OC Transpo

[DTcrawler]

Most people on this forum seem to be in agreeance with the message behind your weekly anecdotes, which is that OC Transpo buses are infrequent and unreliable. What is your proposed solution? Because it seems like every time the argument shifts towards addressing the problem, your tone shifts.

Why was your line 2 bus late? Presumably because either,

a) it got stuck in rush hour traffic on Preston (which is why I have a hard time believing your journey by car would take "20 minutes max"). Or;

b) one or more trips were cancelled due to a variety of reasons such as operator unavailability, buses being pulled for different routes, etc.

Why was your wait at Greenboro for your local route so long? Possibly because of one of the two reasons I mentioned above, or

c) local routes are scheduled to be incredibly infrequent because every resident in every low density, far flung suburb also expects to have a local bus that meanders through their neighbourhood, leading to an unmanageable strain on OC Transpo's resources.

So, let's try this again, what does it all boil down to? Money. You even alluded to this yourself:

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

What is "the city"? Politicians and planners are stewards of public funds and must abide by the wishes of voters. Your journey would have been shorter with things like transit priority measures (to mitigate the impact of rush hour traffic on Preston) and slack in the system to avoid the domino effect that occurs when one bus trip falls behind schedule or one operator calls in sick. These things cost money and it seems like everything falls apart when we get to that point in the discussion, because voters have proven time and time again they'd rather save money on their property tax bill than accept the reality of what's needed to fix transit. What is your stance on paying more taxes, or re-structuring taxation to reflect the realities of servicing neighbourhoods of varying density levels?

[vtecyo]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

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

There's always been a disconnect between the official schedule of bus routes and the actual level of service. As far back as I remember OC Transpo has scheduled buses as if it operates in optimal weather, minimal traffic and always has high availability of backup drivers.

I'd prefer to see less detailed - but more honest - bus schedules. Never mind what frequencies or level of service counsillors have promised people in their ward. Setting expectations ahead of time may not help with the underlying problem - but people do have a better experience when they can avoid surprises.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by vtecyo

There's always been a disconnect between the official schedule of bus routes and the actual level of service. As far back as I remember OC Transpo has scheduled buses as if it operates in optimal weather, minimal traffic and always has high availability of backup drivers.

I'd prefer to see less detailed - but more honest - bus schedules. Never mind what frequencies or level of service counsillors have promised people in their ward. Setting expectations ahead of time may not help with the underlying problem - but people do have a better experience when they can avoid surprises.

Wouldn't it almost make sense to eliminate schedules during busier times. Avoid all the layover points and just go as soon as you can?

I took the train to Hurdman and took bus 46 the other day. Google says it runs every 15 minutes midday on a weekday. Arrive and looks like a previous trainload of people already waiting. Board says 6 and 11 minutes. Ticks down to 1 and 6 then 1,5 1,4 ,1,3, 1,2, 1,1 and "it": arrives. Seems like the bus was so late they decided to delete it from the schedule and use the next bus. Meanwhile there are 8 busses sitting in Hurdman with maybe half coming around during the 11 minutes. Shouldn't at these train endpoints an arriving bus just look at which route is most overdue take a quick break and pull around. The schedules even real time are so wrong anyway so what's the point?

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by DTcrawler

Most people on this forum seem to be in agreeance with the message behind your weekly anecdotes, which is that OC Transpo buses are infrequent and unreliable. What is your proposed solution? Because it seems like every time the argument shifts towards addressing the problem, your tone shifts.

Why was your line 2 bus late? Presumably because either,

a) it got stuck in rush hour traffic on Preston (which is why I have a hard time believing your journey by car would take "20 minutes max"). Or;

b) one or more trips were cancelled due to a variety of reasons such as operator unavailability, buses being pulled for different routes, etc.

Why was your wait at Greenboro for your local route so long? Possibly because of one of the two reasons I mentioned above, or

c) local routes are scheduled to be incredibly infrequent because every resident in every low density, far flung suburb also expects to have a local bus that meanders through their neighbourhood, leading to an unmanageable strain on OC Transpo's resources.

So, let's try this again, what does it all boil down to? Money. You even alluded to this yourself:



What is "the city"? Politicians and planners are stewards of public funds and must abide by the wishes of voters. Your journey would have been shorter with things like transit priority measures (to mitigate the impact of rush hour traffic on Preston) and slack in the system to avoid the domino effect that occurs when one bus trip falls behind schedule or one operator calls in sick. These things cost money and it seems like everything falls apart when we get to that point in the discussion, because voters have proven time and time again they'd rather save money on their property tax bill than accept the reality of what's needed to fix transit. What is your stance on paying more taxes, or re-structuring taxation to reflect the realities of servicing neighbourhoods of varying density levels?

