OC Transpo

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

We could have had a pro environment federal government that massively funded capital and operating costs of transit but we didn't.

Good. As a country, we need to get out of this terrible political culture where lower levels of government keep trying to stick senior levels with the monthly bills, whether that's transit operating costs or Toronto trying to get Ontario and Canada to fill the gap left by artificially low municipal tax rates.

On the capital side, is there a federal government that has put more into big transit projects?

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Well death spiral implies cuts lower ridership which means more cuts are needed. I reject that premise. Given how little revenue comes from farebox there is likely no cut that reduces revenue more. Even if we got a per rider subsidy from the sky instead of a fixed revenue model most cuts wouldn't see a bigger drops than the savings. Transit elasticity is low based on service levels where we are now.

You do know that pre-pandemic, 50+% of operating costs were covered from fare revenues, right?
Even in this year's budget, fares are expected to cover ~43% of transit operations.
That's not exactly a small percentage.

If even just 5% of OC Transpo's budget is cut (like in 2011), resulting in a 5% drop in ridership (like in the years following that cut), that's effectively 10% of their operating revenues gone. We're talking tens of millions of dollars worth of transit service here.

The idea that ridership is somehow just immune to "small" service cuts is so incredibly arrogant.
When was the last time you took a bus in Ottawa?

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

You do know that pre-pandemic, 50+% of operating costs were covered from fare revenues, right?
Even in this year's budget, fares are expected to cover ~43% of transit operations.
That's not exactly a small percentage.

If even just 5% of OC Transpo's budget is cut (like in 2011), resulting in a 5% drop in ridership (like in the years following that cut), that's effectively 10% of their operating revenues gone. We're talking tens of millions of dollars worth of transit service here.

The idea that ridership is somehow just immune to "small" service cuts is so incredibly arrogant.
When was the last time you took a bus in Ottawa?

That's some wonky math. It ignores capital costs. Which matter. Three is no evidence a 5% budget cut will see a 5% ridership drop but that doesn't drop their operating revenues by 10% that is super wonky math.

I take the bus all the time and it's discretionary. The bad service often means I take an Uber instead or just walk down bank street. Do I want to pay $100 more in property taxes to make the 7 run more often. No? My neighbours all have 2 cars and never take the bus and you can bet they don't want to.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

That's some wonky math. It ignores capital costs. Which matter. Three is no evidence a 5% budget cut will see a 5% ridership drop but that doesn't drop their operating revenues by 10% that is super wonky math.

I take the bus all the time and it's discretionary. The bad service often means I take an Uber instead or just walk down bank street. Do I want to pay $100 more in property taxes to make the 7 run more often. No? My neighbours all have 2 cars and never take the bus and you can bet they don't want to.

Capital costs do matter, and while we have spent a ton more on transit expansion, the end result is service cuts, over and over again since 2019.

While you claim the weird math, just think about. The loss in ridership is most likely those who are paying full fares. The remainder are those who receive a discount, seniors, those with low incomes, students, those who are considered captive riders. This is how your loss in revenue is greater than the loss of ridership.

Recently, we have heard comments of the loss of so many monthly pass holders, which are the ones paying full fares. The loss of pass holders easily leads to dropping transit ridership. Those who used to pay for a pass, might have used transit a few more times per month, because it cost no more. It might be a stop on the way home to do some shopping, whereas without a pass, you might have to pay another fare. Every trip becomes monetized without a pass, so if you go downtown to the office twice a week, you might think that one Uber trip, or one day of parking which doesn't cost that much more than transit along with giving you more convenience. I know when I quit buying a pass, my use transit gradually declined. You develop different habits and make trips that are not transit friendly. Gradually, car convenience takes over.

Regarding those with 2 cars, that is a fair comment, however, not all 2 car households are managing that well financially. It costs a lot of money to operate a car, and some will switch, if transit served their purposes. While we are spending billions on Transitway to rail conversion, how does that really improve overall transit mobility? We have not really expanded our segregated transit system much in recent years. New enhanced routes, even if is just bus lanes, may convince a few people to switch to transit.

