OC Transpo

[Hybrid247]

Originally Posted by qprcanada

Somebody on Reddit just published a link to the full Confederation Line Extension Project Agreement.

https://alex-is.online/files/CLPA-Complete.pdf

That looks like the publicly available redacted version, which has long been accessible on the rail fans website.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Next Stop with the corporate story on what's going on in the world of data services.

https://www.octranspo.com/en/news/article/oc-explained-real-time-information/

I truly despair over the continued state of "real-time" data.

Despite the corporate bumpf and happy talk at the Transit Commission, it's not really getting any better that I can see.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by DarthVader_1961

Wonder if AI could be used for better routes/scheduling

Designing better routes isn't the problem. Lots of tools to do that. It's whether they'd follow the advice given.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

For years, we have had shortages of buses, operators and mechanics. The solution is not continuing to reduce fleet and service levels. We have all heard the stories of 2 hour commutes. We need real solutions to improve travel times and not more excuses.

From what I have heard, it isn't a shortage of operators. On any given day about 50 operators will show up to work and not have a bus that they can drive. OC Transpo refuses to admit this though, as it makes them look bad. The whole organization is a stellar example of the Peter Principle all the way up to the top.

Their solution to reduce the number of cancelled routes was to never cancel a route when it is late. The bus could be 90 minutes behind schedule and they will still send it off on its normal run.

[lrt's friend]

I have been making observations on the south end of Line 2 since it opened and what has happened since the New Ways to Bus was initiated in April.

Whether we blame budgets or OC incompetence, it is not pretty. Today, I went to Bowesville and Leitrim. The Bowesville lot was about half full, Leitrim was perhaps 1/3 full. At Leitrim, bus transfer ridership has collapsed by I would guess 75% since the early days of New Ways to Bus. At 3:30, there was maybe 10 passengers on the outgoing bus. At 4pm, there was a total of 17 passengers boarding 2 articulated buses, and 2 of those passengers had waited at least 30 minutes. The two outgoing buses departed just as Line 2 arrived. We continue to pay for extra buses to wait at Leitrim for 30 minutes because Route 93 cannot reliably complete its trip on time. This has been going on for months, paying for a bus and driver to deliver no passenger service for extended periods. As a taxpayer and as someone who wants to see more attractive transit service that meets needs of residents, we are failing to deliver and we are wasting my tax money on out of service buses. In this case, we have already delivered rail service but have poorly addressed the last mile problem and there is little hope of improvement. At a time when ridership should be growing as we continue to build out Findlay Creek, this city should be ashamed that it cannot do better.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by roger1818

From what I have heard, it isn't a shortage of operators. On any given day about 50 operators will show up to work and not have a bus that they can drive. OC Transpo refuses to admit this though, as it makes them look bad. The whole organization is a stellar example of the Peter Principle all the way up to the top.

Their solution to reduce the number of cancelled routes was to never cancel a route when it is late. The bus could be 90 minutes behind schedule and they will still send it off on its normal run.

I just spoke about waste, and you describe another example, operators without a bus. We pay an operator to do nothing.

[TransitZilla]

There were some posts here recently lamenting the planned conversion of some Park & Ride Lots to housing. A relevant article:

https://humantransit.org/basics-the-math-of-park-and-ride

Basics: The Math of Park-and-Ride

There is a lot of confusion out there about Park-and-Ride. Is it necessary for ridership? Are motorists entitled to it? Can it last forever?

Let’s start with the basic math.

-Really great transit generates high land value around stations.
-Free parking presumes low land value around stations.

It’s a contradiction.

When a transit agency provides free or underpriced parking at a station where the land value signals that there is a higher use, it is subsidizing motorists in two ways. First, it is forcing a low-value land use to prevail over a high value land use, and second it is making a much bigger investment in access by motorists than it makes in access by people who get to the station in other ways. I am using the word subsidy in exactly the same sense that any other artificial limit on price is a subsidy.

Obviously the problem is much worse where the rapid transit is of the highest utility and quality and where the ambient land value is therefore higher. This is why free Park-and-Ride is much harder to justify on high-frequency metro systems than on infrequent outer-suburban commuter rail in most metro areas.

Low-cost Park-and-Ride can make great sense where a station area is undevelopable (floodplains etc). There’s also an important role for distributed, small-scale Park-and-Ride created by sharing existing spaces. Transit agencies often make deals to share parking with land uses that peak on weekends and evenings, such as houses of worship and entertainment venues. These are great ways of providing some car access at very little cost to the public.

But the law of supply and demand generates some facts about free Park-and-Ride that many people don’t want to hear, but that we really can’t protect them from:

Free parking at a high-utility rapid transit station is a price subsidy, exactly the way the Soviet Union’s caps on retail prices were. It has the same effect, which is to cause problems of supply: Empty shelves in Soviet grocery stores, Park-and-Rides that fill up at 7 AM. If a commodity is priced too low in a condition of high demand, its supply will be exhausted, making it unavailable.