I can assure you that my car trip would have been 20 minutes or less . Traffic was not that bad except Preston (I don't need to drive on Preston to go home) and as I said, it was not at all designed for reasonable traffic flow. This is also affecting all our other urban main streets which is ruining transit reliability. I could see this repeated on Bank Street a short while ago based on the number of people waiting at bus stops

I don't have magic solutions. My comments are like a 'canary in the coal mine'. It is a warning that there is trouble in transit land. And it is getting worse.

This has arisen after years of bad decision making. False economies that saved money on the surface but ultimately drove away customers in accumulating manner. Changing street designs that slow down traffic by a few minutes on 'average' but create eratic transit service .

We have created a mess and as transit becomes less reliable, we push people into cars making traffic worse and transit less reliable and the cycle repeats.

What have we done in recent years to prioritize buses? Rail cannot solve everything. There are only two routes of significance.

The responses I get are disappointing. Where are the creative solutions? The status quo is not leading us in a positive direction.

We are short of operators or buses or mechanics. Why? This has been going on for years. We order buses that don't exist. This sounds like 'vapourware', a term we used to use when software being promoted didn't exist. Today, we hear the exact same problem with Para Transpo, a shortage of buses. How could this happen?

It is time for the experts who are paid six figures to come up with affordable solutions and quit treating transit riders like trash, who should go out and buy a car, when the city can't afford better roads either.

Incidentally, I live in a neighbourhood where lots of immigrants and low income people live in row housing and apartments. Your poster child of where decent transit is impossible? This is no Rockcliffe.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by DTcrawler

Most people on this forum seem to be in agreeance with the message behind your weekly anecdotes, which is that OC Transpo buses are infrequent and unreliable. What is your proposed solution? Because it seems like every time the argument shifts towards addressing the problem, your tone shifts.

Why was your line 2 bus late? Presumably because either,

a) it got stuck in rush hour traffic on Preston (which is why I have a hard time believing your journey by car would take "20 minutes max"). Or;

b) one or more trips were cancelled due to a variety of reasons such as operator unavailability, buses being pulled for different routes, etc.

Why was your wait at Greenboro for your local route so long? Possibly because of one of the two reasons I mentioned above, or

c) local routes are scheduled to be incredibly infrequent because every resident in every low density, far flung suburb also expects to have a local bus that meanders through their neighbourhood, leading to an unmanageable strain on OC Transpo's resources.

So, let's try this again, what does it all boil down to? Money. You even alluded to this yourself:

What is "the city"? Politicians and planners are stewards of public funds and must abide by the wishes of voters. Your journey would have been shorter with things like transit priority measures (to mitigate the impact of rush hour traffic on Preston) and slack in the system to avoid the domino effect that occurs when one bus trip falls behind schedule or one operator calls in sick. These things cost money and it seems like everything falls apart when we get to that point in the discussion, because voters have proven time and time again they'd rather save money on their property tax bill than accept the reality of what's needed to fix transit. What is your stance on paying more taxes, or re-structuring taxation to reflect the realities of servicing neighbourhoods of varying density levels?

Very very well said.

Most sensible people in Ottawa who have the income to do it either drive or move somewhere that allows them to walk, bike or take transit to work. If you are a machoist who wants to suffer that is on you to some extent. There is certainly an argument made by many we should increase property taxes by 20% to "properly fund transit. That could make those busses more reliable. Add a few at some times. Increase train headways. How much difference does that really make for a South Ottawa resident such as OTrain? Not much. Certainly even the heavy transit users in the area would probably rather have the $800 a year rather than the improved service to say nothing of the 60% who rarely or never use transit. (Canada day or Redblacks games aside).

Now sure the 40% who don't even pay property taxes should get together and vote for someone who will deliver better service but they tend to be more transient and less politically engaged. And I guess a 20% tax increase might lead to rent increases even in the short term.

[DTcrawler]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I can assure you that my car trip would have been 20 minutes or less . Traffic was not that bad except Preston (I don't need to drive on Preston to go home) and as I said, it was not at all designed for reasonable traffic flow. This is also affecting all our other urban main streets which is ruining transit reliability. I could see this repeated on Bank Street a short while ago based on the number of people waiting at bus stops

I don't have magic solutions. My comments are like a 'canary in the coal mine'. It is a warning that there is trouble in transit land. And it is getting worse.

