City of Ottawa

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Everyone pays taxes, even renters. The property owners download their taxes to their tenants as part of their rent. Transit fares should be cheaper to make transit more competitive. It may never beat driving in terms of speed, especially off peak, but it could certainly be cheaper.

Those who remember the transit strike in the winter of 2008-2009 could probably validate that traffic was far worse than it was when transit was/is running.

They aren't impacted by a tax increase so effectively don't care about taxe rates. Sure in the long term higher taxes lower development and raise rents but I don't think they are arguing for any other trickle down economics regarding landlords. It's pretty clear that lower than inflation property tax and low mortgage rates didn't cause any landlords to give tenants a break.

A total shutdown of transit in fact didn't even shut down the city and we aren't talking about that. Of course transit usage increases with service increaes the converse is true with transit fares but it is largely inelastic.

Originally Posted by acottawa

I suspect you don’t use a very limited number of roads. How do you think the crap you buy and food you eat gets into the city?

In fairness that's about as marginal as transit service is to traffice. A total road-diet anti car agenda isn't going to lead to shortages in the super market or even inflation.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

A total shutdown of transit in fact didn't even shut down the city and we aren't talking about that. Of course transit usage increases with service increaes the converse is true with transit fares but it is largely inelastic.

In fairness that's about as marginal as transit service is to traffice. A total road-diet anti car agenda isn't going to lead to shortages in the super market or even inflation.

I'm not sure I follow. The city has never seen a total shutdown of transit, except in the case of a strike for a very limited period of time. What people can sustain for a month is not indicative of what is sustainable long term.

Do you have a basis for suggesting that transit usage is inelastic or transit service is marginal to traffic? Small increases in traffic numbers can lead to huge increases in travel time.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I suspect you don’t use a very limited number of roads. How do you think the crap you buy and food you eat gets into the city?

Elves.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by phil235

I'm not sure I follow. The city has never seen a total shutdown of transit, except in the case of a strike for a very limited period of time. What people can sustain for a month is not indicative of what is sustainable long term.

Do you have a basis for suggesting that transit usage is inelastic or transit service is marginal to traffic? Small increases in traffic numbers can lead to huge increases in travel time.

I am not suggesting shutting down transit is sustainable. I am just pointing out that the Bus strike is not proof that increasing headways of LRT to 10 minutes or cutting bus service is going to lead to any noticeable surge in driving.

Transit is well studied as being highly inelastic on price. In terms of service it depends on what you define as inelastic and would vary a lot of course. The usual method shows adding a 3rd or 4th bus per hour that bus will add less than the average riders of the route previously with the effect being espeically large with less used routes. But I grant that doesn't mean we shouldn't add frequency as those marginal riders can be important for many reasons.

Of coures I recognize that the way congestion works even a 3% increase in car traffice can have an outsized impact.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

I am not suggesting shutting down transit is sustainable. I am just pointing out that the Bus strike is not proof that increasing headways of LRT to 10 minutes or cutting bus service is going to lead to any noticeable surge in driving.

Transit is well studied as being highly inelastic on price. In terms of service it depends on what you define as inelastic and would vary a lot of course. The usual method shows adding a 3rd or 4th bus per hour that bus will add less than the average riders of the route previously with the effect being espeically large with less used routes. But I grant that doesn't mean we shouldn't add frequency as those marginal riders can be important for many reasons.

Of coures I recognize that the way congestion works even a 3% increase in car traffice can have an outsized impact.

I see what you mean. In terms of price inelasticity, there are obvious limits to that in terms of the fares you can charge. Obviously if you have fares that are higher than the cost of alternatives, you are going to lose big chunks of riders.

From what I've seen on service vs. ridership, there are all sorts of variables that change the impact on a particular route. What I haven't seen studied is the impact on service reductions on shorter urban trips. Based on observation, it certainly seems apparent that reducing service to 15 or 20 minutes on main urban routes means the loss of a big chunk of riders who are within a half hour walk of their destination, as it stops being worth waiting for the bus. Granted, these people aren't typically switching to driving, though they may end up in ubers and taxis more often. But they do represent lost passengers and lost revenue for the system.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by phil235

I see what you mean. In terms of price inelasticity, there are obvious limits to that in terms of the fares you can charge. Obviously if you have fares that are higher than the cost of alternatives, you are going to lose big chunks of riders.

