The latest comments from the Rideau councillor about the lack of bus service in growing suburbs shows the disadvantage of amalgamation. We would have had a truly régional transit system operated by the province by now.
We'd have a regional system operated by the region.
It's also not helping that these growing suburbs aren't interested in paying for new bus service to serve their areas. When they're ready to graduate to the urban transit levy zone, then they'll be owed bus service.
An interesting article on Bloomberg Citylab talking about how Translink has been successful in rebuilding transit ridership in Vancouver following the pandemic. In terms of short term actions, the takeways from the interview are that Vancouver succeeded by having good frequency service and not making cuts when ridership tanked. Not exactly what happened in Ottawa.
The Secret to Vancouver’s Public Transit Ridership Recovery
By David Zipper
October 9, 2025 at 9:00 AM EDT
The Canadian city’s transit agency, TransLink, bounced back from Covid even as other North American systems have struggled. Its leader explains why riders returned.
Across North America, transit agencies have struggled to match passenger counts prior to Covid, with some major systems moving only around half as many riders as they did before the pandemic.
Vancouver's regional transit system, TransLink, is a success story, now moving around 90% as many people as in 2019, and has recovered ridership faster than almost any other major transit system on the continent.
TransLink's CEO Kevin Quinn attributes the system's success to factors such as service frequency, density around transit stations, and land-use planning that promotes dense development, as well as population growth in areas such as Surrey.
Across North America, transit agencies have struggled to match the passenger counts they posted prior to Covid, in large part due to an enduring uptick in working from home. Some major systems, such as those in the Bay Area and Atlanta, are still moving only around half as many riders as they did before the pandemic struck. (In Europe and Asia, in contrast, some systems are hitting new ridership highs.)
By North American standards, Vancouver’s regional transit system, known as TransLink, is a success story, now moving around 90% as many people as in 2019. According to the American Public Transportation Association, TransLink has recovered ridership faster than almost any other major transit system on the continent (Washington, DC’s WMATA is another standout). Metro Vancouver recently pulled ahead of Toronto to post the second-most transit trips per capita in Canada, behind only Montreal.
Vancouver also has some of North America’s most expensive housing — an issue intertwined with its transit infrastructure, as new condos built around Skytrain stations have been blamed for displacement in some areas.
Transit Workers Strike In Vancouver
A passenger on the Skytrain in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, in 2024.Photographer: Paige Taylor White/Bloomberg
Kevin Quinn has been the CEO of TransLink since 2021, when he left his role
leading the Maryland Transit Administration. Bloomberg CityLab contributor David Zipper spoke with Quinn about the lessons TransLink offers those hoping to grow ridership in other North American cities. Their conversation has been edited for length and clarity.
You spent your career in American public transportation before moving to Vancouver four years ago. What about Canadian transit has been particularly striking to you?
I’d offer two observations. First, Canadians put a lot more emphasis on service frequency. The US is still playing around with 15- and 30-minute frequencies for a lot of bus routes and even some rail service. I think Canadian transit agencies understand [transit consultant] Jarrett Walker’s idea that frequency is freedom. We have a ton of routes where buses are running every three or four minutes. You’d find the same in Toronto or Montreal.
Secondly, I would say that for transit to be successful, you need density around it. There are some agencies in the US doing that well, but for the most part, they still have a ways to go. Canadians do a lot of land use planning focused on density around stations.
I want to come back to frequency and land use. But first, how different is the governance structure of TransLink compared to US transit agencies?
We have two bodies that oversee TransLink. We have a 23-member Mayor’s Council that’s comprised of all the mayors of local municipalities as well as an electoral district and a First Nation. Their job is to say, “Here are the transit projects that help us achieve our vision.” I also have an 11-member board of directors that is more of a traditional board, making sure we are cost-efficient pursuing that vision.
Having these two bodies, especially a Mayor’s Council, makes us less subject to political winds. In the US, there are a lot of states where transit projects can come and go with political cycles. In Maryland, sometimes if you have a Democratic governor, you’re going to do this project, but if it switches to Republican governor, the project can get canceled. In Vancouver, we have consistency of vision across a longer time period.