This has arisen after years of bad decision making. False economies that saved money on the surface but ultimately drove away customers in accumulating manner. Changing street designs that slow down traffic by a few minutes on 'average' but create eratic transit service .

We have created a mess and as transit becomes less reliable, we push people into cars making traffic worse and transit less reliable and the cycle repeats.

What have we done in recent years to prioritize buses? Rail cannot solve everything. There are only two routes of significance.

The responses I get are disappointing. Where are the creative solutions? The status quo is not leading us in a positive direction.

We are short of operators or buses or mechanics. Why? This has been going on for years. We order buses that don't exist. This sounds like 'vapourware', a term we used to use when software being promoted didn't exist. Today, we hear the exact same problem with Para Transpo, a shortage of buses. How could this happen?

It is time for the experts who are paid six figures to come up with affordable solutions and quit treating transit riders like trash, who should go out and buy a car, when the city can't afford better roads either.

Incidentally, I live in a neighbourhood where lots of immigrants and low income people live in row housing and apartments. Your poster child of where decent transit is impossible? This is no Rockcliffe.

Again, your responses give off the tone, "There are big problems, but what's the solution? I guess we'll never know..."

But we do know - it's abundantly clear. And I don't understand how you can so clearly identify problems, yet act like the obvious solution is still a mystery.

We are short of operators or buses or mechanics. Why?

Why do you think? Because OC Transpo is an underfunded agency which has led to dysfunction and has driven quality, prospective candidates to take their talents elsewhere, while leaving existing employees overburdened and unable to keep up with needs. That applies to all levels, whether it be the mechanics trying to keep enough buses available for service all the way up to the planners trying to decide how allocate buses to the monstrous number of routes that they are dictated to maintain due to policies above their pay grade.

The responses I get are disappointing. Where are the creative solutions? The status quo is not leading us in a positive direction.

I really don't know what you want to hear. To me the phrase "creative solutions" sounds a lot like something Mayor Sutcliffe would say while promising to somehow improve transit while lowering its budget. Just like "efficiencies" it falls into the same category of terms politicians like to use to sell the public some magic beans - in other words, blatant lies.

Speaking of politicians I can't help but feel that many members of council would love to read your responses and find that some people are still going in circles trying to figure out why OC Transpo is so bad, while failing to realize the root of the problem lies at council's feet. It's similar to that stunt Councillor Brockington pulled on Amilcar last week, which I'll admit even fooled me until other users here pointed out his gall.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by DTcrawler

Speaking of politicians I can't help but feel that many members of council would love to read your responses and find that some people are still going in circles trying to figure out why OC Transpo is so bad, while failing to realize the root of the problem lies at council's feet. It's similar to that stunt Councillor Brockington pulled on Amilcar last week, which I'll admit even fooled me until other users here pointed out his gall.

Agree with your post but I think there is one nuance. Blaming Amilcar for the mess doesn't make sense as you say it's about funding. But she was chosen for DEI reasons and didn't have a transit leadership background so isn't a voice (publicly or I understand privately) advocating let alone demanding transit funding be increased. Now maybe that isn't a performance issue but a strategic choice and sure the Mayor clearly wouldn't want to hear those arguments but I think we can't dismiss Brockington's comments as a stunt entirely. Someone who had headed a similar size city's transit and actually lived in Ottawa at the start of their term might have been a stronger voice in the early Sutcliffe budget discussions.

[rocketphish]

Mayor Mark Sutcliffe hopes for a $36M lifeline for OC Transpo. What if the money doesn't come?
"We'd have to find other solutions and all options are on the table," Sutcliffe says.

Blair Crawford, Ottawa Citizen
Published Dec 21, 2024 • Last updated 5 hours ago • 4 minute read

OC Transpo service cuts, another fare increase, pulling money from the City of Ottawa’s rainy-day reserves, even a special transit levy on top of one agreed to in the 2025 budget are all on the table if the city doesn’t get the $36 million from “higher levels of government” it’s counting on.

And, with no mention of transit money for Ottawa in the Liberals’ fall economic statement and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government seemingly on the verge of collapse, time is running out on Mayor Mark Sutcliffe’s “Fairness for Ottawa” campaign.

