OC Transpo

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by DTcrawler

Correct that most Ottawans don’t use transit on a regular basis. But I think the general sentiment is that people would use OCT more regularly if service was better or more reliable. If you’ve got a free parking spot at work or a carpool arrangement, switching the commute to transit needs more incentive. But I regularly see/hear comments from suburbanites who’d love to take transit elsewhere but are dissuaded by the negative reputation around OCT’s reliability.

Remember, many Ottawans are well off and well travelled, and have seen the benefit of sturdy transit systems in European/Asian cities. I think that’s one difference between us and residents of American cities, where many don’t even hold a passport, making it tougher to shed the “transit is for the poor” notion. I think in Ottawa that sentiment does exist to a degree, but it’s more nuanced as “transit in Ottawa is for the poor, but the concept of transit is good overall”.

I think the main problem is that a shockingly high number of people think OCT is a private company that intentionally delivers poor service while raking in huge profits. I think you’d have a marked shift in opinion on the taxes argument if people were more aware that OCT’s service is a reflection of its budget constraints. Maybe you don’t manage to bring people onboard for tax hikes right away but I think that awareness of why things are the way they are goes a long way. Right now people are too quick to brush it off as pure incompetence, which definitely exists but is more a symptom rather than a cause of an under-prioritized and neglected service.

Well-travelled Ottawans (at least those with modest observational skills) will note that European/Asian cities with good transit are supported by high levels of density. The one thing that unites urban and suburban Ottawans is a hatred of density.

I don't think anyone thinks OC Transpo is a private company. People know it is heavily dependent on taxpayer subsidies.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

You seem to be alternating between treating entire years as a single point in time and treating them as spans of time whenever it's convenient for your argument.

Again, the APTA publishes numbers in greater detail down to the month. There is a steady trend of year over year decreases beginning shortly after the 2011 cuts all the way through to the end of 2014.

The APTA data shows every month in the 4th quarter of 2011 had higher ridership than 2010. That is the complete opposite of what you are saying. It should have been down, particularly towards the end of the year, if people were concerned about changes in the schedule.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I don't think anyone thinks OC Transpo is a private company. People know it is heavily dependent on taxpayer subsidies.

Private company and dependent on taxpayer subsidies are not mutually exclusive.
The mistaken belief that OC Transpo is a private corporation isn't prevalent, but it does exist.

Originally Posted by acottawa

The APTA data shows every month in the 4th quarter of 2011 had higher ridership than 2010. That is the complete opposite of what you are saying. It should have been down, particularly towards the end of the year, if people were concerned about changes in the schedule.

I think I said myself that the highest quarterly numbers in the APTA reports was actually Q1 of 2012, followed by a steady decline.

I don't know what's convinced you that the effects of a service cut would be instantaneous and why a slow burn over several quarters/years doesn't seem probable to you. Not everyone is going to go out the next day, or even the next month, after their route changes to buy a car.

It was the same when the LRT opened. Despite the months of problems before the pandemic started, the APTA report for those months show no real drop in ridership despite the fact that you'd think people were buying cars in droves if you read Reddit or Twitter.

The 6 months following that service cut was the end of the upwards growth of ridership, followed by years of decline. How does that not sound alarm bells in your mind? Do you have any other dead-end theories that might explain otherwise?

I also noted that the APTA counts unlinked trips, which count every transfer as a new trip. The 2011 cuts introduced a number of new transfers. Not enough to explain the full increase, but an increase would be expected anyhow.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Well-travelled Ottawans (at least those with modest observational skills) will note that European/Asian cities with good transit are supported by high levels of density. The one thing that unites urban and suburban Ottawans is a hatred of density.

I don't think anyone thinks OC Transpo is a private company. People know it is heavily dependent on taxpayer subsidies.

Density and high taxes on one or more of fuel/vehicles/parking/road access but yes especially the density. There are a few places with suburbans knitted into public transit but that requires very high incentives of the latter.

You can for example live in leafy neighborhoods in Norway or Switzerland and have access to great transit. They both are a bit wealthier than us and choosing to spend a big chunk of it on this though. If we adopted all of Norway's policies we could get there but with our lower GDP our after tax income would be drastically lower for it.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I don't think anyone thinks OC Transpo is a private company. People know it is heavily dependent on taxpayer subsidies.

