OC Transpo

[Cre47]

Originally Posted by S-Man

Just saw this on 580 CFRA:

Right on, the massive cuts, not just September 4, but other big cuts on other major routes (i.e 15-25% cut of trips on off peak-periods Monday to Saturday on the 96 is one example, significant cuts on the 95 as well as the 114, the 106, the 85, etc, etc.) after that have been a big reason

[rocketphish]

OC Transpo not sweating dip in ridership, GM says

By Michael Woods, OTTAWA CITIZEN February 19, 2014 9:28 PM

OTTAWA — The decline in OC Transpo ridership is nothing to worry about, the agency’s general manager told the city’s transit commission on Wednesday.

Numbers released last week showed OC Transpo’s ridership numbers keep sliding, with total rides falling below 100 million in 2013 for the first time in three years. But general manager John Manconi said the 97.8 million customer trips in 2013 were just short of Transpo’s goal for the year.

“Many organizations would love to have set an objective and attained 97 per cent of that,” he said. “Yes, there is a slight dip, (but) the ridership is not tumbling.”

The numbers for 2013 are a dip from OC Transpo’s record year in 2011, when usage reached 103.5 million rides.

Manconi said data shows ridership has been affected by employment levels in the capital, especially federal government downsizing. He also said the youth unemployment rate, which is currently more than 16 per cent in Ontario, is a factor.

He said analyzing data collected since 1996 shows a direct correlation between employment levels and ridership in the capital. While they don’t have specific data on other factors such as gas prices, available cycling routes, weather and government contract positions being eliminated, he said those have also been contributors.

And while Transpo always wants its ridership numbers to increase, he said, revenue is still up.

“I don’t view it as a problem. I view it as part of the business,” he said. “To achieve 97 per cent of our target ridership goal and balance both revenue and expenses is no small feat.”

It’s also unclear whether the end of the Ecopass program for federal employees at the end of October affected ridership numbers at the end of 2013.

OC Transpo customer service manager David Pepper told committee that Transpo now has enough data to analyze some of the numbers since the program ended.

“The trends around EcoPass do not concern me in terms of loss of ridership,” he said. “That’s my instinct, but obviously the numbers will prove me right or wrong.”

On-time performance also went down in 2013, with only 78 per cent of its buses officially on time at morning rush hour and 54 per cent on time in the afternoon, down from 87 per cent and 59 per cent the previous year.

On that front, Manconi blamed severe weather and construction.

He also said a late standard target set years ago of zero to five minutes is “a very high benchmark in the transit industry,” and the agency will be looking at whether it’s the right measure to be using.

mwoods@ottawacitizen.com

twitter.com/michaelrwoods
© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/ot...294/story.html

[eternallyme]

I think, route by route, there needs to be a complete reanalysis on where ridership can be gained. Whether it be by removing some of the 2011 cuts or increasing frequency on key routes, whether by increasing bus capacity or by switching back from artics/double deckers to 40-foot buses, since frequency seems to be more important than bus capacity in terms of gaining ridership.

The only problem is by doing a complete switchback, core capacity becomes a serious problem once again during peak periods with more congestion.

Back to off-peak, I'd be curious what it would cost to implement late night service on all major routes as well as a 10-minute frequency?

Another thing that could help is a 400m maximum walk during peak periods to express or connecting service, some of the longer walks there have resulted in more people choosing to drive (at a time when cars are clearly available).

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

I think, route by route, there needs to be a complete reanalysis on where ridership can be gained. Whether it be by removing some of the 2011 cuts or increasing frequency on key routes, whether by increasing bus capacity or by switching back from artics/double deckers to 40-foot buses, since frequency seems to be more important than bus capacity in terms of gaining ridership.

The only problem is by doing a complete switchback, core capacity becomes a serious problem once again during peak periods with more congestion.

Back to off-peak, I'd be curious what it would cost to implement late night service on all major routes as well as a 10-minute frequency?

Another thing that could help is a 400m maximum walk during peak periods to express or connecting service, some of the longer walks there have resulted in more people choosing to drive (at a time when cars are clearly available).

This requires a complete readjustment of thinking at the city.

The city now does transit planning almost entirely by budget, which is largely understandable.

But there is also the need to readjust our thinking about transit budgetting. This is both a cost and revenue problem.