“I think there’s a willingness by the federal government to help us,” Sutcliffe said Friday, a few hours after NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh said he would call for a non-confidence vote when Parliament returned in the new year.

“Things are moving in the right direction and we’ve travelled a long way down the road and we’re very close to the finish line of being able to announce some help for Ottawa, but the political volatility right now on Parliament Hill is my main concern,” Sutcliffe said.

“I hope we’re able to move forward on something before that gets in the way, before we’re into an election campaign or a leadership race or some other thing that would prevent the announcement from happening.”

OC Transpo is facing a $120-million operating deficit in 2025. Fares are going up five per cent on Jan. 1 and an increase in the transit levy accounts for more than one-third of the 3.9-per-cent tax increase residents face next year. Even so, the city has added the $36-million placeholder in the transit budget for money it hopes to receive from the provincial and federal governments to balance its books.

<more>

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/mayor-mar...ine-oc-transpo-what-if-money-doesnt-come

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Agree with your post but I think there is one nuance. Blaming Amilcar for the mess doesn't make sense as you say it's about funding. But she was chosen for DEI reasons and didn't have a transit leadership background so isn't a voice (publicly or I understand privately) advocating let alone demanding transit funding be increased. Now maybe that isn't a performance issue but a strategic choice and sure the Mayor clearly wouldn't want to hear those arguments but I think we can't dismiss Brockington's comments as a stunt entirely. Someone who had headed a similar size city's transit and actually lived in Ottawa at the start of their term might have been a stronger voice in the early Sutcliffe budget discussions.

Your racist — is getting ridiculous. Is every female and non-white person automatically a DEI hire? She had a ton of experience. And Ottawa is fairly lucky to get someone with that much transit experience given how much of a dumpster fire the transit file is, in this town. Enjoy the even worse managers that OC Transpo will get, after her. Nobody who is legitimately qualified will want to get sandbagged like that again.

[OtrainUser]

Problem is that no one in Ottawa is willing to admit that raising property taxes lower than is needed to actually fund OC transpo and any other agency that is underfunded. City council should also not be handing out funds to private developers eg. OSEG and Tewitt developments. Thirdly, much of Ottawa within the greenbelt is still not dense enough. So the focus should be on infill development and not suburban.

So the question I have for everyone, How much of an increase are you willing to pay? Assuming they follow the solutions I posted plus and Bus lanes on busy streets to fee up Bus traffic.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by OtrainUser

Problem is that no one in Ottawa is willing to admit that raising property taxes lower than is needed to actually fund OC transpo and any other agency that is underfunded. City council should also not be handing out funds to private developers eg. OSEG and Tewitt developments. Thirdly, much of Ottawa within the greenbelt is still not dense enough. So the focus should be on infill development and not suburban.

So the question I have for everyone, How much of an increase are you willing to pay? Assuming they follow the solutions I posted plus and Bus lanes on busy streets to fee up Bus traffic.

Half this forum is full of suburban apologists who keep pretending that doubling down on failed strategies of catering to suburbanites will somehow work out differently this time. Meanwhile they are letting the core atrophy through under investment and service cuts. It's never going to get better. At least not until conditions become truly miserable. Suburbanites need to lose 2-3 hrs to traffic everyday before they start voting to fund transit. We're a long way from that.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Your racist — is getting ridiculous. Is every female and non-white person automatically a DEI hire? She had a ton of experience. And Ottawa is fairly lucky to get someone with that much transit experience given how much of a dumpster fire the transit file is, in this town. Enjoy the even worse managers that OC Transpo will get, after her. Nobody who is legitimately qualified will want to get sandbagged like that again.

I didn't mean to start his debate again but it's relevant to why she sits behind the scenes as a technocratic scheduler rather than a leader. She was a line manager in Montreal and has never been in charge of a transit agency. Diversity was part of the criteria. Watson gave specific instructions to hiring committee to diversify the senior leadership. So we got a bus specialist when we were trying to fix LRT. I you think she gets that job without Watson's directive I think you are mistaken. Don't declare you will hire based on race (and gender) and expand the city based on race and then be surprised when people question how decisions were made. Especially when things go south afterwards.

Agree with your last point we probably wouldn't get the kind of people who applied the first time again but North America wide transit is becoming like police where you have 2.5 strikes against you for leadership if you are white freeing up some highly qualified candidates.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Half this forum is full of suburban apologists who keep pretending that doubling down on failed strategies of catering to suburbanites will somehow work out differently this time. Meanwhile they are letting the core atrophy through under investment and service cuts. It's never going to get better. At least not until conditions become truly miserable. Suburbanites need to lose 2-3 hrs to traffic everyday before they start voting to fund transit. We're a long way from that.

