City Council: 11th December, 2024

Introduction

On the 25th of November, Transit Commission met to discuss its budget. You can find my summary of that meeting here. 

On the 11th December, City Council met to discuss and approve the overall city budget, including the transit portions. This article will summarize the portions relating to OC Transpo, and what it means for transit in the future. Timestamp for the Transit Commission portion of the meeting begins at 3:45:00-ish. 

The transit budget passed 18-7, with Laine Johnson, Sean Devine, Wilson Lo, Riley Brockington, Shawn Menard, Ariel Troster, and Rawlson King voting against. 

Fares

 

A revised version of the motions passed on the 25th November was carried by Council. 

This "omni-motion" includes:

• Setting the senior's pass at $58, and retaining both free Wednesdays and Sundays. This would cost $1.105 million and $414 thousand, respectively. 
• The Youth Pass would be set to $104 temporarily, with its complete elimination slated for September, when we can extort the provincial government the school boards get their budget for next school year's transportation passes. (sorry, what was I saying?) 
• Pushing the U-Pass increase to September, costing $1.05 million. Crucially, the budget still includes a 5% increase after that, which I don't think will happens for reasons that I will explain below. "Negotiations" with universities will begin, concluding in Q2. 
• In the Long Range Transit Plan, direct staff to overhaul the entire fare system with a review. While the city said this would increase equity, the goal will probably be to make riders pay more, which was a major theme of this council debate. They would also identify risks with fare changes, including ridership impacts - at Transit Commission, we were told that ridership elasticity was not part of OC Transpo's revenue calculations, which is lying to the public and councilors, bordering on fraud. 
• This plan would be paid for by reducing $4.409 million to the capital reserve, with a reduction of $1.435 million for "Customer Services Technology Systems" and $2.124 million for "Scheduling and Control Systems." 
• In non-fare items, the city would push for a "U-Pass" to extend to students, which would be, presumably, a provincial subsidy for our fare policy. 

Council Questions

Timestamp at 4:18:00. 

Council had the chance to ask staff questions about the budget before the vote. While most were congratulatory, a couple revealed key insights into City of Ottawa misoperations. 

Jessica Bradley noted the $36 million hole, for which our strategy is hoping and praying that upper levels of governments will pay up. In response, the mayor said that we had a larger hole in 2023 - a hole which was not filled, and for which we had to draw the remaining funds in the transit operations reserve, leaving us with basically nothing - and said that he was "cautiously optimistic" about it. 

Given that the mayor spent his pre-vote speech, timestamp 6:49:00, bragging about keeping tax increases low in comparison to Toronto's 9.5% increase, I think the provincial government will tell him to "increase your taxes and then we'll help out." For that matter, why wasn't this addressed in the New Deal for Ottawa, during which Sutcliffe could have asked for transit funding? Toronto's New Deal will put $330 million into TTC operations, $750 million for fleet renewal on Line 2, and another $500 million indirectly spent on TTC capital spending after the province agreed to upload the Gardiner Expressway. 

We got, having presumably asked for, a highway interchange and more police. 

Me, I would be "not optimistic at all" about the chances of the money coming out of the Toronto sky. (sigh) 

She also asked about councilor engagement in the Long Term Transit Plan. The memory of the Watson Club and her predecessor, Diane Deans, is probably on the minds of many, and the transit budget was apparently a surprise to councilors when it was released. My hope is that staff will be more open on this file in the future. 

Laine Johnson asked about the U-Pass situation with Algonquin College. Staff's response does not invite confidence; more below. 

Multiple councilors, including Sean Devine and Teresa Kavanaugh, noted that the 11/12 year old bracket did not receive relief in the motion. Staff response was that the majority of rides in this age demographic were from school passes, but the budget estimates $3.734 million in revenue from this age demographic. Do staff really think that there will be 1.9 million rides from this demographic without the free fares? I doubt it. 

Sean Devine also noted that the impacts will fall on those who can least afford it, saying that "I try to imagine who that customer is, and that's probably the single mother who has no recourse other than to put her eleven and twelve year old on a bus as she takes them to an appointment and so forth ..." 

