OC Transpo

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by JHikka

Out of all the generations you listed you didn't list the one that holds all the wealth.

The silent generation?

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

To be clear. I don't think they are evil. I'm sure they are quite sincere. I just think they don't understand how much damage they're doing and how much they are screwing over those behind them.

See, you're comment here is not as offensive. You don't have to use the word "BOOMER!" as a way to personally attack people constantly. Boomer shoukkd not be used as a derogatory term.

The great thing for suburbanites living in Mississauga on Rideau is that our heavily suburbanized council would absolutely vote this down with Helen Lovejoy styled cries of, "Won't someone please think of the suburbs?" I can imagine Janet Harder literally using those words.

The problem with tiered transit passes, absent some disincentive to drive (congestion charges or parking fees) is that all you're going to do is encourage suburbanites to drive. So now to offset this, we build a sea of asphalt around transit stations in the suburbs at $30 000 a spot, to provide "free" parking at kiss n rides.

Absent a willingness to put on a congestion charge, there's really only one way to discourage driving. Tax parking. All parking. In a lot. In the driveway of a home. The lot of a business. All of it. It can be tiered based on proximity to the core, or near transit stations, etc. For added effect, direct those funds towards transit so that we can actually get decent bus service for once.

I agree with you here for the most part. Tiered transit fares for me is a way to make those who live further out to pay based on distance. Fees on parking near transit, or even a congestion charge (which I would limit to peak hours, starting after Stage 2 opens) could further push people to choose transit.

[DEWLine]

I'm chronically underemployed, I live in a suburban neighbourhood because of family support currently allowing me to do so, and I am not interested in fare zones. I consider such proposals a danger to my health and employability. I need to be able to get across the whole of the city with as few financial impediments as possible.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

See, you're comment here is not as offensive. You don't have to use the word "BOOMER!" as a way to personally attack people constantly. Boomer shoukkd not be used as a derogatory term.

Oh noooo. We must not offend the Boomers.....

Meh.

I can't wait for elections to flip in this country and to actually get policies that benefit the majority.

You didn't answer JHikka's query. Why ignore the wealthiest group of seniors ever? Is the Stockholm syndrome that bad?

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I agree with you here for the most part. Tiered transit fares for me is a way to make those who live further out to pay based on distance. Fees on parking near transit, or even a congestion charge (which I would limit to peak hours, starting after Stage 2 opens) could further push people to choose transit.

This discussion began because we have a bunch of homeowners saying they don't need to shoulder the burden of paying for transit. roger1818 had to white knight and assume that they were all suffering financially from Covid and that they needed protection from tax increases in addition to all the Covid government support and financial sector support given to homeowners.

Personally, I recognize that we live in a suburban paradise and getting them to pay their fair share for their disproportionate use of the transportation network, is all but impossible. So I'd just like them to carry the same tax burden as everybody else. And for people to stop making fucking excuses for them. If you have an asset that is worth the better part of a million and thousands of square feet of space, you don't need a tax break.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Oh noooo. We must not offend the Boomers.....

Meh.

I can't wait for elections to flip in this country and to actually get policies that benefit the majority.

I'll try to explain myself one more time. It's fine to say the Baby Boomer generation often have views and opinions on urbanism or other subjects that are outdated and go against modern ways of thinking, and that can sometimes impact policies needed to evolve as a society that could better people's lives. But using the word "Boomer!" as a derogatory term to launch personal attacks as if anyone who was born between 1946 and 1964 should be ashamed of themselves and be treated as undesirable members of society is extremely offensive. That term and the way you use it has connotations similar to other terms meant to offend and defame other groups in our society, terms that today are, thankfully, no longer acceptable, but unfortunately still used by some (not on this forum as far as I can tell).

You didn't answer JHikka's query. Why ignore the wealthiest group of seniors ever? Is the Stockholm syndrome that bad?

I covered the majority of the forum's demographics. I didn't feel the need to drag another generation into it. I think the Silent Generation probably have a lot of similar values as the Baby Boomers, but they are not targeted the same way as there younger counterparts.