From what I've seen on service vs. ridership, there are all sorts of variables that change the impact on a particular route. What I haven't seen studied is the impact on service reductions on shorter urban trips. Based on observation, it certainly seems apparent that reducing service to 15 or 20 minutes on main urban routes means the loss of a big chunk of riders who are within a half hour walk of their destination, as it stops being worth waiting for the bus. Granted, these people aren't typically switching to driving, though they may end up in ubers and taxis more often. But they do represent lost passengers and lost revenue for the system.

Yes for sure. Every increase in prices will lose some riders. I often don't take LRT specifically because it is already almost $4. I'll just walk when it's 30 minutes away and an Uber is $8. It's pretty rare on our system for people to be taking the LRT 2 stops or a 2 km bus ride though. And frequencies and costs obviously make this lower. I know many here would love to live in a city where those kind of trips are easy, affordable and convenient and also replace the 5 km drives most of us do but that is going to a take a lot more than tinkering so we should be realistic.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

In fairness that's about as marginal as transit service is to traffice. A total road-diet anti car agenda isn't going to lead to shortages in the super market or even inflation.

Not really, you still have to maintain and plough the entire road network. At best you would save the marginal cost of extra lanes on arterial roads and maybe a minimal amount of wear and tear on roads (although trucks, buses and weather account for most wear and tear on roads).

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by phil235

I see what you mean. In terms of price inelasticity, there are obvious limits to that in terms of the fares you can charge. Obviously if you have fares that are higher than the cost of alternatives, you are going to lose big chunks of riders.

From what I've seen on service vs. ridership, there are all sorts of variables that change the impact on a particular route. What I haven't seen studied is the impact on service reductions on shorter urban trips. Based on observation, it certainly seems apparent that reducing service to 15 or 20 minutes on main urban routes means the loss of a big chunk of riders who are within a half hour walk of their destination, as it stops being worth waiting for the bus. Granted, these people aren't typically switching to driving, though they may end up in ubers and taxis more often. But they do represent lost passengers and lost revenue for the system.

Were they paying the cash fare before? If somebody walks from the market to Elgin instead of taking transit it is almost certainly a net gain for the city.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Were they paying the cash fare before? If somebody walks from the market to Elgin instead of taking transit it is almost certainly a net gain for the city.

Does anybody have a pass anymore? I assume my $4 (or whatever you put in change in the bus faregate since they don't really care) covers more than the cost of stopping for me and letting me off and the extra gas from my weight no?

Originally Posted by acottawa

Not really, you still have to maintain and plough the entire road network. At best you would save the marginal cost of extra lanes on arterial roads and maybe a minimal amount of wear and tear on roads (although trucks, buses and weather account for most wear and tear on roads).

I don't think there is any savings to making complete streets. There are obvious capital savings to not expanding the airport parkway I'm just saying the idea that Uhaniau doesn't use it but his food sits in traffic on that route so it matters to him is dubious.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Does anybody have a pass anymore? I assume my $4 (or whatever you put in change in the bus faregate since they don't really care) covers more than the cost of stopping for me and letting me off and the extra gas from my weight no?



I don't think there is any savings to making complete streets. There are obvious capital savings to not expanding the airport parkway I'm just saying the idea that Uhaniau doesn't use it but his food sits in traffic on that route so it matters to him is dubious.

But if they were making short trips before because they had a pass and now they don’t because they have to pay the full marginal cost then improving service probably won’t help much to increase paid revenue.

Even if there were zero private cars in the city, the city would still have to maintain Uhaniau‘s street and all the roads leading to Uhaniau‘s street so that Uhaniau can get emergency services, mail, Amazon deliveries, taxi services, etc. The city’s road budget would still probably be most of what it is now.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by acottawa

But if they were making short trips before because they had a pass and now they don’t because they have to pay the full marginal cost then improving service probably won’t help much to increase paid revenue.

100% agree

Originally Posted by acottawa

Even if there were zero private cars in the city, the city would still have to maintain Uhaniau‘s street and all the roads leading to Uhaniau‘s street so that Uhaniau can get emergency services, mail, Amazon deliveries, taxi services, etc. The city’s road budget would still probably be most of what it is now.

Yes. I guess cancelling all road expansions would save some money and they could sell off some roads. Vanier Parkway could be 2 lanes with 4 story buildings on the river side. But back here in the real world there isn't some magical progressive solution that sees a balanced budget and everyone moving around effortlessly in electrric shuttle busses.

[DTcrawler]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Even if there were zero private cars in the city, the city would still have to maintain Uhaniau‘s street and all the roads leading to Uhaniau‘s street so that Uhaniau can get emergency services, mail, Amazon deliveries, taxi services, etc. The city’s road budget would still probably be most of what it is now.