A Park-and-Ride that fills up at 7 AM is effectively one that doesn’t exist over much of the time period when it’s supposedly needed. This loss of utility for people who travel later is a direct consequence of the price subsidy, as the artificially low price prevents the transit agency and its customers from reaching a market equilibrium where supply and demand of parking are in balance. (This equilibrium, of course, would be optimal for both ridership and revenue. Parking that fills up too soon drives away riders as effectively as no parking would.)

The claim that Park-and-Ride is needed to attract riders is true only in the earliest phases of development, or on transit services with limited utility like peak-only express service. Once land value rises in response to transit access, the highest source of ridership is also the economically highest use of the land: dense, transit-oriented development around the station combined with good provision for the space-efficient forms of access (i.e. everything but Park-and-Ride). This is why Park-and-Ride is often a logical interim use of land, but not one that you should plan on having forever. Once a city has grown in around a transit system, there may be little Park-and-Ride left at rail stations, and only massive, distorting subsidies will make it free.

Preventing high-value dense development on naturally expensive station-area land forces that development to locate away from the rapid transit system instead, creating a less sustainable urban structure in which more people and businesses lack excellent transit options.

People who take buses or bikes or their feet or Kiss-and-Ride to a rail station are being mathematically correct (and fiscally conservative) when they object to free Park-and-Ride at high-demand stations, especially if the agency is not offering a corresponding subsidy to their own preferred modes of access, which all use scarce space more efficiently.

All of these problems around Park-and-Ride can be resolved only by charging a fair market price for the rental of expensive, publicly owned real estate. Once parking is priced that way, it can remain the best use of valuable land. As always, the problem is not parking, per se. The problem is the market distortion arising from the subsidy.

It’s easy to feel entitled to a free Park-and-Ride space. But nobody can repeal the law of supply and demand, and that’s what we’re dealing with here.

[J.OT13]

We need to start building GTA type park and ride structures. We could sell or lease out those parking lots with a clause that asks the developer to build a parking garage.

[Aylmer]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

We need to start building GTA type park and ride structures. We could sell or lease out those parking lots with a clause that asks the developer to build a parking garage.

Considering that many of them are well over $100M a pop, I'd sooner we spend transit dollars on transit...

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

Considering that many of them are well over $100M a pop, I'd sooner we spend transit dollars on transit...

Civic parking garage with it's park on top and buried in a berm will cost $135 million for 2,500 spots. OC PnR's would have up to maybe 1,000 spots and far less intricate.

It's a math problem the City needs to figure out; can they make up the cost of a parking garage by selling the land?

Alternatively, they could lease parking from malls and sell parking lots near transit stations. Place d'Orleans parking (that already has a PnR portion) is far from capacity even during the holidays. City could sell their lot north of the highway and lease more space from the mall.

[FrostyMug]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

It's a math problem the City needs to figure out; can they make up the cost of a parking garage by selling the land?

Alternatively, they could lease parking from malls and sell parking lots near transit stations. Place d'Orleans parking (that already has a PnR portion) is far from capacity even during the holidays. City could sell their lot north of the highway and lease more space from the mall.

I'm pretty sure the city does get revenue from that lot north of the highway. A lot of preferred spots there. There's also the massive piece of vacant serviced land just to the immediate north of that lot that has remained empty and undeveloped for decades. Going to be tough to get top dollar for the parking lot when alternatives exist close by.

Having said that the reality is currently there is little incentive (as many others have noted) to take the bus to connect to light rail. The bus service is limited, poorly timed and somewhat unreliable. Once light rail is open to Orleans there is little incentive for me to take the bus from Fallingbrook, however driving down to one of the park and rides is an attractive option.

I do believe building high density development on those park and rides is a great idea but I also think we are years away from it being an viable option and then only if connecting local transit is both frequent and reliable enough that you no longer need to take your car to connect to the train AND there is a solution to address commuters coming in from Rockland/Kemptville/Limoges/Casselman/Carleton Place/etc.

[dougvdh]

Originally Posted by FrostyMug

I'm pretty sure the city does get revenue from that lot north of the highway. A lot of preferred spots there. There's also the massive piece of vacant serviced land just to the immediate north of that lot that has remained empty and undeveloped for decades. Going to be tough to get top dollar for the parking lot when alternatives exist close by.

Having said that the reality is currently there is little incentive (as many others have noted) to take the bus to connect to light rail. The bus service is limited, poorly timed and somewhat unreliable. Once light rail is open to Orleans there is little incentive for me to take the bus from Fallingbrook, however driving down to one of the park and rides is an attractive option.

I do believe building high density development on those park and rides is a great idea but I also think we are years away from it being an viable option and then only if connecting local transit is both frequent and reliable enough that you no longer need to take your car to connect to the train AND there is a solution to address commuters coming in from Rockland/Kemptville/Limoges/Casselman/Carleton Place/etc.

Parking rates in the Gold spots ($68/m) are even high enough to break even. Eagleson Park and Ride cost $50k per spot in 2015. Chapel Hill cost $33k per space in 2019 (easier soil conditions). Parking garages are going to be higher than $50k per spot. Add in land value, and you'd have to charge closer to $200/m (or more) to make sense.