Silent Generation are also mostly retired and on fixed-income. They bought their house in the 1960s for a few 10s of thousands and now they are worth a million, but again, so is every other house. Good on them if they can sell their home, rent an apartment and enjoy their retirement. I just don't think we should tax them out of living in their life long home because they could sell it for a million if they wanted to. Some people are content living a simple life in their small 60s bungalow.

This discussion began because we have a bunch of homeowners saying they don't need to shoulder the burden of paying for transit. roger1818 had to white knight and assume that they were all suffering financially from Covid and that they needed protection from tax increases in addition to all the Covid government support and financial sector support given to homeowners.

Personally, I recognize that we live in a suburban paradise and getting them to pay their fair share for their disproportionate use of the transportation network, is all but impossible. So I'd just like them to carry the same tax burden as everybody else. And for people to stop making fucking excuses for them. If you have an asset that is worth the better part of a million and thousands of square feet of space, you don't need a tax break.

We're not trying to make excuses for suburban homeowners, not all of whom are Baby Boomers, BTW. Even though suburban houses have seen a major increase in selling price (not value, selling price) doesn't mean they have more money in their pocket. Salaries haven't changed. If they sell, the next house they buy will also have gone way up in price as well. It's a zero sum game. Current housing prices aren't necessary staying. The market could crash tomorrow: interest rates go up, Cons are elected, e-commerce takes a plunge post pandemic. The market is volatile and we can't tax people because their house could theoretically be sold for a few hundred thousand more than a year ago.

Yes I believe that we should re-visit the way taxes are distributed. Surface parking near transit stations should be redeveloped or taxed. Park and rides should not be free. Parking downtown should be taxed (though the pandemic might have shifted supply and demand, so it may not work out). Congestion charges should be considered. I would love to see Jan Harder and the rest of the gang retire and let the younger generation instill modern views at City Hall. We can have that discussion in a respectful manner.

Anyway, I'm done with this whole conversation unless it's about discussing ideas.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by DEWLine

I'm chronically underemployed, I live in a suburban neighbourhood because of family support currently allowing me to do so, and I am not interested in fare zones. I consider such proposals a danger to my health and employability. I need to be able to get across the whole of the city with as few financial impediments as possible.

You're situation has to be considered as well. I assume you would not qualify for the equi-pass?

Myself, and I believe others, find it unfair that someone from Vanier pays the same price to travel 2 kilometers to downtown as someone from Orleans taking the bus 30 kilometers at rush hour.

Maybe it's a question of bringing back express (or "connection") fares. Charging for park and rides, possibly in concurrently with lowering regular fares, would be a good start.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

We're not trying to make excuses for suburban homeowners,

We're not? Then why are we having a discussion on whether this particular set should get a tax break? roger1818 even defended the idea saying that some of them may have suffered from job losses due to Covid. No evidence of that mind you. But the mere theoretical idea is enough to justify an entire neighbourhood evading their fiscal responsibility.

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Even though suburban houses have seen a major increase in selling price (not value, selling price) doesn't mean they have more money in their pocket. Salaries haven't changed. If they sell, the next house they buy will also have gone way up in price as well. It's a zero sum game.

Amazing how you only think of the current homeowner. No thoughts for the younger person/family who has now seen homeownership get even further out of reach? But we need to add to the incumbent advantage? Their salaries aren't going up either. Only they have even less equity. And now you're arguing that the tax burden should be effectively shifted to them?

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Current housing prices aren't necessary staying. The market could crash tomorrow: interest rates go up, Cons are elected, e-commerce takes a plunge post pandemic. The market is volatile and we can't tax people because their house could theoretically be sold for a few hundred thousand more than a year ago.

Why not?

Property taxes are paid on relative, not absolute value. Unfortunately. That's how mill rates work. So why should they be protected from taxes that resulted from disproportionate gain. If there's a disproportionate drop in value, they will surely be lined up in front of MPAC to claim relief.

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I would love to see Jan Harder and the rest of the gang retire and let the younger generation instill modern views at City Hall. We can have that discussion in a respectful manner.

