OC Transpo

[DTcrawler]

We must realize OC Transpo is just like any other organization, whether it be public or private sector, competing for talent. If I'm a highly sought after candidate, with the expertise needed to help run an effective transit agency, am I looking at OCT right now and thinking my skills will be put to good use there? Probably not, and I'm likely taking my talents to a city where they are serious about transit, which includes funding it properly.

And while I don't disagree that a shakeup of middle/upper management at OCT is needed (apathy has likely set in for long-tenured employees), I think it's rather risky for Amilcar to try and shake the foundation of an organization that's currently being stripped to the bones. In other words, I could easily see an attempted "culture shift" turn into yet another fat trimming exercise.

[Marshsparrow]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Marconi was fired for decisions related to the train fiasco. Everything else is a choice by taxpayers and leaders to limit tax increases rather than fund transit enough to fix the system.

Not sure how Amilcar can be blamed for that. Someone more experiences might have been able to convince the political leaders to lean towards more funding but that's very debatable and not a part of performance as measured anyway.

Marconi retired with a golden handshake. Have things improved? Hardly. No one held accountable.

[zzptichka]

Originally Posted by rocketphish

[B]OC Transpo chief calls councillor's questions about performance reviews 'a personal attack'
Coun. Riley Brockington says he did not personally attack Renée Amilcar, who still has his support

Comment from reddit:

For anyone who has been watching transit commission meetings, this line of questioning from Brockington s
pecifically isn't surprising. Taking the things he has been asking Mme. Amilcar for over a year, he has basically been begging her to tell Council what she needs to improve service.

And if I had to single out Renee's biggest issue, it is that she categorically *will not* do that. She presents everything at Council as rosy, no-problem-here. I've seen her be a little more candid in a consultation. But at Council, she will never say money is the problem. And it obviously is! And until she says that, Brockington will be on her to explain *how* she will improve service and to tell Council what she needs.

This was just another chapter in that back-and-forth, and I think Brockington is getting to the point where he wants to have her removed.

So was it a personal attack? Yep. Was it surprising? No. Does she deserve it? Debatable, but I would lean yes. His questions at their core are not unreasonable.

Kudos to Brokington.

[DTcrawler]

Originally Posted by zzptichka

Comment from reddit:

For anyone who has been watching transit commission meetings, this line of questioning from Brockington s
pecifically isn't surprising. Taking the things he has been asking Mme. Amilcar for over a year, he has basically been begging her to tell Council what she needs to improve service.

And if I had to single out Renee's biggest issue, it is that she categorically *will not* do that. She presents everything at Council as rosy, no-problem-here. I've seen her be a little more candid in a consultation. But at Council, she will never say money is the problem. And it obviously is! And until she says that, Brockington will be on her to explain *how* she will improve service and to tell Council what she needs.

This was just another chapter in that back-and-forth, and I think Brockington is getting to the point where he wants to have her removed.

So was it a personal attack? Yep. Was it surprising? No. Does she deserve it? Debatable, but I would lean yes. His questions at their core are not unreasonable.

Kudos to Brokington.

If that's accurate, it certainly changes my stance on the situation. I mentioned that my one gripe with Amilcar is her reluctance to be frank with council about the issues facing OCT. She needs to put the ball in council's court as far as setting a plan in action to address the root cause(s) of OCT's struggles. If Brockington is trying to evoke that kind of dialogue from her, good for him.

[Marshsparrow]

We need her and all OC Transpo senior management and Ottawa city council and Ottawa senior management to take the bus for 2 weeks for everything that they need to do within the city of Ottawa - evening party, shopping, appointments, sport events with kids... heck throw in a one day ParaTranspo adventure. That will make things a reality for them to see how the most vulnerable in our city face their day to day - these senior over paid "leaders" talk about understanding, empathy and lived experiences - lies.