I think the city needs to start thinking of these lots as road infrastructure as oppose to transit infrastructure so that they aren't drawing from the transit capital and operations budgets.

[lrt's friend]

We can discuss the redevelopment of park n ride lots but as has been pointed out, we need to
to also consider a logical replacement, better local bus service and its cost when we make the analysis. We cannot be eliminating park n ride lots while also reducing local bus service. This is counterproductive. As been pointed out, free parking is not always free as there is a monthly fee to guarantee your spot. I also can't imagine parking structures being feasible at $200 per month. Who would pay this in a suburban location? While there are general theories about when redevelopment should be considered, we need to also consider each location individual situation. Why redevelop Greenboro when South Keys is not being used for much of anything? Also, as we can all see, the city does not have a good track record on locating Park n Ride lots. Why spend a pile of money on a lot without rapid transit service that will be grossly underutilized.

[J.OT13]

That vacant land north of the Place d'Orleans Park and Ride is I think owned by one company. Roads have been built along with a low rise retirement home. Bit of a waste so far.

If we built parking garages with more security and protection from the elements, we should start charging for everyone, even if it's just $1 per day, $20 per month, maybe free from transit pass holders.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

It's a math problem the City needs to figure out; can they make up the cost of a parking garage by selling the land?

Why does the city need to build parking garages for transit stations, though?

[Truenorth00]

Sell the land. Let private developers figure out what gets more return. Parking or apartments. Or both.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

We need to start building GTA type park and ride structures. We could sell or lease out those parking lots with a clause that asks the developer to build a parking garage.

One could argue those are inefficient monstrosities.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

One could argue those are inefficient monstrosities.

Same could be argued about surface parking lots. There's some math involved and I doubt the City has done that math.

[roger1818]

https://www.ctvnews.ca/ottawa/article/th...ont-is-a-locomotive-for-economic-growth/

OC Transpo in 2026 includes higher rates, O-Train Line 1 changes and free rides on weekends for youth
By Josh Pringle
Published: December 11, 2025 at 8:21AM EST

OC Transpo will run O-Train Line 1 trains more often during off-peak weekday hours and extend the afternoon commute transfer window next year, as part of changes to the transit service in 2026.

Ottawa City Council approved the 2026 City of Ottawa budget on Wednesday, including the Transit Services budget.

The 2026 transit budget includes a 2.5 per cent hike in transit fares, which will see the cost of an adult monthly transit pass increase $3.50 to $138.50 a month.

Council approved several motions to offer free transit to youth on weekends and holidays, extend the afternoon commute transfer window and boost service on O-Train Line 1 during weekday off-peak periods.

Here is what you need to know about the OC Transpo changes.

O-Train Line 1 frequency
Starting in April, trains on O-Train Line 1 will run every 6 minutes on weekdays between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., and every 7.5 minutes between 6 p.m. and 7:30 p.m. on weekday evenings.

Council voted to use $620,000 from the fuel hedging program to fund the increased LRT service.

In the summer of 2024, OC Transpo reduced off-peak weekday service on Line 1 to every 10 minutes from every five minutes as part of a move to save money. Staff estimated the change would save $1.6 million per year.

Extended transfer window
Starting on Canada Day, commuters will have extra time on their transfer during the afternoon commute.

Council voted to extend the transfer time for weekdays between 3 p.m. and 6 p.m. from 90 minutes to 105 minutes.

“This measure would be temporary until the launch of LRT Stage 2 West to Algonquin Station and Moodie Station, expected in 2027,” the motion said.

Coun. David Hill had raised concerns that due to construction, traffic delays and bus availability, the 90-minute transfer window wasn’t long enough for commuters heading home during the weekday afternoon periods.

Free rides for youth
Transit riders under the age of 18 will be able to ride OC Transpo buses and the O-Train free on weekends and holidays.

Council approved a motion to offer free transit fares for riders aged 18 and under on Saturdays, Sundays and holidays, starting on July 1.

Staff will explore the feasibility of free fares after 5 p.m. for riders aged 18 and under on weekdays.

Transit Fares
Transit riders are facing a 2.5 per cent hike in transit fares in 2026.

2026 Fare List

• Adult monthly pass: $138.50/month ($135 in 2025)
• U-Pass: $60.17/month ($58.70 currently)
• Senior monthly pass: $59.75 ($58.25 in 2025)
• 3-day pass: $30.75 ($30 in 2025)
• 5-day pass: $49 ($47.75 in 2025)
• Adult single-fare ride (card): $4.10 ($4 in 2025)
• Adult single-fare ride (cash): $4.15 ($4.05 in 2025)
• Senior single-ride (e-purse): $3.28 ($3.20 in 2025)
• Pre-teen single-ride (e-purse): $2.05 ($2 in 2025)

The EquiPass and Community monthly passes will remain at 2025 rates.

[J.OT13]

Some decent stuff there. That transfer window should be off peak though when frequencies on train and bus is terrible.