As the city has grown, transit trips have grown longer. This means costs per trip have increased. The only way to allow transit expansion is to generate revenue better in line with costs.

I have long been advocating a zone fare system. If you cross the Greenbelt, you pay more, significantly more. It is outside the Greenbelt that we lose the most and not entirely because of ridership.

It is the people who travel from outside the Greenbelt who are getting the biggest bargain on their transit fares. This needs to be corrected so that there is more fairness. And by increasing fares for longer commutes, we can use the additional revenue to increase service on key routes and that may include some routes that cross the Greenbelt where we are having issues with crush loading.

I also want to see us revert back to 40 foot buses on residential routes. If this means better frequency, great.

As mentioned above, it is not putting articulated buses on that will generate higher ridership, but more frequent service, especially on key routes.

We need a marketing plan that will guarantee service frequency on several routes on major streets. It has to be a level in which a timetable is not needed and that is generally regarded as 10 minutes frequency or better. If we create a web of routes that provide that level of service, over time, more people will be able to have confidence in our transit system that they will be able to get to a large range of destinations in a timely fashion.

Of course, the driver in residential areas is downtown transit congestion until the Confederation Line opens. It is tremendously important that the opening of the Confederation Line and the changes made to the bus network not be botched.

I also wish to point out the ineffectiveness and unresponsiveness of the Transit Commission since its inception. This seems to have been done in lockstep with the transformation to budget model for transit planning. I do not think that this is what the public had in mind when the commission was setup. Yes, we wanted a more business-like approach to planning but what we got is really a minimalist and timid approach.

[JM1]

Suggestions to OCTranspo:

1. OCTranspo needs to widen the distance between stops. The frequent stopping of busses not only makes for a jerky, uncomfortable ride, but it also waste fuel and slows trips.

I would prefer a slightly sparser grid of stops that forces people to walk a little further at the beginning and end of their trips but gives them a more comfortable and quicker ride once they are on their bus.

2. OCTranspo also needs to do away with circuitous neighbourhood routes. Stick to the main streets and form a grid of East West and North South buses. I know that this is complicated by our rivers and the canal, but OCTranspo needs to try it. I need to to take three buses to get between home and work. On a grid system, I should never need more than two.

3. OCTranspo needs to have drivers stick to schedules. I have noticed severe bunching of busses on some routes (route 7 is notorious for this) -- on occasion, I have waited ages at Rideau for this bus and then had three of them in a row. I don't know how this happens, but it does -- even on does when there is little traffic and no snow or rain!

4. OCTranspo needs to do a better job of providing up to date GPS information on bus locations. I often find their information is incorrect (or that busses that are supposed to arrive in the next two minutes have already gone by).

5. OCTranspo needs more frequent service on main streets. I find that the routes are too spread out. The result is that there may be multiple ways to get from A to B but you are forced to choose in advance which route to take (because they may start at different stops). The result is unreliable arrival times because you never know which routes the bus will be late on. A few routes (other than the transitway) with high frequency (every 3 minutes) and dependable service would help a lot. You would know that if your trip included this route, you would not be caught waiting in the cold. Apart from the transitway, routes that should have such service include: Bank, Rideau/Montreal, St Laurent, Carling, Bronson, Elgin, Walkley/Heron. Such a FBSB ("Frequent Bus Service Backbone") of routes would make the whole system must more reliable and would increase ridership considerably.

I should add that, while I do take the bus often, I chafe at the fact that I can never predict how long it will take be to get from A to B. I think these improvements would make the whole bus riding experience much more reliable and comfortable.

[lrt's friend]

On the point about bus bunching, this is a problem that has always existed. The only way to address this to some degree is to have a number of spare buses that can be put into service when schedules get out of whack.

Recently, I spoke to a driver about his screen display and asked whether it told him if he was on-time or not. The answer was yes but he further added that the scheduled time was impossible to keep up with. The bus in question was crush loaded which I have pointed out always slows down service. It seems to me that we are increasingly depending on crush loading buses in order to control costs. This provides false economies and the resulting declining service will not provide good customer service.

[S-Man]

A lot of interesting ideas here.

I know from a source close to the bus driver's union that they (the union) aren't buying the federal-cuts-and-weather line from the city. Make of that what you will.

I agree that the Transit Commission is useless. The idea of variable fare given geographic distance is interesting, and I could see how paying $3.40 to take a bus while only being 2 kilometres from your destination could be a deciding factor for some people forgoing the bus trip.