Anyway, I'm done with this whole conversation unless it's about discussing ideas.

Pretty hard to have honest discussion when there's a lot of sacred cows nobody wants to touch.

I guess we should only have nice scripted conversations that inevitably lead to the conclusion that suburban houseowners should get tax breaks.

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Yes I believe that we should re-visit the way taxes are distributed. Surface parking near transit stations should be redeveloped or taxed. Park and rides should not be free. Parking downtown should be taxed (though the pandemic might have shifted supply and demand, so it may not work out). Congestion charges should be considered.

I too dream of things that will never happen, like Ottawa actually embracing urbanity.

The utter ridiculousness of wasted space with parking is borderline offensive when you notice it. Here's a really egregious example near me:

https://maps.app.goo.gl/1Ez7KR6KKvwYvWgf6

A funeral home with over 80 parking spots that is a 9min walk from Cyrville station. Parking for those visiting the dead is literally worth more than housing individuals and families in this city. Places like this need to be taxed into relocation.

That we never entertain taxing crap like this but will discuss how unfair it is that some new set of suburban homeowners has to pay for transit, or why a Porsche dealership needs a tax break is why I'm being brusque. That this is being defended on a forum about transit and urbanism says it all about this town.

[roger1818]

It is sad that this thread is spreading so much hate. All I was trying to say is that now, regardless of where they live, is not a good time to be raising people’s taxes. While some people have profited from the pandemic, others are hurting badly financially. As I believe Glen Gower said once (not sure where he got it), “we are not all in the same boat, we are in the same flood. Some are in a yacht, some in a canoe, and some are swimming and struggling to keep their head above water. So be nice to each other.”

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by roger1818

It is sad that this thread is spreading so much hate. All I was trying to say is that now, regardless of where they live, is not a good time to be raising people’s taxes. While some people have profited from the pandemic, others are hurting badly financially. As I believe Glen Gower said once (not sure where he got it), “we are not all in the same boat, we are in the same flood. Some are in a yacht, some in a canoe, and some are swimming and struggling to keep their head above water. So be nice to each other.”

You didn't have the same sentiment a few posts back when you insinuated that I was a self-interested hypocrite. But we should all sing Kumbaya now?

I'd still like to know why everybody still has to pay for transit but those folks don't. It's a "tax grab" because it happens to coincide with a pandemic? Did we stop constructing Stage 2 because it happens to coincide with a pandemic? We sure could have have saved a lot by cutting back or cancelling all of that.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

We're not? Then why are we having a discussion on whether this particular set should get a tax break? roger1818 even defended the idea saying that some of them may have suffered from job losses due to Covid. No evidence of that mind you. But the mere theoretical idea is enough to justify an entire neighbourhood evading their fiscal responsibility.

No one is evading their fiscal responsibilities. Some deadlines have been pushed. No one is getting a tax break out of it.

Amazing how you only think of the current homeowner. No thoughts for the younger person/family who has now seen homeownership get even further out of reach? But we need to add to the incumbent advantage? Their salaries aren't going up either. Only they have even less equity. And now you're arguing that the tax burden should be effectively shifted to them?

That's our situation. We rent at the moment and we've been priced out of the market due to the crazy price wars. I don't feel the need to blame anyone who bought their home before the pandemic and I don't feel anybody owes me.

I don't understand how current homeowners are getting an advantage. Taxes are not being shifted to renters. The City has in fact shifted transit taxes to new areas of the City. People are complaining and questioning. That's fair if they weren't informed of the change in a satisfactory way. I don't think the City will actually take a step back on that decision in any case.

Why not?

Property taxes are paid on relative, not absolute value. Unfortunately. That's how mill rates work. So why should they be protected from taxes that resulted from disproportionate gain. If there's a disproportionate drop in value, they will surely be lined up in front of MPAC to claim relief.

I don't think you understand how MPAC works. They assess home values once every 4 years. That assessment is partly influenced by home sales, but that's not the only factor.