It is truly shocking how many people think the first and don't know the second, actually.

You're overestimating the public.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

You can for example live in leafy neighborhoods in Norway or Switzerland and have access to great transit. They both are a bit wealthier than us and choosing to spend a big chunk of it on this though. If we adopted all of Norway's policies we could get there but with our lower GDP our after tax income would be drastically lower for it.

Leafy neighborhoods in Norway or Switzerland don’t have much transit.

Here is a suburb of Oslo that looks a lot like Ottawa.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/RoPdG1e1Qvc6BbQJ9?

There is a bus every 30 minutes on a collector road. Most people are expected to walk a fair distance to catch a bus. Nobody expects a single seat ride to the city centre. There is a fairly long walk, then a bus, then a train to get downtown.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

I think I said myself that the highest quarterly numbers in the APTA reports was actually Q1 of 2012, followed by a steady decline.

I don't know what's convinced you that the effects of a service cut would be instantaneous and why a slow burn over several quarters/years doesn't seem probable to you. Not everyone is going to go out the next day, or even the next month, after their route changes to buy a car.

It was the same when the LRT opened. Despite the months of problems before the pandemic started, the APTA report for those months show no real drop in ridership despite the fact that you'd think people were buying cars in droves if you read Reddit or Twitter.

The 6 months following that service cut was the end of the upwards growth of ridership, followed by years of decline. How does that not sound alarm bells in your mind? Do you have any other dead-end theories that might explain otherwise?

I also noted that the APTA counts unlinked trips, which count every transfer as a new trip. The 2011 cuts introduced a number of new transfers. Not enough to explain the full increase, but an increase would be expected anyhow.

So there was 6 months of continuous y/y growth after the schedule change, and then a fairly gradual decline, and you are adamant the only possible explanation is the schedule change. That isn’t how people normally try to determine causation.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Leafy neighborhoods in Norway or Switzerland don’t have much transit.

Here is a suburb of Oslo that looks a lot like Ottawa.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/RoPdG1e1Qvc6BbQJ9?

There is a bus every 30 minutes on a collector road. Most people are expected to walk a fair distance to catch a bus. Nobody expects a single seat ride to the city centre. There is a fairly long walk, then a bus, then a train to get downtown.

I'm not sure how you chose that location but many many suburbs have great frequent rail service direct to the centre.

Here is the zurich rapid transit map (it puts Montreal or Toronto to shame)

https://www.zvv.ch/zvv-assets/servic...teilig_low.pdf

You'll see regular rail service to not only suburbs but what are basically rural exurbs. You can walk to a train from farms in many cases.

Oslo is probably half of Ottawa's population and also puts Toronto to shame

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File...r_Rail_map.svg

If you pick 10 random points in Oslo's suburbs you'll get service like this 20 minutes door to door with every 5-10 minute service at peak:
( and 20-25 minutes by car assuming no time for parking)

https://www.google.com/maps/dir/59.9...!3e3?entry=ttu

I reference all this to say it's not only density. There certainly is a level of spending that allows for transit like the anti car folks desire. If we double the transit tax we can certainly provide a high level of service that would spur ridership. We'd have to add disincentives also though.

[stolenottawa]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Leafy neighborhoods in Norway or Switzerland don’t have much transit.

Here is a suburb of Oslo that looks a lot like Ottawa.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/RoPdG1e1Qvc6BbQJ9?

There is a bus every 30 minutes on a collector road. Most people are expected to walk a fair distance to catch a bus. Nobody expects a single seat ride to the city centre. There is a fairly long walk, then a bus, then a train to get downtown.

You are incorrect about Switzerland.

I lived in Zurich and the bus would be timed to the commuter train's arrival.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by acottawa

So there was 6 months of continuous y/y growth after the schedule change, and then a fairly gradual decline, and you are adamant the only possible explanation is the schedule change. That isn’t how people normally try to determine causation.

I still don't understand why you think a delayed effect is somehow inconsistent with causation. Changes in travel patterns are exactly the kind of situation where you would expect to see a delayed impact.