I’m sure you weren’t thinking about the saga of Baltimore’s Red Line just now.
Our biggest bounce back has been south of the Fraser River, especially in a municipality called Surrey that is seeing tremendous population growth from immigration. Within the next 10 to 20 years, Surrey’s population will surpass Vancouver’s. Not coincidentally, transit ridership in what we call the South of Fraser-East region has risen 30% since before Covid.
Population growth has helped us in lots of places. In the 2010s, the region was planning for 50,000 new residents per year, but in 2024 alone, we added 180,000. We’ve been in the 150,000 to 180,000 range for several years now. Many people are coming from other countries. According to our data, about half of newcomers travel by transit, which is much higher than our overall mode share of around 10%.
It’s interesting that TransLink’s growth is led by rapidly growing suburbs. In the US, burgeoning suburbs can be too sprawled for transit to be very useful.
Then there is the issue of land use. When we use the term “suburbs” in a US context, I envision single-family homes on a quarter-acre lot. That isn’t necessarily the case in Metro Vancouver, where suburbs often have a very high density of townhomes, walk-up apartment buildings, or high rises.
Decades ago, Metro Vancouver leaders established a popular vision for land use: “cities in a sea of green.” Then in the 1980s they created the SkyTrain to connect many of those cities. If you look at a regional density map, you’ll see these pockets of density around each municipality’s town center. Vancouver itself is no longer the center of everything. The need here is to connect the suburbs — not just feed into the big central city.
What role has transit-oriented development played?
A big one. If you build density around transit, guess what? Ridership goes up at those stations.
Places like Brentwood, Coquitlam and Gateway are key transit hubs where there has been very intentional TOD [transit-oriented development]. We’ve seen around a 30% ridership growth in those places over the last few years.
To what extent have you adjusted transit service since Covid?
First of all, we never cut total service after the pandemic. There are other places, like RTD in Denver, where there were a lot of layoffs and service reductions. That can erode public trust and raise questions among riders: “Is the bus going to show up? Is it reliable? If my bus is getting cut, should I start driving?” I think that happened at other agencies, but not at TransLink.
We did reallocate service to where it’s most needed. For instance, we shifted some buses toward South of Fraser, that fast-growing suburban area in the southeast. There are a lot of shift workers there who cannot work from home, whereas in the city of Vancouver you have a lot of people working 9-to-5 who are not taking transit as much as they used to.
We also rolled out some new service, such as what we call a rapid bus in an area of Surrey known as Newton. It’s fast and frequent — coming every five to ten minutes — and ridership on that corridor doubled after we installed it.
How will TransLink’s service change in the future?
In September we’re beginning a 5% increase in bus service across the system. It’s a mixture of frequency improvements, expansions to run earlier or later in the day, and additional vehicles on existing routes that are overcrowded.
As far as I know, we’re the only North American system that is actually expanding bus service right now. I was just at a large transit conference, and I kept asking around. I couldn’t find anyone else doing it.
In the US, some advocates have promoted fare-free transit as a way to boost transit ridership. Has that been a strategy at TransLink?
Well, we get 45-50% of our operating budget from fares. If those hoping to go fare-free want to maintain today’s level of service, then we need to generate around half a billion dollars of new revenue from something that’s not fares. I don’t know what that would be.
I think Canadian culture plays a role, too. In my experience, US transit systems revolve around independence: Letting people do what they want. But Canadian systems are based on fairness. The fare-free movement kind of flies in the face of a principle that everyone should pay their fair share.
Now that I think of it, I don’t know of any Canadian transit systems that have gone fare-free.
Me neither.
Are there particular lessons from TransLink’s experience that might be useful to transit staff and advocates in other North American cities?
I would emphasize frequency. Running the bus every 30 minutes isn’t going to cut it if you want to grow ridership. With 30-minute service, if one bus doesn’t show up it’s now 60-minute service. Folks aren’t going to rely on that.