For more info:
https://www.mpac.ca/en/News/FactSheet/MP...applied%20using%20the%20assessed%20value.

It's unrealistic to want home valuation to change yearly based on the day's prices, both from a logistical and financial point of view. Could the relatively new homeowners who bought a house at the absolute top of their budget two years ago for $400,000 be able to afford taxes on $700,000 today? Will raising the taxes willy-nilly based on the hot market make it any easier for anyone else to achieve homeownership?

Pretty hard to have honest discussion when there's a lot of sacred cows nobody wants to touch.

I guess we should only have nice scripted conversations that inevitably lead to the conclusion that suburban houseowners should get tax breaks.

Again, who's talking about tax breaks? We agree that property taxes should be reviewed to better spread the burden, but because some of us don't agree that we should double property taxes, you're going on a tangent claiming we want to cut taxes.

I too dream of things that will never happen, like Ottawa actually embracing urbanity.

The utter ridiculousness of wasted space with parking is borderline offensive when you notice it. Here's a really egregious example near me:

https://maps.app.goo.gl/1Ez7KR6KKvwYvWgf6

A funeral home with over 80 parking spots that is a 9min walk from Cyrville station. Parking for those visiting the dead is literally worth more than housing individuals and families in this city. Places like this need to be taxed into relocation.

That we never entertain taxing crap like this but will discuss how unfair it is that some new set of suburban homeowners has to pay for transit, or why a Porsche dealership needs a tax break is why I'm being brusque. That this is being defended on a forum about transit and urbanism says it all about this town.

That funeral home has been around since maybe the 80s. Cyrville Station probably didn't exist at the time of its construction. Ottawa was far more car oriented at the time. We should rezone the land if that hasn't already been done, but no need to tax them out of existence. We still need funeral homes, and we need some in the city. If you push them all out to the edges of the city, then people will have to drive further out to attend funerals.

There's plenty of land available for redevelopment. Near the site you've chosen as an example, there's LUX that was approved and plenty of space for Place des Gouverneurs to grow. The funeral home isn't stopping development.

Often times, developers demolish perfectly good housing instead of redeveloping vacant lots, strip malls and surface parking. I think the City should make it harder to raze existing housing and fine grained retail strips in order to push developers to build over the latter type of properties. I highly doubt that will happen, however, because it's not that simple.

[J.OT13]

Sorry moderators. This conversation is WAY off topic.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

No one is evading their fiscal responsibilities. Some deadlines have been pushed. No one is getting a tax break out of it.

Cool. Can I get any delays on my bills and taxes, just because they happened to coincide with the pandemic?

I haven't been using transit much during this pandemic. Can I defer the transit portion of my tax bill?

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I don't feel the need to blame anyone who bought their home before the pandemic and I don't feel anybody owes me.

And I own. You won't see me advocating for tax breaks, calling an increased service fee a "tax grab" and suggesting that we hold of tax increases because they happened to coincide with the pandemic.

Note that this discussion didn't start out with whether a handful of homeowners who might have lost jobs should get relief. Nope, we have 890 homeowners now facing increased transit charges (while getting increased services) who thinks it's unfair they have to pony up. And we get white knights on here who come up with theoretical scenarios where some might have lost jobs to justify scrapping tax increases for the entire area. This is where it gets ridiculous and should be called out.

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Taxes are not being shifted to renters.

More accurately, taxes are being shifted to everybody else. That $915 000 (as per the article) has to come from somewhere. If they aren't paying it, the rest of us are.

Originally Posted by J.OT13

That's fair if they weren't informed of the change in a satisfactory way.

Per the article, council was informed in November. Impacted homeowners were mailed notices on May 3rd. And the quotes in that article aren't saying anything about insufficient notice. Just whining about a "tax grab".

Originally Posted by J.OT13

It's unrealistic to want home valuation to change yearly based on the day's prices, both from a logistical and financial point of view.

Note that I never suggested yearly assessments. What I object to is the simple fact that the rolling average method along with the mill rate system gives these folks substantial shelter from tax increases. And yet, they want more.