That could be a ridership drain, and a lowering of inner city rates could boost ridership.

That said, that same cost - and the distance it gets you - gets suburbanites out of their evil deathmobiles and onto a bus. Were fares to go up to account for the distance, many who take the bus (despite having a car) might start driving and this would lead to a loss of ridership and revenue.

Speaking of revenue - great to hear that revenue is up at OC Transpo, while ridership is down! Less people paying more for worse service!

High fives all around!!

[JM1]

For idea number 5 referring to a frequent bus service backbone, it should be noted that there would only be one bus route on each of the main streets cited. You wouldn't have overlapping routes. This would not be an issue because there would always be a bus of the designated number arriving. You wouldn't care about switching buses, because there would be no waiting. The frequency of service would guarantee it.

Originally Posted by JM1

Suggestions to OCTranspo:

1. OCTranspo needs to widen the distance between stops. The frequent stopping of busses not only makes for a jerky, uncomfortable ride, but it also waste fuel and slows trips.

I would prefer a slightly sparser grid of stops that forces people to walk a little further at the beginning and end of their trips but gives them a more comfortable and quicker ride once they are on their bus.

2. OCTranspo also needs to do away with circuitous neighbourhood routes. Stick to the main streets and form a grid of East West and North South buses. I know that this is complicated by our rivers and the canal, but OCTranspo needs to try it. I need to to take three buses to get between home and work. On a grid system, I should never need more than two.

3. OCTranspo needs to have drivers stick to schedules. I have noticed severe bunching of busses on some routes (route 7 is notorious for this) -- on occasion, I have waited ages at Rideau for this bus and then had three of them in a row. I don't know how this happens, but it does -- even on does when there is little traffic and no snow or rain!

4. OCTranspo needs to do a better job of providing up to date GPS information on bus locations. I often find their information is incorrect (or that busses that are supposed to arrive in the next two minutes have already gone by).

5. OCTranspo needs more frequent service on main streets. I find that the routes are too spread out. The result is that there may be multiple ways to get from A to B but you are forced to choose in advance which route to take (because they may start at different stops). The result is unreliable arrival times because you never know which routes the bus will be late on. A few routes (other than the transitway) with high frequency (every 3 minutes) and dependable service would help a lot. You would know that if your trip included this route, you would not be caught waiting in the cold. Apart from the transitway, routes that should have such service include: Bank, Rideau/Montreal, St Laurent, Carling, Bronson, Elgin, Walkley/Heron. Such a FBSB ("Frequent Bus Service Backbone") of routes would make the whole system must more reliable and would increase ridership considerably.

I should add that, while I do take the bus often, I chafe at the fact that I can never predict how long it will take be to get from A to B. I think these improvements would make the whole bus riding experience much more reliable and comfortable.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by JM1

For idea number 5 referring to a frequent bus service backbone, it should be noted that there would only be one bus route on each of the main streets cited. You wouldn't have overlapping routes. This would not be an issue because there would always be a bus of the designated number arriving. You wouldn't care about switching buses, because there would be no waiting. The frequency of service would guarantee it.

This is an excellent idea. Doing this on even a few streets would make a huge difference and I suspect would have a very positive impact on ridership.

[lrt's friend]

One way to offer transit zones without the complexity of collecting variable fares is simply to have a higher transit tax applied to addresses outside the Greenbelt. This also addresses a little of the inequity of property taxes where the tendency is to higher taxes in urban locations. This would be a difficult sell but there is reasonable justification based on average trip lengths. Furthermore, it could be phased in over a period of 5 years. If we want better service, we have to pay what it is costing and that means longer trips have to pay more, one way or another.

This kind of tax approach will not create a disincentive to use the bus in suburban areas, unlike a significant fare increase.

[Buggys]

As someone else stated above, pricing differences shouldn't just be inside vs outside the greenbelt. It wouldn't be fair for a 2 block trip crossing the greenbelt to be more expensive than traversing between the Western & Eastern edges of the greenbelt. Otherwise ex-greenbelters would just use their cars to cross the belt.

How about detecting Presto getting on AND off the bus.... The boarding tap would charge the maximum amount. As you get off the bus, your Presto card will no longer be detected on the bus, and you'll get a discount depending on shortness of travel distance???

