Quote:
Originally Posted by 1overcosc
I think a key part of OC's problem is that it has a penny wise and pound foolish way of thinking. When designing routes and network, it focuses on what reduces operating expenses the most, failing to consider that certain choices can reduce ridership, and also fails to consider that to some extent OC needs to be able and willing to put out new services as a loss leader in order to build ridership over time, instead of only responding to present ridership. In other words, OC needs to start acting like a modern business--focusing on investing in its own growth to maximize value in the long term; instead of a bureaucratic model of simply minimizing costs.
Kingston Transit's incredible ridership growth is an example of what can be achieved with this line of thinking. You see it to a lesser extent in other cities too; places like K-W and Brampton are seeing rapid growth in ridership while others like York Region and Ottawa are stagnant. The general theme? The latter are served by agencies obsessed with penny pinching above all else.
|
Ottawa used to be an transit innovator but has become extremely conservative, while spending more money than ever. The cities that you mentioned have replaced Ottawa in innovation and finding ways to grow ridership without blowing the bank in the process. Yes, they spend money but they spend it effectively.
You all know that I was a big supporter of the Chiarelli plan. Why? Because it planned to create a grid of new rapid transit routes to more parts of the city than the current plan. It would not have produced the shining baubles that we are now oohing and ahhing about but ridership would have grown because rapid transit would have been brought closer to much more Ottawans than the current project will ever be able to do. It would have never produced a system with enormous trains running every 2 or 3 minutes but a 10 minute rapid bus line near my door is much better than that 3 minute train that requires a 30 minute bus connection. I know everybody was saying that the Chiarelli plan was too inefficient but a system that grows ridership substantially will be more effective and will generate extra revenue while a stagnant system will always demand cost cutting.
The current plan demands extension at enormous cost. We all know this. Phase 1 was never going to be enough. This leaves nothing for the smaller transit projects that most Ottawans especially inside the Greenbelt would have benefitted more from. Those smaller projects would have been cheaper and when accumulated together, the benefit would have been bigger. As it stands, our current proposal generates the status quo for riders as far as time. Yes, something needed to happen downtown, but even a bus tunnel could have delivered more without needing to invest in a city wide rail network with the degree of urgency that we are now seeing. We could have spent that money on Carling or Baseline or other improvements.
The problem with current plan is that depends on almost everybody continuing to use connecting buses and that system has suffered from years of stagnation if not outright deterioration. It becomes the weak link. We have this expensive rail system but connected to an increasingly lousy bus system.
We all talk about efficiency but what do we gain when the money savings are not actually reinvested in improving service elsewhere in the system. Instead, that money is taken out of operations to pay interest or to pay for the next phase. You cannot grow transit when your goal is cost cutting.
I know this all talk of spilt milk, but 1overcosc has made a very good point.
My own experience again today points to failings of what we are doing. When we cannot even provide frequent service (15 minute frequency) on a Sunday afternoon on the Southeast Transitway, when we cannot even schedule Transitway bus routes properly so that their schedules are properly coordinated (both routes running at almost the exact same time), there is something wrong.
Prev
Linear Mode