Originally Posted by J.OT13

That funeral home has been around since maybe the 80s. Cyrville Station probably didn't exist at the time of its construction. Ottawa was far more car oriented at the time. We should rezone the land if that hasn't already been done, but no need to tax them out of existence. We still need funeral homes, and we need some in the city. If you push them all out to the edges of the city, then people will have to drive further out to attend funerals.

Indeed. Whatever will we do without transit oriented funeral homes.

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Often times, developers demolish perfectly good housing instead of redeveloping vacant lots, strip malls and surface parking.

A direct result of policy that makes it easier to tear down housing than build over a parking lot. Bad policy leads to bad outcomes.

[J.OT13]

Live Federal Funding announcement. Something about electric buses.

• Video Link

[J.OT13]

The Canada Infrastructure Bank commits up to $400 million in the City of Ottawa’s historic 450 zero-emission bus expansion

JUNE 7, 2021|IN ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABILITY, NEWS, TRANSPORTATION

Largest-ever single increase in zero-emission buses for public transit in Canada

Canadian municipalities are leaders in taking action on climate change and the Canada Infrastructure Bank (CIB) is partnering with them to significantly increase sustainable public transit.

The CIB and the City of Ottawa are proud to announce their agreement in principle, which would see the CIB invest up to $400 million, supporting OC Transpo’s adoption of 450 zero-emission buses (ZEBs) by 2027. This is the CIB’s second ZEB investment commitment with a large municipality and supports the largest conversion of public transit vehicles in Canada to date.

ZEBs can improve the quality of life for residents who will benefit from cleaner commuting options which also helps protect the environment. Transitioning from greenhouse gas (GHG) emitting public transit buses to ZEBs will help municipalities shift toward more sustainable transportation with a lower carbon footprint.

The ZEB investment commitment is another important step towards achieving the Government of Canada’s goal of 5,000 ZEBs.

The electrification of vehicles is a key initiative to help the City’s goal of reducing GHG emissions in City operations by 100 percent by 2040 and demonstrates the City’s commitment to lead by example. Each battery-electric bus will provide a savings of 35,000 litres of fuel every year, which is the annual consumption of a conventional diesel-powered bus.

Today the City of Ottawa will release a report, Zero-Emission Buses for OC Transpo, to be considered by the Transit Commission on June 16, 2021, requesting approval from Ottawa City Council to enter into an agreement with the Canada Infrastructure Bank (CIB). As part of the City’s 2022 capital budget, OC Transpo will recommend purchasing 74 40-foot battery-electric buses and the required charging infrastructure, for entry into service in 2023.

The CIB’s loan will cover the higher upfront capital costs of ZEBs compared to diesel buses, helping to accelerate the electrification of the City’s bus fleet. Financial savings are estimated to be substantial, as lifetime operating costs for ZEBs could be as much as 35 per cent lower than diesel buses.

Energy supply and charging infrastructure for this proposed transition will be supplied through an agreement with Hydro Ottawa.

The Canada Infrastructure Bank has a commitment to invest $1.5 billion in zero-emission buses and associated infrastructure, which will be coordinated with Infrastructure Canada’s new funding for zero-emission transit. This program, expected to formally launch in the near future, will support the purchase of zero-emission public transit and school buses.

Endorsements:

Cleaner air, quieter streets, and a planet safe for our kids – that’s the goal. By partnering with the City of Ottawa, the Canada Infrastructure Bank will help bring 450 new zero-emission buses to the streets of Ottawa, towards our commitment of 5,000 more zero emission buses across the country. It’s part of the Government’s plan to create good jobs and kickstart the economy, tackle climate change, and build more inclusive communities.

The Honourable Catherine McKenna, Minister of Infrastructure and Communities

Switching from diesel buses to battery-electric is one of the most impactful actions we can take to meet Ottawa’s goal of reducing by 100 per cent the GHGs emitted from City operations by 2040. This historic investment in zero-emission transit brings us one a step closer to achieving that goal and transitioning Ottawa into a clean, renewable and resilient city that is ready for the future.