[hwy418]

Originally Posted by DTcrawler

Fix it how? She’s limited to the budget given to her agency by council. I’m surprised more people don’t realize the irony of a councillor criticizing the transit GM for the state of transit. Did OCT’s issues suddenly materialize when Amilcar was hired? Clearly not, so it’s foolish to try and put the blame on her shoulders. A while back I commented on how I do wish she’d at least be more frank about why further improvements to transit are not possible without investment to grow ridership. The average resident right now thinks transit — because OCT simply isn’t trying, which is honestly hilarious and sad at the same time.

Here are 6 things that I think would help:

1. Downsize upper management and planning staff
2. Implement a policy that prioritizes reliability (buses on time) vs performance (buses going out).
3. Cut capital spending and boost operational spending
4. Reward high-demand routes with increased frequency - look at the data!
5. Implement zone fare system to make short trips cheaper and long trips more expensive.
6. At least make an effort to try and boost ridership by putting forward a plan that lowers fares over time, even if its 10 cents at a time, to give people hope.

She is well regarded in the transit planning community, but I'm not impressed with her ability to steer the ship. I think Council would properly fund OC Transpo if there was a real plan in place to turn things around... still feels like OC Transpo is in a death spiral.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by hwy418

Here are 6 things that I think would help:

1. Downsize upper management and planning staff
2. Implement a policy that prioritizes reliability (buses on time) vs performance (buses going out).
3. Cut capital spending and boost operational spending
4. Reward high-demand routes with increased frequency - look at the data!
5. Implement zone fare system to make short trips cheaper and long trips more expensive.
6. At least make an effort to try and boost ridership by putting forward a plan that lowers fares over time, even if its 10 cents at a time, to give people hope.

She is well regarded in the transit planning community, but I'm not impressed with her ability to steer the ship. I think Council would properly fund OC Transpo if there was a real plan in place to turn things around... still feels like OC Transpo is in a death spiral.

Very good suggestions, which actually form a more coherent plan for a turnaround that anything I've heard from OC Transpo.

I'd add a point on communication and/or data sharing, as that is a huge weak point of the system. OC Transpo has a massive issue in terms of confidence in the system, and without a concerted effort to address that, they are not going to be successful. I was thinking that they might almost be at the point where a rebranding is the way to go, or at least a rebrand for frequent service routes. "OC Transpo" isn't that good of a name.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by hwy418

Here are 6 things that I think would help:

1. Downsize upper management and planning staff
2. Implement a policy that prioritizes reliability (buses on time) vs performance (buses going out).
3. Cut capital spending and boost operational spending
4. Reward high-demand routes with increased frequency - look at the data!
5. Implement zone fare system to make short trips cheaper and long trips more expensive.
6. At least make an effort to try and boost ridership by putting forward a plan that lowers fares over time, even if its 10 cents at a time, to give people hope.

She is well regarded in the transit planning community, but I'm not impressed with her ability to steer the ship. I think Council would properly fund OC Transpo if there was a real plan in place to turn things around... still feels like OC Transpo is in a death spiral.

Your well meaning and thought out suggestion point out how there is no easy fix.

Sure let's cut management. That's easy to say and probably a rounding error on the budget.

If you prioritize reliability that means headways get even worse. Lowering ridership and service but keeping costs more or less the same as drivers wait more. I would do the opposite. Especially departing from the train end points the schedule doesn't matter. Yes it matters going the other direction for most people.

We are building phase 2. Busses need to be replaced and we are getting electric with a cheap loan from the feds. What else would you cut to get a little bit more service now?

If we add more busses on the frequent busy routes. Yes we get less crowded busses but probably add little ridership. Meanwhile the 30 minute busses are going to become hourly? That loses ridership. Anyway it's politically impossible as those are different wards.

Different fares could bring in some revenue but it's not entirely true that those further away have less elastic demand. They are some of the more likely people to give up and just drive. Politically also a tough lift and a lot of the revenue would be lost in admin costs to implement and enforce. Maybe a LRT only fare would make sense making long walks, bikes or kiss and ride to LRT more attractive. Again enforcement becomes tricky.

Lower fares is lower revenue. Literally nobody is saying yeah I'd take 2 busses instead of driving but if it was $3.75 instead of $4.00.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by hwy418

Here are 6 things that I think would help:
1. Downsize upper management and planning staff

Unclear what this will actually accomplish, but ok.