Either way, it's not accurate to say that there were 6 months of continuous growth after the schedule change. There was a small bump up in two of those months, but the other 4 were either flat or negative. Here are the rounded monthly comparisons (2011 vs. 2010 etc.) through that period, which should show the trend better. As you can see, there are no significantly negative months before the changes, and afterward there are lots that either show no growth or are negative. There is also not a single month after October that matches the growth of the previous year:

Jan 11: +5%
Feb 11: +4%
Mar 11: +9%
Apr 11: +17%
May 11: +6%
June 11: +6%
July 11: -1%
Aug 11: +4%
Sept 11: -1%
Oct 11: +1%
(changes are implemented)
Nov 11: - flat
Dec 11: - flat
Jan 12: +2%
Feb 12: +3%
Mar 12: -1%
Apr 12: -5%
May 12: -2%
June 12: -7%
July 12: -3%
Aug 12: -5%
Sept 12: -4%

Obviously monthly ridership numbers are a bit volatile, but in my opinion this pretty clearly shows what was a growth trend before October 2011 become a declining trend after that. Immediately following the service cuts the trend was relatively flat, then buses began to bleed riders consistently every month. The annual growth trend never returned after the service cuts.

As I've said before, the service cuts are the best and most logical explanation. I have not heard an alternative that explains the change nearly as well.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Leafy neighborhoods in Norway or Switzerland don’t have much transit.

Here is a suburb of Oslo that looks a lot like Ottawa.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/RoPdG1e1Qvc6BbQJ9?

There is a bus every 30 minutes on a collector road. Most people are expected to walk a fair distance to catch a bus. Nobody expects a single seat ride to the city centre. There is a fairly long walk, then a bus, then a train to get downtown.

You better be careful on what you are trying to demonstrate. First, this is not part of Oslo, so not part of the main Oslo transit system. Second, Route 220 is a cross-town route, not designed to head towards downtown. Nearby Route 150 runs further from the city into the mountains with 10 minute peak period service and 15 (daytime) to 30 minute (evenings) off-pear service that runs directly into the Oslo central bus terminal.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

You better be careful on what you are trying to demonstrate. First, this is not part of Oslo, so not part of the main Oslo transit system. Second, Route 220 is a cross-town route, not designed to head towards downtown. Nearby Route 150 runs further from the city into the mountains with 10 minute peak period service and 15 (daytime) to 30 minute (evenings) off-pear service that runs directly into the Oslo central bus terminal.

We can argue about how extensive a transit system is possible in a low density environment. As I said in Switzerland there are frequent trains that take you to the centre of zurich from villages that have stations a 10 minute walk to actual farms.

I don't think it helps to say it's impossible to have a comprehensive transit system in Ottawa given our current and likely next 20 year built form. It is not a little more expensive though it is a lot more expensive.

Our choices now are cuts to non essential service (however we define essential) large increases in property taxes to maintain the status quo or a massive increase in transit taxes in order to expand service as many on this thread want. We could have had a pro environment federal government that massively funded capital and operating costs of transit but we didn't. They spent it on battery plants, cash to everyone and strangling a key component of our economy in the name of climate change. There seems to be little appetite at any level of government to fund a massive transit expansion so we should accept where we are and make the best choices we can.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

You better be careful on what you are trying to demonstrate. First, this is not part of Oslo, so not part of the main Oslo transit system. Second, Route 220 is a cross-town route, not designed to head towards downtown. Nearby Route 150 runs further from the city into the mountains with 10 minute peak period service and 15 (daytime) to 30 minute (evenings) off-pear service that runs directly into the Oslo central bus terminal.

It is the equivalent in terms of distance and density as the Ottawa suburbs. They only difference is Oslo was never amalgamated with its suburbs like Ottawa was.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by phil235

I still don't understand why you think a delayed effect is somehow inconsistent with causation. Changes in travel patterns are exactly the kind of situation where you would expect to see a delayed impact.