Jim Watson, Mayor, City of Ottawa

I am delighted the CIB is making a major investment in the City of Ottawa’s ZEB initiative. 450 new zero-emission buses is a really big deal. Our partnership will help the City meet its climate targets and provide cleaner public transportation for future generations. This is a tremendous opportunity to modernize municipal infrastructure and build healthier communities. The CIB looks to invest in projects which improve the quality of life for Canadians, and this is a great example of that.

Ehren Cory, President and CEO, Canada Infrastructure Bank

Ottawa’s energy future isn’t just about being green, it’s about being sustainable. Our role at Hydro Ottawa is two-fold; to build the reliable electric infrastructure necessary to support our City’s commitment for a smart energy future; and to bring electricity into the 21st century by making sure the energy we use is generated with clean, renewable power. The electrification of our public transit system is critical for our city and nation’s capital to meet its energy and climate targets, and we are proud to play a part in helping achieve those goals.

Bryce Conrad, President and CEO, Hydro Ottawa Holding Inc.

Quick Facts:

The CIB’s $1.5 billion zero-emission bus initiative assists transit agencies and school bus operators to transition their fleets to modern, environmentally friendly vehicles.
The CIB seeks to invest up to CAD $5 billion into public transit projects that are in the public interest and support Canadian sustainable economic growth.
The CIB’s investments are subject to due diligence and approval by its Board of Directors.


Learn More:

www.cib–bic–ca
www.ottawa.ca
www.octranspo.com

https://jimwatsonottawa.ca/en/the-canada...istoric-450-zero-emission-bus-expansion/

[Truenorth00]

Really happy to see this. I've been arguing that OC Transpo should electrify the bus fleet for a while. I hope they can assign these more to urban routes where reducing the emissions of diesel buses will help the most.

[Richard Eade]

What I am reading here is that the City of Ottawa will buy, and pay for, up to 450 ZEBs (also known as BEBs – Battery Electric Buses) between now and 2027.

The CIB and the City of Ottawa are proud to announce their agreement in principle, which would see the CIB invest up to $400 million, supporting OC Transpo’s adoption of 450 zero-emission buses (ZEBs) by 2027.

And the CIB will LOAN the City an amount equal to the premium in the cost of ZEBs over the cost of diesel buses; which includes the needed charging facilities.

Today the City of Ottawa will release a report, Zero-Emission Buses for OC Transpo, to be considered by the Transit Commission on June 16, 2021, requesting approval from Ottawa City Council to enter into an agreement with the Canada Infrastructure Bank (CIB). As part of the City’s 2022 capital budget, OC Transpo will recommend purchasing 74 40-foot battery-electric buses and the required charging infrastructure, for entry into service in 2023.

The CIB’s loan will cover the higher upfront capital costs of ZEBs compared to diesel buses, helping to accelerate the electrification of the City’s bus fleet. Financial savings are estimated to be substantial, as lifetime operating costs for ZEBs could be as much as 35 per cent lower than diesel buses.

So, the City will commit, in principle, to buy up to 450 ZEBs; the CIB will LOAN the City money so that those buses can be electric instead of diesel. Since it is a LOAN, the City will have to pay back up to $400M at an interest rate that we haven’t been told, over a period that we haven’t been told.

That LOAN, of up to $400M for 450 ZEBs sounds as if the premium paid for 40’ electric buses is almost $890,000 per bus. The cost of a basic 40’ diesel bus is about $750,000. Therefore, the City will wind up paying $750,000 x 450 (the cost of 450 diesel buses) PLUS have to pay back the, up to, $400,000,000 LOAN PLUS any interest on that LOAN for the cost to upgrade to electric. A total of up to $337,500,000 + $400,000,000 + any interest = $737,500,000 + interest.