The other problem is that we are investing in more or less fixed cost transit. Rail ridership is running at 50% to 60% of pre-pandemic and bus ridership is running at 70% to 80%. Long-term contracts don't give us that much leeway in reducing operating costs with rail, so most cost savings have to come from buses as we are now seeing. But, if ridership recovery is best on buses, don't we risk more by bus service cuts?

Also, segregated busways or even bus lanes, without complicated electrical and signaling systems, can give us good bang for our buck. Buses running more quickly mean that we can run fewer buses to offer the same service on a particular route, or you can offer more service with the same number of buses.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Capital costs do matter, and while we have spent a ton more on transit expansion, the end result is service cuts, over and over again since 2019.

While you claim the weird math, just think about. The loss in ridership is most likely those who are paying full fares. The remainder are those who receive a discount, seniors, those with low incomes, students, those who are considered captive riders. This is how your loss in revenue is greater than the loss of ridership.

Recently, we have heard comments of the loss of so many monthly pass holders, which are the ones paying full fares. The loss of pass holders easily leads to dropping transit ridership. Those who used to pay for a pass, might have used transit a few more times per month, because it cost no more. It might be a stop on the way home to do some shopping, whereas without a pass, you might have to pay another fare. Every trip becomes monetized without a pass, so if you go downtown to the office twice a week, you might think that one Uber trip, or one day of parking which doesn't cost that much more than transit along with giving you more convenience. I know when I quit buying a pass, my use transit gradually declined. You develop different habits and make trips that are not transit friendly. Gradually, car convenience takes over.

Regarding those with 2 cars, that is a fair comment, however, not all 2 car households are managing that well financially. It costs a lot of money to operate a car, and some will switch, if transit served their purposes. While we are spending billions on Transitway to rail conversion, how does that really improve overall transit mobility? We have not really expanded our segregated transit system much in recent years. New enhanced routes, even if is just bus lanes, may convince a few people to switch to transit.

The other problem is that we are investing in more or less fixed cost transit. Rail ridership is running at 50% to 60% of pre-pandemic and bus ridership is running at 70% to 80%. Long-term contracts don't give us that much leeway in reducing operating costs with rail, so most cost savings have to come from buses as we are now seeing. But, if ridership recovery is best on buses, don't we risk more by bus service cuts?

Also, segregated busways or even bus lanes, without complicated electrical and signaling systems, can give us good bang for our buck. Buses running more quickly mean that we can run fewer buses to offer the same service on a particular route, or you can offer more service with the same number of buses.

I don't dispute most of this. A question for the half (or more) of this thread saying we must not cut service. What is your solution? Are you actually saying we should double the bus frequency and that will more than pay for itself? Borrow money and it will come back? The only answer is tax increases. That's a legitimate position but those of us on the other side of this thread convinced is a bad one. There is no magic money tree.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

I don't dispute most of this. A question for the half (or more) of this thread saying we must not cut service. What is your solution? Are you actually saying we should double the bus frequency and that will more than pay for itself? Borrow money and it will come back? The only answer is tax increases. That's a legitimate position but those of us on the other side of this thread convinced is a bad one. There is no magic money tree.

I don't have magic solutions, other than to point out that possibility of a spiral downward. Becoming even more a car dependent city has large costs affixed to it as well, although those road expansion costs may hit in 10 years or more. So, short-term savings, for long-term higher costs, typical of politicians. But as we see, we are investing a ton of money on capital projects for transit, and then we cut service. What is the wisdom of doing this? When rail expansion became feverish following the 2006 cancellation, there are all kinds of claims suggesting the tremendous operating cost savings we would get, that would give us tax savings and also reinvestment into the bus network. Also, the suggestion that we would end up with faster service. None of this turned out to be true.

The question has to be asked, why spend several billion if the end result is worse service? This all shows how we made far too many presumptions when we decided to make this kind of enormous investment. It is rather interesting that all these issues were put out (fixed operating costs, potentially slower service) to cancel the 2006 plan, believing there would be a much better outcome with the replacement Line 1. If Phase 2 delivers more of the same (worse service), what does transit face in the future? Let's hope that Phase 2 turns out really well, but I am not confident with redesign of Line 2, which could be an enormous money loser.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

That's some wonky math. It ignores capital costs. Which matter. Three is no evidence a 5% budget cut will see a 5% ridership drop but that doesn't drop their operating revenues by 10% that is super wonky math.