Either way, it's not accurate to say that there were 6 months of continuous growth after the schedule change. There was a small bump up in two of those months, but the other 4 were either flat or negative. Here are the rounded monthly comparisons (2011 vs. 2010 etc.) through that period, which should show the trend better. As you can see, there are no significantly negative months before the changes, and afterward there are lots that either show no growth or are negative. There is also not a single month after October that matches the growth of the previous year:

Jan 11: +5%
Feb 11: +4%
Mar 11: +9%
Apr 11: +17%
May 11: +6%
June 11: +6%
July 11: -1%
Aug 11: +4%
Sept 11: -1%
Oct 11: +1%
(changes are implemented)
Nov 11: - flat
Dec 11: - flat
Jan 12: +2%
Feb 12: +3%
Mar 12: -1%
Apr 12: -5%
May 12: -2%
June 12: -7%
July 12: -3%
Aug 12: -5%
Sept 12: -4%

Obviously monthly ridership numbers are a bit volatile, but in my opinion this pretty clearly shows what was a growth trend before October 2011 become a declining trend after that. Immediately following the service cuts the trend was relatively flat, then buses began to bleed riders consistently every month. The annual growth trend never returned after the service cuts.

As I've said before, the service cuts are the best and most logical explanation. I have not heard an alternative that explains the change nearly as well.

But the previous year was the Upass introduction, which caused a spike in transit use. There is nothing normal about the 17% growth in transit the previous April. There was a spike in the 2010-2011 school year, the new schedule was introduced, transit was about the same or maybe up a bit, there was a bigger drop in late 2012 and a much larger drop in 2013. There is nothing in those stats to indicate the drop was triggered by the service change. If you showed those stats to someone without editorial commentary they would not conclude something really important happened in the fall of 2011, it simply does not stand out.

[DTcrawler]

Originally Posted by acottawa

But the previous year was the Upass introduction, which caused a spike in transit use. There is nothing normal about the 17% growth in transit the previous April. There was a spike in the 2010-2011 school year, the new schedule was introduced, transit was about the same or maybe up a bit, there was a bigger drop in late 2012 and a much larger drop in 2013. There is nothing in those stats to indicate the drop was triggered by the service change. If you showed those stats to someone without editorial commentary they would not conclude something really important happened in the fall of 2011, it simply does not stand out.

The 2011 cuts affected ridership over time, not immediately. It's not like people were lining up at car dealerships the minute their bus route(s) changed. The more likely scenario is that over time, people recognized the effects of the cuts, impact on their travel times, impact on service reliability, etc. and made decisions about their transit usage accordingly.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by acottawa

But the previous year was the Upass introduction, which caused a spike in transit use. There is nothing normal about the 17% growth in transit the previous April. There was a spike in the 2010-2011 school year, the new schedule was introduced, transit was about the same or maybe up a bit, [...]

April 2011 wasn't year-over-year growth.

Ridership in Q2 2010 was unusually low for 2010 (roughly the same as Q2 2009, both of which were significantly lower than Q2 2008)-- hence the abnormal number.
From April 2008 to April 2011, ridership grew by about 5.6%, which is in-line with the general growth trend at the time.

there was a bigger drop in late 2012 and a much larger drop in 2013.

Monthly ridership had already begun to fall by March of 2012. The only other month in 2012 where ridership was higher than the year before was September 2012, which was 0.14% higher than September 2011.

There is nothing in those stats to indicate the drop was triggered by the service change. If you showed those stats to someone without editorial commentary they would not conclude something really important happened in the fall of 2011, it simply does not stand out.

Given no commentary, you might as well assume that annual ridership was determined by a dice roll with how it fluctuates past 2015.
You could also reasonably conclude that the closure of the eastern transitway in 2015 improved ridership. /s
You could do a lot of silly things, like assuming Uber coupons drove people away from transit years before Uber was even available. /s

It's clear that something triggered several years of ridership decline around this time, with Q4 2011/Q1 2012 [suspiciously] being an inflection point.

Even with the introduction of the U-Pass, how does this explain a subsequent decline in ridership? What could have driven students away from transit? If riders respond so quickly the the state of service as you suggest, why didn't disinterested students simply abandon transit after the first time they used transit in the fall of 2010? How does a spike in U-Pass-driven ridership explain the end of a decade of continuous year-over-year ridership growth?

Speaking of students, how many have you ever known who would drop everything to buy a car mid way through their school year?

The lengths at which you seem to be going to stay in denial about the impact of the service cuts is incredible. Even though you seem to dispute every notion that this inflection point an immediate subsequent decline has anything to do with the cuts, you also seem to have no problem carelessly throwing numbers and bad claims around.
If you have a not-bogus explanation for these numbers, we're all waiting for it!