In Vancouver, we have lots of buses run with headways of five minutes or less. The SkyTrain is running every three or four minutes, and because it’s driverless, we have the capacity to run even more. That was extremely helpful when Taylor Swift completed her Eras Tour here last year, and we were able to empty out a 55,000-person stadium in 45 minutes because the SkyTrain came every 90 seconds.
Personally, I take the bus every day, and it runs every 10 to 15 minutes. I live my life without a transit schedule, and I like it. I think that’s how most metro Vancouverites live their lives, too.
OCTranspo will do well to adopt Translink’s definition of Frequent Transit Network and adjust accordingly.
15-minute frequency during rush hour is low for frequent buses. They should come every 5-10 minutes during those windows.
For the local buses, instead of half-hourly frequency throughout the weekday, I wonder if it helps to make it run every 10~20 minutes during rush hour then every 60 minutes off-peak if not having enough buses is an issue.
For the local buses, instead of half-hourly frequency throughout the weekday, I wonder if it helps to make it run every 10~20 minutes during rush hour then every 60 minutes off-peak if not having enough buses is an issue.
Every 60 minutes is effectively no transit.
__________________
___
Enjoy my taxes, Orleans (and Kanata?).
One can say the same about every 30 minutes, though.
Sometimes I feel that there’s no solution to OCTranspo’s woes unless and until Confederation Line runs from Stittsville to Cumberland.
One can say the same about every 30 minutes, though.
Not quite. There are plenty of places where 30 minute headways is fine, especially if the transit authority is serious about keeping the buses to those headways.
60 minutes is pretty well useless, though, at least for anything we consider regular, urban transit service.
__________________
___
Enjoy my taxes, Orleans (and Kanata?).
One can say the same about every 30 minutes, though.
Sometimes I feel that there’s no solution to OCTranspo’s woes unless and until Confederation Line runs from Stittsville to Cumberland.
Still only 10% of the population is within walking distance of a station. We cannot have success without a secondary network with both fast and fréquent service. We have not been building that network or we are way too slow. When we hear of transit trips that are way too long, our vision is inadéquate
"First of all, we never cut total service from the pandemic" speaking of Translink. Ottawa cut service with the opening of Line 1 in 2019, then cut service multiple times since then. How that will that ever grow ridership, I don't know.
"First of all, we never cut total service from the pandemic" speaking of Translink. Ottawa cut service with the opening of Line 1 in 2019, then cut service multiple times since then. How that will that ever grow ridership, I don't know.
It won't. And too many people in this city are obsessed with getting LRT extensions to their front doors instead of fixing bus service. So even if the province gives them some money, they'll put it toward extensions than fixing service. Ottawa mindset.
I understood how crappy bus service was two decades ago when I lived a year in New Edinburgh. It's what motivated me to buy my condo behind Cyrville Station. The Transitway then and LRT now are the only things that approached the level of service I was used to, as a former Torontonian.
I now live in Wateridge and work at Carling. Buses are every half hour. And we barely use transit outside of absolute necessity because the bus routes being half hourly pretty much make that commute a minimum of 1:40h for me. Could be closer to 2 hrs. I'm curious to see how much Confederation Line West reduces this trip. But I suspect, it won't come down more than 15 mins. Transit for me now is mostly about getting downtown without parking or a quick trip in the area, when the wife has the car. A single 30 min bus ride is manageable. But when multiple connections happen the whole thing is way less reliable. And lack of frequency is pretty much the root cause.
The secondary network that I was referring to is not about bringing rail to everybody's front door but to provide fast and fréquent bus service through BRT or bus lanes on key corridors. The cuts to bus frequency into neighbourhoods will only lose ridership as has been demonstrated since 2019.
The secondary network that I was referring to is not about bringing rail to everybody's front door but to provide fast and fréquent bus service through BRT or bus lanes on key corridors. The cuts to bus frequency into neighbourhoods will only lose ridership as has been demonstrated since 2019.