[BenTheGreat97]

Originally Posted by Buggys

As someone else stated above, pricing differences shouldn't just be inside vs outside the greenbelt. It wouldn't be fair for a 2 block trip crossing the greenbelt to be more expensive than traversing between the Western & Eastern edges of the greenbelt. Otherwise ex-greenbelters would just use their cars to cross the belt.

How about detecting Presto getting on AND off the bus.... The boarding tap would charge the maximum amount. As you get off the bus, your Presto card will no longer be detected on the bus, and you'll get a discount depending on shortness of travel distance???

That means there would have to be little GPS devices in each card, requiring everyone to get new ones and I don't know how everyone would feel about possibly have their whereabouts being known all the time.

Not that it's a bad idea, but it won't happen for a long time.

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by Buggys

As someone else stated above, pricing differences shouldn't just be inside vs outside the greenbelt. It wouldn't be fair for a 2 block trip crossing the greenbelt to be more expensive than traversing between the Western & Eastern edges of the greenbelt. Otherwise ex-greenbelters would just use their cars to cross the belt.

How about detecting Presto getting on AND off the bus.... The boarding tap would charge the maximum amount. As you get off the bus, your Presto card will no longer be detected on the bus, and you'll get a discount depending on shortness of travel distance???

2 block trip across the Greenbelt? Few trips completely crossing it are less than 5 km in distance. Trips starting or ending within the Greenbelt, generally only possible in Blackburn Hamlet or Bells Corners, should count for both zones as one.

[rocketphish]

Originally Posted by BenTheGreat97

That means there would have to be little GPS devices in each card, requiring everyone to get new ones and I don't know how everyone would feel about possibly have their whereabouts being known all the time.

No it doesn't. It only requires that passengers tap their card as they leave the bus, just as they did on entering, which would require no changes to the existing Presto cards. However, this would be quite a behavioural change for passengers, who have never before needed to "logout" of the system. It would also place twice the stress on the Presto readers and computers, which already have issues with recording taps properly, and would slow down the disembarking process, possibly leading to longer route times.

[Buggys]

Originally Posted by rocketphish

No it doesn't. It only requires that passengers tap their card as they leave the bus, just as they did on entering, which would require no changes to the existing Presto cards. However, this would be quite a behavioural change for passengers, who have never before needed to "logout" of the system. It would also place twice the stress on the Presto readers and computers, which already have issues with recording taps properly, and would slow down the disembarking process, possibly leading to longer route times.

I briefly thought of an unboarding tap as well, but what's to stop people from gaming the system by doing that tap early to get the discount?

[waterloowarrior]

GO Transit buses already uses tap on and tap off with Presto. Although keep in mind that GO serves distances that would be equivalent to Perth, Renfrew, Hawkesbury, Prescott, Cornwall etc. The majority of stops would be outside the Greenbelt if you look at the same distance for Ottawa.

One issue with the Greenbelt boundary might be that Orleans and Leitrim are closer to downtown than Kanata/Barrhaven. 20 KM east of downtown and you are at Trim Road. 20 KM west of downtown and you haven't yet hit March Road. 20 KM to the southeast and you are already past Leitrim. 20 KM to the southwest and you are just hitting Fallowfield.

[rocketphish]

Originally Posted by Buggys

I briefly thought of an unboarding tap as well, but what's to stop people from gaming the system by doing that tap early to get the discount?

Good point. Maybe the "tap out" is located on the outside of the bus , or more realistically, at the bus stop? If you want the discount, you need to make the effort to go to the reader and "tap out".

[Buggys]

Great solutions!

[Kitchissippi]

The simpler way to do this is to just not have transfer privileges between trans-Greenbelt routes and the intra-suburban feeder routes, so they require separate fares. The intra-suburban fare could be much lower, say third that of a core area route, to encourage suburbanites to use public transit regularly within their community.

So for example if a core area or trans-Greenbelt route / LRT trip costs $3, and an intra-suburb fare is $1, an Orleans to downtown trip would cost $4. and an Orleans to Kanata trip would cost 1+3+1= $5. This also means a trip to the local suburban mall would only cost a dollar which is great incentive to leave the car at home. This would also spur intensification near the suburban hubs, as they are exempt from extra fare.

[Buggys]

That is an interesting suggestion, and I like your suggested pricing gradients.... What about Bells Corners and Blackburn Hamlet?