That argument ignores a long of externalities. For example if there were no private cars the city itself would be a lot smaller area-wise due to the lack of massive surface lots. Less area = less roads in total. Most roads would likely be one or two lanes max without private vehicles, which currently make up the vast majority of traffic. And exorbitantly expensive projects like widening Bank St. in far flung suburbs wouldn't be necessary at all. In general I think it's a poor argument because the makeup of the city would be fundamentally different if you eliminated private cars altogether - there'd be little to no desire to seek spacious lots in quiet suburbs if the caveat is that you don't have a private vehicle to get you to/from your little nook in the corner of the city.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by DTcrawler

That argument ignores a long of externalities. For example if there were no private cars the city itself would be a lot smaller area-wise due to the lack of massive surface lots. Less area = less roads in total. Most roads would likely be one or two lanes max without private vehicles, which currently make up the vast majority of traffic. And exorbitantly expensive projects like widening Bank St. in far flung suburbs wouldn't be necessary at all. In general I think it's a poor argument because the makeup of the city would be fundamentally different if you eliminated private cars altogether - there'd be little to no desire to seek spacious lots in quiet suburbs if the caveat is that you don't have a private vehicle to get you to/from your little nook in the corner of the city.

Yeah, but you would also need a lot more warehouses full of delivery vehicles, a lot more open space for taxi stands and minibuses, etc. There is a certain efficiency with people driving to a relatively centralized location rather than having to decentralize everything.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

It's pretty rare on our system for people to be taking the LRT 2 stops or a 2 km bus ride though. And frequencies and costs obviously make this lower. I know many here would love to live in a city where those kind of trips are easy, affordable and convenient and also replace the 5 km drives most of us do but that is going to a take a lot more than tinkering so we should be realistic.

This is where I lose you. It’s not rare at all for people to take 2-3 km rides a few times a week. Or at least it wasn’t. That was exactly my situation. Previously I would split my commit between walking and taking transit, and would take the bus to the Market or to go out multiple times a week. All roughly 2 km and always paying using Presto.

My neighbourhood was full of people doing that. I imagine if you draw a circle out 3 km from downtown you would get lots more people with similar habits. Go 4 or 5 and it’s a significant portion of your ridership A huge chunk of those regular transit users have been lost due to cuts, and that is pure lost revenue for the system.

[DTcrawler]

Originally Posted by phil235

This is where I lose you. It’s not rare at all for people to take 2-3 km rides a few times a week. Or at least it wasn’t. That was exactly my situation. Previously I would split my commit between walking and taking transit, and would take the bus to the Market or to go out multiple times a week. All roughly 2 km and always paying using Presto.

My neighbourhood was full of people doing that. I imagine if you draw a circle out 3 km from downtown you would get lots more people with similar habits. Go 4 or 5 and it’s a significant portion of your ridership A huge chunk of those regular transit users have been lost due to cuts, and that is pure lost revenue for the system.

Yup same here living in Centretown. Quick ride on the 11 to visit a buddy in Chinatown. Or a few stops on Line 1 to visit friends in Westboro. Or down Bank St. on the 6/7 to for dinner/drinks in the Glebe or a Redblacks game at Lansdowne. To me, this is the type of mobility pattern we need to capitalize on to have a transit system that's successful outside of commuting hours.

As intensification continues and new residents continue to move into these central neighbourhoods, we need to provide good transit service because once these folks make their decisions about how they're going to get around, it'll be hard to change their minds.

This is why I keep saying forget about putting buses in the suburbs apart from AM/PM commuters and passable service on arterials. Instead, use those buses to bolster frequency on key urban corridors such that people don't have to worry about schedules anymore. 10-15 min or less all day (not OCT's definition of "all day" which ends at 6pm) on routes 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 14. Short turn some of those buses if necessary.

It'd be a game changer. Myself and my friends who live around me aren't like suburbanites who need to be shown the red carpet before transit becomes more appealing than loading up the Chevy Suburban. For us, we're begging for alternatives to pulling the car out of the 4th level of the underground garage just to drive 3km to Lansdowne and deal with parking all over again. But sometimes that's the only option when it's January and you don't wanna walk or bike in -20 and buses are running at 30 min frequency on Bank. Taking 4-5+ ubers a week adds up real quick too.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by phil235

This is where I lose you. It’s not rare at all for people to take 2-3 km rides a few times a week. Or at least it wasn’t. That was exactly my situation. Previously I would split my commit between walking and taking transit, and would take the bus to the Market or to go out multiple times a week. All roughly 2 km and always paying using Presto.