2. Implement a policy that prioritizes reliability (buses on time) vs performance (buses going out).

With hundreds of trips being cancelled every week because there simply aren't enough buses/operators available, it's really difficult to see how this would help.

There are negative resources at OC Transpo's disposal. What exactly does "prioritizing buses on time" even mean at the operational level? This looks good on paper, but it's a slippery slope towards even less reliable service (see: Toronto's complicated relationship with short-turning) and still leaves the massive hole in OC Transpo's ability to deliver service at all.

Also, this way of differentiating "reliability" and "performance" is just wrong. On-time performance and cancellation rates are both major factors in how "reliable" and how well a system "performs". But you can't hope to fix "on-time performance" if there aren't even enough buses to cover the schedule on a good day.

3. Cut capital spending and boost operational spending

How many capital projects do you think OC Transpo has that can be cut (that haven't already been cut)?
Nevermind the fact that capital projects, like transit priority measures, are a direct way to address "reliability" and on-time performance...

This is just another slippery slope towards underinvestment in capital projects. Hint: the city already underinvests in capital projects.

If the suggestion is really just to stop building big LRT extensions, then you need to be more specific. "Cutting capital spending" encompasses everything from big LRT extensions to mid-life refurbishment on buses to keep the operational to buying more buses to run more service. Why would we want to cut these?

4. Reward high-demand routes with increased frequency - look at the data!

Great idea, but given that there are negative resources to work with, where do you suggest these buses and operators get pulled from?

5. Implement zone fare system to make short trips cheaper and long trips more expensive.
6. At least make an effort to try and boost ridership by putting forward a plan that lowers fares over time, even if its 10 cents at a time, to give people hope.

These are out of the direct control of OC Transpo. These are decisions to be made by council—and while OC Transpo could make the recommendation, how likely do you think it is for this council to support either of these policy directions?

She is well regarded in the transit planning community, but I'm not impressed with her ability to steer the ship. I think Council would properly fund OC Transpo if there was a real plan in place to turn things around... still feels like OC Transpo is in a death spiral.

A "real plan" can't be brought forward if council isn't willing to properly fund the service. Chicken and the egg.

All this said: I think it'd be worth at least acknowledging that OC Transpo has to operate under constraints that suggestions like yours don't account for.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Marshsparrow

We need her and all OC Transpo senior management and Ottawa city council and Ottawa senior management to take the bus for 2 weeks for everything that they need to do within the city of Ottawa - evening party, shopping, appointments, sport events with kids... heck throw in a one day ParaTranspo adventure. That will make things a reality for them to see how the most vulnerable in our city face their day to day - these senior over paid "leaders" talk about understanding, empathy and lived experiences - lies.

Two weeks, and twice a year - dead of winter and height of summer.

[Richard Eade]

I believe that budget development used to be informed by what it was expected service delivery would cost. That is, if Transit Services estimated that it would cost $200M to provide the scheduled service, then that was what was submitted (plus a buffer to cover additions) to the Council for approval. Once all of the overall budget’s pieces were gathered, Council discussions ensued, based on what it felt could be reasonably deferred (and the consequences of doing same), and then the tax rate would be set based on the final, approved, budget. Not every department got every penny that it asked for, but what was left out was well understood – and usually not detrimental to the existing core service.

Then came the Dark Times; the times when the tax rate was set by the Mayor – before any estimated costs were submitted – and the various departments were told what their budgets would be. What it actually cost to provide a service was not taken into account when a budget was defined. Departments simply had to ‘cut their suit to fit the cloth’.

So, this would represent what we now have at OC Transpo:



Watching OC Transpo’s senior management, I get the feeling that it figures that OC Transpo needs to be seen as being in crisis. That that is the only way that things will be taken seriously by the politicians.