Sure all the 20 something ideologues from 15 years ago in the heyday of this forum are now suburbanites. That said pretending if we don't fund transit they will sit 2 hours in traffic is silly. They are voting their interests as the extra tax funding needed to actually make transit good enough to change their commute is enormous.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Sure all the 20 something ideologues from 15 years ago in the heyday of this forum are now suburbanites. That said pretending if we don't fund transit they will sit 2 hours in traffic is silly. They are voting their interests as the extra tax funding needed to actually make transit good enough to change their commute is enormous.

Just had a colleague tell me at the gym that he routinely ends up spending 1-1.5 hrs at peak traffic. He lives in Alta Vista. Works at Carling. He leaves early to avoid traffic in the morning. Said it's hard to avoid in the afternoon. So yes, we're absolutely getting/going there whether you (and others) want to admit or not. It's not like folks in the GTA wanted 2 hrs commutes in traffic either. They simply underinvested and got there. Ottawa won't be different.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

I didn't mean to start his debate again but it's relevant to why she sits behind the scenes as a technocratic scheduler rather than a leader. She was a line manager in Montreal and has never been in charge of a transit agency. Diversity was part of the criteria. Watson gave specific instructions to hiring committee to diversify the senior leadership. So we got a bus specialist when we were trying to fix LRT. I you think she gets that job without Watson's directive I think you are mistaken. Don't declare you will hire based on race (and gender) and expand the city based on race and then be surprised when people question how decisions were made. Especially when things go south afterwards.

Ummm. Bus service is the problem in this city. If you actually took transit you'd know that. And the OC Transpo GM isn't running the LRT project.

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Agree with your last point we probably wouldn't get the kind of people who applied the first time again but North America wide transit is becoming like police where you have 2.5 strikes against you for leadership if you are white freeing up some highly qualified candidates.

Cool. Let's see what you say when the white guy they hire fails. Or does it become a personal failure only when they are a minority or woman?

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Just had a colleague tell me at the gym that he routinely ends up spending 1-1.5 hrs at peak traffic. He lives in Alta Vista. Works at Carling. He leaves early to avoid traffic in the morning. Said it's hard to avoid in the afternoon. So yes, we're absolutely getting/going there whether you (and others) want to admit or not. It's not like folks in the GTA wanted 2 hrs commutes in traffic either. They simply underinvested and got there. Ottawa won't be different.

I don't doubt we could have two hour commutes if we continue to build housing in Stittsville, Tewin, Buckingham etc. My point is the (reasonable) level of investment in transit isn't going to make a huge difference. The built form of Ottawa makes timely affordable transit impossible. As such we are merely tinkering at the edges. Given that suburbanites are acting rationally not wanting to throw good money after bad.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Ummm. Bus service is the problem in this city. If you actually took transit you'd know that. And the OC Transpo GM isn't running the LRT project.

Cool. Let's see what you say when the white guy they hire fails. Or does it become a personal failure only when they are a minority or woman?

Well that's the problem with quotas. That said I don't think it's remotely fair to say she has failed as you say it's about the level of investment. However if you wanted someone holding the mayor to account you would have picked someone who headed an agency leaving why she was chosen out of it.

[Richard Eade]

This is an interesting discussion. Many different ideas/views have been brought forth by various factions. I don’t agree with everything brought forward, as many are contradictory, but everyone is entitled to their opinion. And remember, opinions are what a person believes – so opinions are not ‘wrong’. The ‘facts’ that were used to build those opinions may have been inaccurate, or misinterpreted, but the opinions are what the person believes based on what their understanding is. Those opinions can change as a person is presented with, and accepts, different information.

That being the case, I’ll present an anecdote about suburbanites voting for Sutcliffe because they didn’t want to increase funding public transit: My suburban neighbour didn’t vote for the alternative because of her promise to drastically increase spending on cycling infrastructure. However, he maintains that the city should be funding public transit properly – and I don’t think that he has ever ridden on a bus.

This is an issue that I have seen in some of the arguments presented; looking at one facet of something and assuming that everything about that thing is evidenced by that one view. To think that every suburbanite who voted for Sutcliffe did so to avoid paying more for certain city services may be a misinterpretation.