I mean whether you want to accept or keep denying the correlation between service cuts and ridership drops is up to you, but two of them coinciding is still a cumulative decrease in operating resources for OC Transpo.

I take the bus all the time and it's discretionary. The bad service often means I take an Uber instead or just walk down bank street. Do I want to pay $100 more in property taxes to make the 7 run more often. No? My neighbours all have 2 cars and never take the bus and you can bet they don't want to.

A $100 increase per household would do a hell of a lot more than just a minor frequency bump on your local route and I think you're arguing in bad faith if you're suggesting that such a large increase would only result in negligible changes to service.

Originally Posted by YOWetal

I don't dispute most of this. A question for the half (or more) of this thread saying we must not cut service. What is your solution? Are you actually saying we should double the bus frequency and that will more than pay for itself? Borrow money and it will come back? The only answer is tax increases. That's a legitimate position but those of us on the other side of this thread convinced is a bad one. There is no magic money tree.

For starters, not cutting service doesn't mean those resources can't be reallocated to other parts of the transit network to bolster service where ridership is higher.

I have no idea what you mean by a service increase "paying for itself", but I do think increasing service levels would absolutely lead to a measurable increase in ridership as a result.

If you really think it isn't worth investing in the quality and level of transit service we have in Ottawa because there's "no financial benefit"-- then fine, I clearly can't change your mind.
OC Transpo can keep circling the drain and you can keep insisting that there's nothing to be done about it. Enjoy your Uber bills. Hopefully one day you get a nice transit levy bill to go with it.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

I mean whether you want to accept or keep denying the correlation between service cuts and ridership drops is up to you, but two of them coinciding is still a cumulative decrease in operating resources for OC Transpo.



A $100 increase per household would do a hell of a lot more than just a minor frequency bump on your local route and I think you're arguing in bad faith if you're suggesting that such a large increase would only result in negligible changes to service.



For starters, not cutting service doesn't mean those resources can't be reallocated to other parts of the transit network to bolster service where ridership is higher.

I have no idea what you mean by a service increase "paying for itself", but I do think increasing service levels would absolutely lead to a measurable increase in ridership as a result.

If you really think it isn't worth investing in the quality and level of transit service we have in Ottawa because there's "no financial benefit"-- then fine, I clearly can't change your mind.
OC Transpo can keep circling the drain and you can keep insisting that there's nothing to be done about it. Enjoy your Uber bills. Hopefully one day you get a nice transit levy bill to go with it.

Pay for itself means you seem to think that if we increase bus frequency we will get more revenue that pays for the cost of that gas and labour and I guess wear and tear on the vehicle. This is obviously nonsense. Almost certainly cuts therefore do save money as the reverse is also true. Admitting we do lose some customers. OCTranspo managment aren't stupid they are dealing with a fixed pot of general tax revenue.

I understand you think we should "invest" more but there is no magic solution that doesn't involve more taxes to do this. That is certainly a reasonable proposal. Just don't claim it all pays for itself.

[lrt's friend]

I presume that you are also in agreement, that we should not build roads either, as they also don't pay for themselves.

There are all kinds of examples that targeted investment in transit, results in better than expected results, ie more ridership and more revenue. Kingston was the poster child about 10 years ago, and Brampton today, where they can't acquire buses and hire drivers fast enough. There are reasons for these successes that may or may not fully apply to Ottawa, but there is no justification to suggest that service cuts are going to produce good long-term results if we are hoping for a better Ottawa with a more functional transportation network.

The Ontario government has already told the City of Ottawa, that if we can't get our transit act together, we should not expect further capital investment. This is a loss for Ottawa, as this money will go to other cities.

When I was looking at ridership losses in the early 2010s, it was mentioned that Ottawa lost money (provincial gas tax rebates for transit) as a result of service cuts. Ottawa has had a rather bad track record in wasting money because of questionable transit decisions.