My point here is that bus service wasn't great 20 years ago. And given the mindset of the good burghers of Ottawa where expansion is always prioritized over service, the likelihood of service was getting worse was always there. I used to hope things would improve after Stage 2 because buses could be repurposed to improve local network frequencies. Pretty clear that residents don't want that. They keep electing councillors who shrink the bus fleet.
My point here is that bus service wasn't great 20 years ago. And given the mindset of the good burghers of Ottawa where expansion is always prioritized over service, the likelihood of service was getting worse was always there. I used to hope things would improve after Stage 2 because buses could be repurposed to improve local network frequencies. Pretty clear that residents don't want that. They keep electing councillors who shrink the bus fleet.
I think it's pretty clear they don't want that. They don't want to pay for it. But they also overwhelmingly choose housing that doesn't enable transit. Mild criticism to you as well. It's pretty clear that Wateridge was never going to have much in the way of transit. It's off the spine. Some density is being built there but there was never a way of getting to the west end which was also pretty clearly where DND was headed. I imagine you thought it's a better more urban development than the rest of the wasteland suburbs we have but transit oriented it was not. In fairness if you want new construction which is a reasonable expectaiton I guess other than infill there isn't anywhere much better. Me I choose to give up space and the yard to be centrally located but if you have to commute to Carling anyway even living in a townhouse in Westboro won't be an ideal commute.
I think it's pretty clear they don't want that. They don't want to pay for it. But they also overwhelmingly choose housing that doesn't enable transit. Mild criticism to you as well. It's pretty clear that Wateridge was never going to have much in the way of transit. It's off the spine. Some density is being built there but there was never a way of getting to the west end which was also pretty clearly where DND was headed. I imagine you thought it's a better more urban development than the rest of the wasteland suburbs we have but transit oriented it was not. In fairness if you want new construction which is a reasonable expectaiton I guess other than infill there isn't anywhere much better. Me I choose to give up space and the yard to be centrally located but if you have to commute to Carling anyway even living in a townhouse in Westboro won't be an ideal commute.
It's denser than the average neighborhood. Was literally designed as a 15 min city. And I expect the retail situation in the neighbourhood will improve over time. And not badly connected as far as bus service goes. Getting from here to downtown is not bad at all. I can walk to Montreal Rd in 10 mins and get downtown in worst case of 30 mins. Among the reasons we chose a smaller space inside the Greenbelt over a larger house in the burbs for the same cash is that we can get by with one car. Not ideal. But not impossible, unlike say Orleans would be. On the personal side, my last position was at Star Top and Coventry and I could be back there in 2 years and there was no desire to change schools and go through all the 🞵🞵🞵🞵 with after-school care. So that definitely narrowed our choices.
Your jab is kind of ignorantly misplaced. Most of my problem happens on the other side of town. The 66 runs every 30 mins in the morning. It's the fastest express bus from Tunney's to Carling. Every other bus route takes twice as long and meanders before reaching Carling or drops me off a km away at Moodie where even the sidewalks aren't properly done up yet. It's patently ridiculous that the one express bus to a major employer in the city that connects everybody from Gatineau and the east end of the city runs half hourly. The 25 and 12, service to home isn't great in the evening, but livable since I'm not doing it everyday.
What impacts me just as much? Traffic on the drive to work. It's amazing how many people don't get it. Even folks like you who have a spent a decade on this forum. Peak traffic is proportional to how many commuters choose transit. The less that do, the worse traffic will be. Downs-Thomson Paradox and all. I can see that because I would literally choose to bus if say the commute was 1:15 vs a 45 min drive. I wouldn't mind the extra 30 mins each way as podcast, net surfing time. But giving up an extra 2-3 hrs per day (when each trip is 1:45h to 2 hrs) is a bit too much. So I add to the traffic each morning and afternoon and wonder how many other people are in the same boat. But all those people will happily vote to save $5-10 per month on taxes to watch peak traffic hours go from 2 hrs a day a decade ago to 4 hrs a day today, and probably 6 hrs a day in another decade. Remember when Rush Hour was actually an hr? Twice as many people use to commute by transit.