Take the SPIRIT trains as an example. They had been running for years without anyone owning up to the bogie problem. It wasn’t until the GM shut down the trains and made a huge media stink about how potentially dangerous the trains were, in their present condition, that Alstom finally said that it would redesign the bogie. Bringing the problem out of hiding and into the light meant that Alstom might lose sales. If you are trying to sell trains, and they keep running normal service while you claim to be investigating a possible issue, you can point out to potential customers that the trains are running fine. If the largest buyer is openly declaring that the trains can not be run due to a potentially unsafe design, then you need to tell future clients that you are fixing the problem.

Crisis makes people take notice. All those complaints that Councilors are getting reinforce the fact that OC Transpo can not provide the service with the amount of money that Council has allotted it.

A few years ago, we would have heard of a small projected deficit in the transit budget, and how steps were being taken to cover the shortfall. Now we are hearing about “structural” problems with the funding, and huge $120M deficits. This takes it up to crisis state. This is getting noticed by Councillors. Maybe it will actually get them to see what damage they have done over the years. And, maybe, we can move out of the Dark Times.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

Watching OC Transpo’s senior management, I get the feeling that it figures that OC Transpo needs to be seen as being in crisis. That that is the only way that things will be taken seriously by the politicians.

Take the SPIRIT trains as an example. They had been running for years without anyone owning up to the bogie problem. It wasn’t until the GM shut down the trains and made a huge media stink about how potentially dangerous the trains were, in their present condition, that Alstom finally said that it would redesign the bogie.

The decision to suspend service wasn't made unilaterally by the GM, nor was it done as a political play.
Suspending service was done because safe service could no longer be guaranteed due to unexpected degradation of the axles being (re)discovered on trains during maintenance hours.

Alstom recommended the trains be pulled, and the GM was certainly not about to disagree with that.

Bringing the problem out of hiding and into the light meant that Alstom might lose sales. If you are trying to sell trains, and they keep running normal service while you claim to be investigating a possible issue, you can point out to potential customers that the trains are running fine. If the largest buyer is openly declaring that the trains can not be run due to a potentially unsafe design, then you need to tell future clients that you are fixing the problem.

Alstom, being the maintenance contractor actually maintaining these trains, stands to lose a lot by violating their basic responsibility towards safety. Nevermind lost sales, what you're suggesting would actually be criminal on Alstom's part—hence why they pulled their own trains from service.

[Richard Eade]

Originally Posted by zzptichka

Comment from reddit:

For anyone who has been watching transit commission meetings, this line of questioning from Brockington s
pecifically isn't surprising. Taking the things he has been asking Mme. Amilcar for over a year, he has basically been begging her to tell Council what she needs to improve service.

And if I had to single out Renee's biggest issue, it is that she categorically *will not* do that. She presents everything at Council as rosy, no-problem-here. I've seen her be a little more candid in a consultation. But at Council, she will never say money is the problem. And it obviously is! And until she says that, Brockington will be on her to explain *how* she will improve service and to tell Council what she needs.

This was just another chapter in that back-and-forth, and I think Brockington is getting to the point where he wants to have her removed.

So was it a personal attack? Yep. Was it surprising? No. Does she deserve it? Debatable, but I would lean yes. His questions at their core are not unreasonable.

Kudos to Brokington.

I don't buy this.

OC Transpo put forth their ideas on how they could increase its revenue. It was Brockington who put forth the motion to limit the increase to seniors. That tells me that OC Transpo can tell him what it needs, but he will over-rule them for the sake of getting votes.

I very much feel that his comments/questions were a personal attack - and out in a public forum. If he trulu wanted to provide his feedback on the GM's performance, he could have asked for an in-camera session, or gone quietly to the City Manager directly.

His contention that he wanted to have a list in the budget of exactly how OC Transpo was planning to improve service is unbelievable. OC Transpo’s budget submission said that it needed more revenue – but Brockington moved a motion to reduce that needed income.

[Richard Eade]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

The decision to suspend service wasn't made unilaterally by the GM, nor was it done as a political play.
Suspending service was done because safe service could no longer be guaranteed due to unexpected degradation of the axles being (re)discovered on trains during maintenance hours.

Alstom recommended the trains be pulled, and the GM was certainly not about to disagree with that.