I suppose that the “as much as 35 percent” savings is supposed to cover the cost of the price premium, over the 12-year life of the ZEBs. We are not told what the average cost of running a diesel for a year is; so we don’t know if 35% would be enough to more than cover the added cost. What we do know, however, is that the hybrid buses we bought were advertised to offer huge savings over standard diesel buses – but we did not achieve anything like what was predicted. The New Flyer Excelsior CHARGE NG is advertised to save up to $125,000 in maintenance costs over the 12-year life of the bus. Add in the saving for 35,000 litres of diesel that don’t get burned each year, and (at $1.25/l) that could be a further saving of $525,000, over 12 years. Of course, there are additional costs of stocking different parts, training for a different bus model, and the electricity and its associated infrastructure maintenance costs.

For $737,500,000, the City could buy 983 diesel 40’ buses; instead of only getting 450 ZEBs. OC Transpo’s current bus fleet consists of 395 40’ buses, 356 60’ buses, and 151 double-decker buses.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

What we do know, however, is that the hybrid buses we bought were advertised to offer huge savings over standard diesel buses – but we did not achieve anything like what was predicted.

I think it's cynical to compare battery-electric buses to those hybrids (or any hybrid for that matter). Our hybrids were treated like regular diesel buses, effectively erasing any savings, and then had the additional cost of maintaining any electrical components added on top of that. Plus that was 2007 battery technology.

Battery-electric buses are a whole other story since there's no diesel cost to speak of (except maybe for heating?) and you have to factor in the mechanical differences between a diesel/hybrid and electric bus.

I suppose that the “as much as 35 percent” savings is supposed to cover the cost of the price premium, over the 12-year life of the ZEBs.

The expected lifespan of these buses is 15 years (the same as a diesel bus) if not better due to the simpler mechanical components.

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I don't think you understand how MPAC works. They assess home values once every 4 years. That assessment is partly influenced by home sales, but that's not the only factor.

For more info:
https://www.mpac.ca/en/News/FactSheet/MP...applied%20using%20the%20assessed%20value.

It's unrealistic to want home valuation to change yearly based on the day's prices, both from a logistical and financial point of view. Could the relatively new homeowners who bought a house at the absolute top of their budget two years ago for $400,000 be able to afford taxes on $700,000 today? Will raising the taxes willy-nilly based on the hot market make it any easier for anyone else to achieve homeownership?

A higher assessed value does not necessarily mean you're going to pay higher taxes. The city won't rake in more money just because of the hot market. Personally I am glad suburban houses went up at a higher percentage lately, which means some of us in the inner city might get some relief.

The MPAC site you quoted gives a clear explanation:
• Video Link

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

So, the City will commit, in principle, to buy up to 450 ZEBs; the CIB will LOAN the City money so that those buses can be electric instead of diesel. Since it is a LOAN, the City will have to pay back up to $400M at an interest rate that we haven’t been told, over a period that we haven’t been told.

It's a CIB loan. I don't think they've had a single project that is at market interest rate to date. The entire raison d'etre of the bank is to fund infrastructure projects at rates and with risk profiles that private sector financing might not take on. In this case, a whole financing package for both buses and charging equipment would most certainly not come with cheap financing. Or it might come with manufacturer lock in or a long period of exclusivity, so basically on terms not in the city's interests.

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

That LOAN, of up to $400M for 450 ZEBs sounds as if the premium paid for 40’ electric buses is almost $890,000 per bus.

The required infrastructure costs are substantially skewing the per BEB figure.

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

The cost of a basic 40’ diesel bus is about $750,000. Therefore, the City will wind up paying $750,000 x 450 (the cost of 450 diesel buses) PLUS have to pay back the, up to, $400,000,000 LOAN PLUS any interest on that LOAN for the cost to upgrade to electric. A total of up to $337,500,000 + $400,000,000 + any interest = $737,500,000 + interest.

I suppose that the “as much as 35 percent” savings is supposed to cover the cost of the price premium, over the 12-year life of the ZEBs. We are not told what the average cost of running a diesel for a year is; so we don’t know if 35% would be enough to more than cover the added cost. What we do know, however, is that the hybrid buses we bought were advertised to offer huge savings over standard diesel buses – but we did not achieve anything like what was predicted. The New Flyer Excelsior CHARGE NG is advertised to save up to $125,000 in maintenance costs over the 12-year life of the bus. Add in the saving for 35,000 litres of diesel that don’t get burned each year, and (at $1.25/l) that could be a further saving of $525,000, over 12 years. Of course, there are additional costs of stocking different parts, training for a different bus model, and the electricity and its associated infrastructure maintenance costs.