My neighbourhood was full of people doing that. I imagine if you draw a circle out 3 km from downtown you would get lots more people with similar habits. Go 4 or 5 and it’s a significant portion of your ridership A huge chunk of those regular transit users have been lost due to cuts, and that is pure lost revenue for the system.

Not rare but not enough to support the service or it wouldn't have been cut. These trips are a tiny percentage of revenue. The idea a huge chunk of this was lost because busses run less frequently alos seems dubious. For sure cuts and fare increases and Uber/scooters/bike lanes make these less common though I think the latter are biggest factor of the three.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by DTcrawler

Yup same here living in Centretown. Quick ride on the 11 to visit a buddy in Chinatown. Or a few stops on Line 1 to visit friends in Westboro. Or down Bank St. on the 6/7 to for dinner/drinks in the Glebe or a Redblacks game at Lansdowne. To me, this is the type of mobility pattern we need to capitalize on to have a transit system that's successful outside of commuting hours.

As intensification continues and new residents continue to move into these central neighbourhoods, we need to provide good transit service because once these folks make their decisions about how they're going to get around, it'll be hard to change their minds.

This is why I keep saying forget about putting buses in the suburbs apart from AM/PM commuters and passable service on arterials. Instead, use those buses to bolster frequency on key urban corridors such that people don't have to worry about schedules anymore. 10-15 min or less all day (not OCT's definition of "all day" which ends at 6pm) on routes 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 14. Short turn some of those buses if necessary.

It'd be a game changer. Myself and my friends who live around me aren't like suburbanites who need to be shown the red carpet before transit becomes more appealing than loading up the Chevy Suburban. For us, we're begging for alternatives to pulling the car out of the 4th level of the underground garage just to drive 3km to Lansdowne and deal with parking all over again. But sometimes that's the only option when it's January and you don't wanna walk or bike in -20 and buses are running at 30 min frequency on Bank. Taking 4-5+ ubers a week adds up real quick too.

So you were paying the cash fare before (i.e. you did not have a pass) and you stopped paying the cash fare after a particular round of cuts? And now you are driving to Chinatown or the Glebe?

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by phil235

This is where I lose you. It’s not rare at all for people to take 2-3 km rides a few times a week. Or at least it wasn’t. That was exactly my situation. Previously I would split my commit between walking and taking transit, and would take the bus to the Market or to go out multiple times a week. All roughly 2 km and always paying using Presto.

My neighbourhood was full of people doing that. I imagine if you draw a circle out 3 km from downtown you would get lots more people with similar habits. Go 4 or 5 and it’s a significant portion of your ridership A huge chunk of those regular transit users have been lost due to cuts, and that is pure lost revenue for the system.

It is only lost revenue if the number of extra buses they need to induce this kind of usage is covered by the fare box, which seems unlikely to me.

Even in cities with a more robust transit system than Ottawa it would be pretty rare to pay a new transit fare for a 2 km trip.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by acottawa

It is only lost revenue if the number of extra buses they need to induce this kind of usage is covered by the fare box, which seems unlikely to me.

Even in cities with a more robust transit system than Ottawa it would be pretty rare to pay a new transit fare for a 2 km trip.

Again, not rare. I've lived in Toronto and Montreal and those kinds of trips are very common for people in the urban area who don't commute every day. Those people are not going to have a pass, but they do tend to buy a 10-trip card or equivalent to use when they need it (of course that option isn't available in Ottawa because OC Transpo completely lacks imagination).

As for covering the fare, you are right it would not cover the full operating costs. But no transit fare does, in Canada at least. The point is that these types of rides and riders cover far more of the operating costs than a long distance commuter does, and they do it throughout the day. This is less about adding extra buses and more about refocusing transit where it is used regularly and as an all day service and where it is more economically viable.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by acottawa

So you were paying the cash fare before (i.e. you did not have a pass) and you stopped paying the cash fare after a particular round of cuts? And now you are driving to Chinatown or the Glebe?

Highly doubtful and certainly the word rare applies if true.

Originally Posted by acottawa

It is only lost revenue if the number of extra buses they need to induce this kind of usage is covered by the fare box, which seems unlikely to me.

Even in cities with a more robust transit system than Ottawa it would be pretty rare to pay a new transit fare for a 2 km trip.

Yes unless it's free or nearly so.