a goldmine and we don't need a 10 year process to have some subsidized housing in every project. We also don't need to protect scrub green space next to transit stations. Many of our above ground stations are surrounded by it. I mentioned Bayview as it's city land but Hurdman is another example with scrubby green space on three sides. I think we traded with the NCC and some is owned by them but if they city still owns any corner that is a quick $10 million in our pocket.

Sure. Sell that land. They can collect the one-time gain. I agree with that. Doesn't fix the fundamental problem though. Keep in mind this city got a half billion dollar bailout last year. There isn't half a billion dollars worth of land to sell every year.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

I also don't like the only busy a few hours a day trope. Imagine we built transit with the idea you have to wait 3 trains to get on because it's too full but it's only like that a few hours a day. If people will live in suburban cookie cutter houses we need to connect them to roads. Not doing so is one of the biggest reasons for the cost of housing exploding.

That's pretty much what it was before the pandemic. Crush load. Sometimes had to wait for the next train, sometimes missed your stope because it wasn't possible to get out of the train through the crowd. Urban bus routes were, and often still are, like that.

And now the City will cut train frequency mid-day just in time for return to school and work to achieve that crush load off peak (but won't because people will just abandon transit).

Imagine if roads were treated like transit. Can't "cut" roads to save money though.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

That's pretty much what it was before the pandemic. Crush load. Sometimes had to wait for the next train, sometimes missed your stope because it wasn't possible to get out of the train through the crowd. Urban bus routes were, and often still are, like that.

And now the City will cut train frequency mid-day just in time for return to school and work to achieve that crush load off peak (but won't because people will just abandon transit).

Imagine if roads were treated like transit. Can't "cut" roads to save money though.

And then when congestion skyrockets due to transit being unreliable they'll be arguing to fund more billion dollar road expansions which will only make the fiscal hole worse. I wish this city actually had some rational conservatives who put math over their emotions.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

The empty field next to Tom Brown Arena and frankly the dilapitated arena itself are worth 10s of millions of dollars and wasted space right now with a wind swept field and a suburban style arena surrounded by surface parking.

Just chiming in to say that Tom Brown arena is in no way dilapidated and is very well-used as it serves a wide local area. The City would need a replacement (originally the Sensplex in the RVL proposal was that) before it can get rid of the arena. Intensification only works if you continue to provide amenities in those areas.