Steve Desroches, of all people, noted the juxtaposition of massive Stage 2 opening ceremonies with transit cuts that save a tiny portion of the budget. Other councilors quoted his words. 

Wilson Lo and Laine Johnson asked about capital deferments. There are two deferred items. The first, Customer Services Technology, will see a $1.435 million pushback. This project:  

funds updates to customer-facing systems, including real-time information, the web content management system, the interactive voice response, the customer alerts systems and other digital customer information channels.

This is a long-time ask from riders, and it is extremely disappointing to see these kinds of projects deferred again, and again, and again, all to save a few pennies. Additionally, it is a deferment, so we will need to fund the project in its entirety, which will be more expensive, in the coming years, while finding new ways to save a few pennies to scrape together the money for operations. 

The other item is Scheduling and Control Systems, which is a $2.124 million deferment. It's garbage in, garbage out: 

This program funds improvements and software enhancements of the computer-aided dispatch control system for bus operations and the suite of software used for network planning, scheduling buses and managing employees for booking, dispatch and time-keeping functions, as well as implementing advanced analytics.

This is another long-time conflict, this time from the union. While I believe that OC Transpo management uses flawed (to say the least) parameters for scheduling, including not-real time traffic information (which I, a random student, can grab and display) and bad guidelines for turnaround time, this deferral remains short-sighted, like everything else we do in this city. 

I expect this to be a conflict point if the union goes on strike in April, which is a real possibility at this point. 

Robbing Peter to pay Paul 

The city's ability to push hard decisions is impressive. Instead of finding the courage to make hard choices, which has happened in cities like Toronto, Hamilton, Waterloo, and Mississauga, we've managed to kick the can down the road. 

For one year. 

The operational expenses this year were paid for with deferments on the capital side. This means that next year, not only will we have to find new funding for our operating expenses, but we will also have to pay for the deferred projects, which will be more expensive due to inflation and, apparently, the City's increasing reputation for being a horrible contractual partner. 

U-Pass Troubles

At the Transit Commission meeting, the U-Pass increases were talked about as if they were a done deal. We heard from Carleton and uOttawa, but not Algonquin or St. Paul (which is a UO affiliate). 

According to Laine Johnson, Algonquin sent a letter to the city on the 15th November, saying that they flat out would not administer a fare increase. Despite the fact that the budget was not set until the 19th November, according to staff, the U-Pass increase of 5% over the entire year was presented at the Transit Commission meeting. 

This is, to my eyes, dangerously close to fraudulent accounting. 

Additionally, staff did not consult the universities, because they didn't want too many hands on the budget before it released. Put it differently, the City of Ottawa unilaterally broke four contracts totaling $40 million in revenue annually, because apparently, staff do not value transparency or the city's reputation as a contractual partner. 

Excuse me? What is going on at the City of Ottawa? 

It seems that the U-Pass deal at Carleton is similar to that at uOttawa. For those who don't know, an increase above 2.5% must be sent to referendum. It's not clear to me if the referendum would be for a larger increase, or for the continuation of the U-Pass program. 

If it is the former, the City of Ottawa is probably aware that OC Transpo is a four letter word across the city. At least to me, an increase seems unlikely to pass. If it is the latter, the City's insistence on hoarding pennies could blow another eight-figure hole in OC Transpo's budget. If that happens, we will have no one to blame but ourselves. 

No wonder upper levels of government don't want to bail us out. 

Riley Brockington said that the budget was full of holes, and cited this increase as a hole. Renée Amilcar said that their strategy to appeal to students would be to highlight years with 0% fare increases. Given past and future service cuts, I don't know how successful that strategy would be. 

He also mentioned an increase in $20 million in fare revenues from increased ridership, and the $36 million hole that we're trying to make somebody else's problem. Brockington voted against the transit budget. 

Thoughts

The City of Ottawa is digging itself into a hole. Rather, we've dug ourselves into a hole, and instead of recognizing the fact and digging a staircase out, we've recognized the fact and are now trying to escape by digging to China. 

We're cutting service, deferring capital projects, and alienating large ridership bases. Combined with a possible strike in April, I don't see how this is going to end well. 

Here's hoping.