Alstom, being the maintenance contractor actually maintaining these trains, stands to lose a lot by violating their basic responsibility towards safety. Nevermind lost sales, what you're suggesting would actually be criminal on Alstom's part—hence why they pulled their own trains from service.

I think that you are underestimating the influence of the GM. There have been bogie problems with the SPIRIT trains for years. There was nothing new, or rediscovered. The wear on the bearings was well documented to happen at distances much less than the ‘check interval’. Finding a leaking bearing was not a rediscovery, because it was not forgotten. It was going to happen.

The big difference was the new GM. While I believe that the previous GM would have tried to smooth over the problem, the new one did not.

As for Alstom; they had been ‘studying’ and ‘investigating’ the issue for years. The biggest thing to come out of their work was that there was nothing wrong with their design so it must be a problem with the wheel/rail interface. And that latest find of the leaking bearing did not happen to come at the precise moment that they had a revelation about their bogie design.

The leaking bearing provided no new information to Alstom. What made them claim that they would redesign the bogie that time – where they had resisted after every other incident – was due to the new GM’s reaction. This time, it was going to hit Alstom’s reputation, and they couldn’t simply dismiss it with another excuse.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

I think that you are underestimating the influence of the GM. There have been bogie problems with the SPIRIT trains for years. There was nothing new, or rediscovered. The wear on the bearings was well documented to happen at distances much less than the ‘check interval’. Finding a leaking bearing was not a rediscovery, because it was not forgotten. It was going to happen.

That interpretation is plainly wrong.

After the derailments, the trains resumed service with additional precautionary checks of the axles, but also with expedited replacement of the bearing cartridges to ensure that an axle could never fail in that way again while in service.

New cases of fatigue were not supposed to happen because the cartridges were being replaced at the more frequent rate. The fact that axles continued to fail was an indication that the mitigations put into place were not sufficient. The more frequent inspections had found cases of fatigue anyway, and this triggered a new safety note to be issued by Alstom which pulled all trains from service.

The leaking bearing provided no new information to Alstom. What made them claim that they would redesign the bogie that time – where they had resisted after every other incident – was due to the new GM’s reaction. This time, it was going to hit Alstom’s reputation, and they couldn’t simply dismiss it with another excuse.

So then how exactly would you characterize the fact that Alstom shelved the axle redesign? It's clearly not the existential threat to their reputation you keep saying it is.

The GM does not get the final say on pulling vehicles from service. The GM did not decide to just halt service one day to force Alstom into producing a solution. Even if that were the case, the city still can't compel Alstom to complete a redesign at their own expense because there is no actual consensus on it being an actual solution (and so far, the city is unwilling to pay).

[Hybrid247]

It's frustrating to see people eating up Brockington's act. He and every councillor know that OC Transpo's undersized budget is the issue and correcting it will require tax increases that would put their political careers in jeopardy. And so councillors like Brockington are perfectly happy to scapegoat OC instead addressing the root issue. OC can't fix issues they don't have the resources to fix.

And spare me with the excuse that councillors have been "begging" Amilcar to tell Council what she needs to improve service. They know damn well what she needs; it's outlined clearly in the quarterly revenue reports they all read.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

It's frustrating to see people eating up Brockington's act. He and every councillor know that OC Transpo's undersized budget is the issue and correcting it will require tax increases that would put their political careers in jeopardy. And so councillors like Brockington are perfectly happy to scapegoat OC instead addressing the root issue. OC can't fix issues they don't have the resources to fix.

And spare me with the excuse that councillors have been "begging" Amilcar to tell Council what she needs to improve service. They know damn well what she needs; it's outlined clearly in the quarterly revenue reports they all read.

Agreed. And with sympathy for the mixed wards like his where you've got transit riders and anti tax folks together. Best to be realistic as it's pretty clear we aren't increasing taxes so they will have to live with what they've got.

[lrt's friend]

Why is transit in serious trouble? The answer is 1 hour 50 minutes.