Reading through the thread, I think that there are some things that we can agree on:

• Transit ‘—’ the way it is.
• In order to improve it, from a user’s point of view, there would need to be more frequent and reliable service, with better co-ordination at transfer points.
• In order to provide that improved service, more resources would be required.
• More resources are only available at an increased cost, both for tax-payers and riders.
• The politicians setting the budget believe that excessively increasing the cost to the tax-payers and/or transit users would be political suicide. And the level of increase that is considered ‘excessive’ is arbitrarily set by those politicians.
• Without in increase in funding, transit will continue to ‘—’; which will turn potential transit users to find alternatives.
• Falling ridership will lead to reductions in transit service provided. Which in turn will make the transit network ‘—’ even more. Which will shed more riders, as the ‘Death Spiral’ for transit spins downward.

So, what are the answers? Reduce the transit system to a bare minimum (that the politicians are willing to bill tax-payers for)? Increase the cost to the public to fund a useful transit system? Or somewhere in between – and what level would be appropriate?

[OtrainUser]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

This is an interesting discussion. Many different ideas/views have been brought forth by various factions. I don’t agree with everything brought forward, as many are contradictory, but everyone is entitled to their opinion. And remember, opinions are what a person believes – so opinions are not ‘wrong’. The ‘facts’ that were used to build those opinions may have been inaccurate, or misinterpreted, but the opinions are what the person believes based on what their understanding is. Those opinions can change as a person is presented with, and accepts, different information.

That being the case, I’ll present an anecdote about suburbanites voting for Sutcliffe because they didn’t want to increase funding public transit: My suburban neighbour didn’t vote for the alternative because of her promise to drastically increase spending on cycling infrastructure. However, he maintains that the city should be funding public transit properly – and I don’t think that he has ever ridden on a bus.

This is an issue that I have seen in some of the arguments presented; looking at one facet of something and assuming that everything about that thing is evidenced by that one view. To think that every suburbanite who voted for Sutcliffe did so to avoid paying more for certain city services may be a misinterpretation.

Reading through the thread, I think that there are some things that we can agree on:

• Transit ‘—’ the way it is.
• In order to improve it, from a user’s point of view, there would need to be more frequent and reliable service, with better co-ordination at transfer points.
• In order to provide that improved service, more resources would be required.
• More resources are only available at an increased cost, both for tax-payers and riders.
• The politicians setting the budget believe that excessively increasing the cost to the tax-payers and/or transit users would be political suicide. And the level of increase that is considered ‘excessive’ is arbitrarily set by those politicians.
• Without in increase in funding, transit will continue to ‘—’; which will turn potential transit users to find alternatives.
• Falling ridership will lead to reductions in transit service provided. Which in turn will make the transit network ‘—’ even more. Which will shed more riders, as the ‘Death Spiral’ for transit spins downward.

So, what are the answers? Reduce the transit system to a bare minimum (that the politicians are willing to bill tax-payers for)? Increase the cost to the public to fund a useful transit system? Or somewhere in between – and what level would be appropriate?

This goes back to a question I asked earlier on how much of an tax increase we would tolerate. Make no mistake, bigger tax increases are coming. Probably in the 7-10% range until Ottawa catches up with the other cities.
All Ottawa needs is someone who will adress that issue properly along with the stuff i mentioned earlier.

[vtecyo]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

I didn't mean to start his debate again but it's relevant to why she sits behind the scenes as a technocratic scheduler rather than a leader. She was a line manager in Montreal and has never been in charge of a transit agency. Diversity was part of the criteria. Watson gave specific instructions to hiring committee to diversify the senior leadership. So we got a bus specialist when we were trying to fix LRT. I you think she gets that job without Watson's directive I think you are mistaken. Don't declare you will hire based on race (and gender) and expand the city based on race and then be surprised when people question how decisions were made. Especially when things go south afterwards.

Agree with your last point we probably wouldn't get the kind of people who applied the first time again but North America wide transit is becoming like police where you have 2.5 strikes against you for leadership if you are white freeing up some highly qualified candidates.

If the city hired a white guy with the exact same experience as her - with the exact same job performance - what would you complain about then? Huh?

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by vtecyo

If the city hired a white guy with the exact same experience as her - with the exact same job performance - what would you complain about then? Huh?

First of all we all know they wouldn't have but I am not complaining about her job performance which as I don't think the mess can be put at her feet I merely pointing out choosing someone with a background as a head of a transit agency would have the potential to be an advocate for more funding rather than a technocratic bus scheduler.