Last edited by Truenorth00; Oct 19, 2025 at 5:36 PM.
I really don't think voters get the connection between low tax increase politicians and the gradual décline in transit service over several years. I also don't think our politicians get the corrélation between transit service contraints and the amount of ridership abandonnent. They don't get the longterm impacts which also negatively impact the budget. The assumption that rail was enough shows the ignorance of our décision makers. We are building a very expensive rail system but a very inefficient transit system overall. Nobody is assessing the rider expérience when trip times are 1.5 or 2 hours. It no longer matters about density. No matter what, you never get better than 15 minutes frequency and 30 minutes after 6 pm. We are not making transit attractive anywhere unless within walking distance of rail, which will never bé more than 10% of the population. Meanwhile, new dense development is often being placed where transit is unattractive or even minimal. In other words, buy a car If your time has value. In urban Ottawa, most locations are not easy to access with fast fréquent transit. This city continues to lose its way.
The transit system will be quite efficient at minimizing subsidy, which is all that councillors care about. I just find it funny to see so many people complain about traffic these days. Over on the Reddit Ottawa subforum, people will routinely blame bad drivers. Less than 5% of posts blame bad transit. That tells you what people think. People get the government they deserve. And Ottawans absolutely deserve this.
I just hope I can get posted out before it gets unbearable for me.
And lack of frequency is pretty much the root cause.
In the case of the "urban transect" routes, you can have all the frequency you want, and it's not going to make a lick of difference as long as we keep stupidly adding transit pinch-points to the physical layout of streets, and as long as we refuse to give buses anything resembling priority where it matters.
Queen Street in particular is an absolute nightmare now to try and run transit on, but the city has very clearly given up on even pretending to care.
__________________
___
Enjoy my taxes, Orleans (and Kanata?).
The transit system will be quite efficient at minimizing subsidy, which is all that councillors care about. I just find it funny to see so many people complain about traffic these days.
I swear, the proportion of rush-hour vehicles with exactly one person aboard is increasing.
__________________
___
Enjoy my taxes, Orleans (and Kanata?).
In the case of the "urban transect" routes, you can have all the frequency you want, and it's not going to make a lick of difference as long as we keep stupidly adding transit pinch-points to the physical layout of streets, and as long as we refuse to give buses anything resembling priority where it matters.
Queen Street in particular is an absolute nightmare now to try and run transit on, but the city has very clearly given up on even pretending to care.
Agreed. But I do think a part of this is their bias towards longer routes instead of more feeding to the LRT network or hubbing at LRT stations. I think of my personal case. When I am leaving for work early in the morning, I am pushed towards taking the 12 along Montreal till Rideau Station. But it would be way more efficient to have a 25 at that time that drops me off at Blair.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uhuniau
I swear, the proportion of rush-hour vehicles with exactly one person aboard is increasing.
100%. It's a combination of people being in the office less than 5 days per week, reducing joint commutes, and changes in home and office locations during covid, pushing up the fraction of commuting by car.
Queen Street in particular is an absolute nightmare now to try and run transit on, but the city has very clearly given up on even pretending to care.
I'm familiar with Queen as I am on it most days. I actually don't find it to be terrible these days in terms of transit delays. And it is probably the nicest street downtown, so the changes to the streetscape have been positive on balance and sorely needed.
That said, I agree on transit priority. It would make all the difference to include priority for EB left turns at Bank. It would also make sense to minimize the time buses spend on Queen - there is no reason those routes need to serve both LRT stations. Connecting to the LRT at Queen and then ducking down to Albert-Slater would be quicker and more reliable. But it's minor tweaks that are needed, not a return to transitway-style bus lanes through downtown. The LRT is the rapid transit in the area.
Yeah, driving or by bus, I've never felt like Queen was particularly bad, even when Wellington was closed.
Speaking of Queen, was the City not supposed to rebuild O'Connor to Elgin? Why didn't they rebuild it properly? Did they not rip it up anyway when they built the subway? Isn't that where they found remains from the old Barrack Hill cemetery?
Prev
Linear Mode