My trip from my doctor's office next to the Civic Hospital to my house south of Hunt Club was a dismal failure which included 3 kms of walking sometimes where no sidewalk exists despite being a heavy traffic location.
It started with the walk down the hill to Preston to catch Route 2. This was at rush hour. I waited for 30 minutes and clearly the gap was considerably longer. I saw nothing as I walked along Carling.

Preston has been redesigned in last few years to improve the pedestrian experience but clearly failed in moving traffic including transit. Everything was crawling or stopped outright. The bus when it finally came sat at the stop stuck in traffic for more than 5 minutes.

When we got to Carleton, we barely got all the passengers onto the double decker. Thankfully it was exam time with fewer students commuting.

When I got to Greenboro, it was 5 pm and already 1 hour 20 minutes into the trip. I looked at the next bus sign which read 34 minutes for my local bus, worse than on a Sunday evening. I decided to take a bus to Hunt Club Road and walk otherwise my trip would have extended beyond 2 hours. This same trip by car would be 20 minutes max.

Although this is a single instance, it was clear that many people were impacted.

How do we resolve this poor unreliability. How can people put up with this on a daily basis unless they have no alternative. How does anybody plan a transit trip when you need to be somewhere at a certain time? My reverse trip was 45 minutes which was decent but I got lucky with one transfer.

This demonstrates how bad OC has become.

[vtecyo]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Why is transit in serious trouble? The answer is 1 hour 50 minutes.

My trip from my doctor's office next to the Civic Hospital to my house south of Hunt Club was a dismal failure which included 3 kms of walking sometimes where no sidewalk exists despite being a heavy traffic location.
It started with the walk down the hill to Preston to catch Route 2. This was at rush hour. I waited for 30 minutes and clearly the gap was considerably longer. I saw nothing as I walked along Carling.

Preston has been redesigned in last few years to improve the pedestrian experience but clearly failed in moving traffic including transit. Everything was crawling or stopped outright. The bus when it finally came sat at the stop stuck in traffic for more than 5 minutes.

When we got to Carleton, we barely got all the passengers onto the double decker. Thankfully it was exam time with fewer students commuting.

When I got to Greenboro, it was 5 pm and already 1 hour 20 minutes into the trip. I looked at the next bus sign which read 34 minutes for my local bus, worse than on a Sunday evening. I decided to take a bus to Hunt Club Road and walk otherwise my trip would have extended beyond 2 hours. This same trip by car would be 20 minutes max.

Although this is a single instance, it was clear that many people were impacted.

How do we resolve this poor unreliability. How can people put up with this on a daily basis unless they have no alternative. How does anybody plan a transit trip when you need to be somewhere at a certain time? My reverse trip was 45 minutes which was decent but I got lucky with one transfer.

This demonstrates how bad OC has become.

How will the poor reliability along that specific corridor to Greenboro be fixed? By waiting a few weeks for the Trillium line to reopen. Yes - the bus service for that corridor can be bad, the train is how we dealt with it more than 20 years ago. What did you really expect when you took that route?

We have a level of service that we can afford. The city - and seemingly a majority of voters - don't seem to want to pay what it takes for better service. It will get much worse before it gets much better.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by vtecyo

How will the poor reliability along that specific corridor to Greenboro be fixed? By waiting a few weeks for the Trillium line to reopen. Yes - the bus service for that corridor can be bad, the train is how we dealt with it more than 20 years ago. What did you really expect when you took that route?

We have a level of service that we can afford. The city - and seemingly a majority of voters - don't seem to want to pay what it takes for better service. It will get much worse before it gets much better.

Unfortunately, my trip was this week and not in January.

We seem willing to make excuses for multiple missing trips. We are in big trouble if we can't meet current schedules. Reliability problems to this degree is inexcusable. After all, aren't the current schedules funded?

I don't know how we can retain customers, based on this level of unreliability.

My comments are based on what should be there now and not theoretical improved frequency, that the city clearly doesn't want to fund

If my experience is even somewhat commonplace, we should prepare for declining ridership and increasing traffic which will further negatively impact transit reliability.

Ottawa transit has remarkably declined over my lifetime and particularly in the last 10 years. It is sad