As your math shows, even at current diesel prices, the acquisition premium is substantially covered by reduced fuel costs. Maintenance should bring BEBs ahead.

It's important to remember though, that fuel prices are likely to go up. Specifically, the carbon tax is going from $40/mtCO2 today to $170/mtCO2 in 2030. That's an increase from 10.73 ¢/L today to 45.60 ¢/L in 2030 in just carbon taxes on fuel. An increase of ~35¢/L of diesel is going to substantially dent OC Transpo's operating budgets, if they don't do anything to cut diesel consumption substantially over the coming years.

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

For $737,500,000, the City could buy 983 diesel 40’ buses; instead of only getting 450 ZEBs. OC Transpo’s current bus fleet consists of 395 40’ buses, 356 60’ buses, and 151 double-decker buses.

They could buy all those diesel buses and face escalating fuel costs that would result in substantial fare increases down the road. And higher volatility from oil costs too. On the other hand, electricity prices are due to be mostly steady going forward. Renewables getting cheaper might actually help mitigate price pressure and even get prices lower. Electrification adds substantial operating cost certainty. And the declining costs of the buses over the coming half decade along with the experience from operating these 450 buses should provide OC Transpo with the runway to electrify their entire fleet by 2036, through normal attrition, without substantial financing.

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

I think it's cynical to compare battery-electric buses to those hybrids (or any hybrid for that matter). Our hybrids were treated like regular diesel buses, effectively erasing any savings, and then had the additional cost of maintaining any electrical components added on top of that. Plus that was 2007 battery technology.

Battery-electric buses are a whole other story since there's no diesel cost to speak of (except maybe for heating?) and you have to factor in the mechanical differences between a diesel/hybrid and electric bus.

Hybrids have been disappointing in so many applications. I say that as the owner of a hybrid car. And OCT isn't the only transit service with a disappointing hybrid experience. Hybrid buses have broadly failed to generate promised savings for most transit agencies. That's not to say they've had no benefit at all. Just that the benefits have been as great as promised.

BEBs on the other hand seem to fall into two categories from what I've read. Cities either love them. Or quickly discover the limitations in their capabilities. But a lot of those limitations are also based around lower ranges of buses in the last decade. Batteries are both denser and cheaper now. And will be even better over the coming years when Ottawa buys them. I foresee far fewer issues.

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

The expected lifespan of these buses is 15 years (the same as a diesel bus) if not better due to the simpler mechanical components.

I wouldn't bet on 15 years or a lower maintenance burden intially simply because we don't have any large fleet of BEBs that has been in service that long to go by. But there is evidence that BEBs are just like diesel buses and as operators get used to them, they become better at deploying them and maintaining them. This is why I argued for a while that Ottawa needed to run a decent sized BEB trial. To gain experience and better scope OC Transpo's eventual conversion. They now seem to be jumping ahead quite fast and we'll probably be relying substantially on data from Toronto, Montreal and Edmonton.

[J.OT13]

For those who may want a conversation on Trolley buses. The City seems to have decided immediately on battery-electric. There's never been any mention of trolley buses as a possible solution to our transit emissions.

Trolley buses are easier to maintain (buses, but you you have the addition of wires and poles to maintain), last longer, they are more environmentally friendly throughout their lifespan, from manufacturing, operational efficiency and end of life scrapping. For sure battery electric has a role to play for suburban express and milk runs to O-Train stations, routes that go on and off our Transitways along with many urban routes, but Trolley buses could be a good solution for BRT-lite such as what's proposed on Baseline and Carling. I'm not aware of their performance in terms of speed and acceleration however, if they are competitive with battery-electric and diesel, they could be well utilized along the S/E Transitway as well. 

• Video Link