Since the last Transit Committee in November, bus service has continued to deteriorate, and adding to OC Transpo's troubles, most of the Line 1 fleet was ordered out of service after spalling was discovered on the cartridge bearing assemblies (CBAs). There is currently no timeline to return the trains to service. Most of this meeting was, understandably, dedicated to these two crises.
Despite the quixotic self-congratulations from OC Transpo and from Transit Committee, delegations and the state of service reveal a system full of problems. As long as councillors do not feel urgency on this file, transit will continue to be a whack-a-mole of acute and chronic problems.
Documents from this meeting:
Rail Update
This section of the meeting begins at timestamp 3:10.
On the 21st of January, spalling was discovered on the Alstom Citadis trains used on Line 1, and a majority of the fleet was pulled out of service, leaving OC Transpo with fewer trains than they need to run peak period service. OC Transpo has chosen to increase frequencies with the remaining cars, running single-car trains, and Troy Charter, temporary (?) general manager of OC Transpo, said that "Line 1 remains safe for our customers."
In order to return to regular Line 1 service, Charter said that OC Transpo would hold "RTG and Alstom accountable to meet performance expectations". It is unclear what mechanism the City has to "hold Alstom accountable," as there is no direct relationship between the City of Ottawa and Alstom; meanwhile, the only real mechanism the City has over RTG is withholding payments for Line 1 service, and the City has already settled in court over such a strategy in the pre-2023 era of Line 1 operations. We risk damaging what's left of our institutional reputation with such a strategy.
The spalling problem means that the surface of the CBAs are flaking or chipping; this can lead to a weakened axle bearing. OC Transpo has pre-emptively removed all trains whose CBAs have run more than 100,000 kilometres of service. They had, as of the meeting, 21 trains in service; 26 are needed to run six minute service with double-car trains at peak.
This is the same component whose failure caused two derailments in 2021, forcing Line 1 service to stop for two months.
OC Transpo plans to attack this problem from three angles. First, they will replace the CBAs which have run more than 100,000 kilometres (duh!); second, they will analyze the CBAs to see if they can increase or remove the restriction which is preventing trains from running in service, but this requires time to complete the analysis; and third, OC Transpo will continue to attempt to identify the root cause of these problems. Complicating this plan is another mileage limit on the CBAs which were introduced as an interim solution for loosening wheel nuts in 2023.
This problem affects the same components as the 2021 derailment, and could be related (though I have no proof). Given that there is no solution for that, five years later, I would not hold my breath for a resolution to this problem anytime soon.
Charter cited increased frequency of operations, albeit with single-car trains, as well as oversight from the Transit Operation Control Centre (TOCC).
uOttawa station has been a particular headache, given its cramped design and high passenger flows before and after classes at the University of Ottawa. In response, OC Transpo has assigned staff to crowded stations (they noted Bayview in the AM Peak and uOttawa in the PM Peak) to manage crowd flow, and began running new announcements onboard the trains.
Later, during the councillors questions, Riley Brockington asked after a previous technical briefing, where staff said that they could repair two axles a day. Staff revealed that due to supply chain limitations with regards to Alstom, they have only been repairing one axle a day.
Wilson Lo asked how much time it would take a train to run 100,000 km. Staff did not answer it directly, but through further questions, it seems that the answer is ten months, as trains rack about 10,000 km of running a month; this figure is complicated by the nut pin restrictions and the fact that each train has multiple CBAs.
That Damned Bus Network
This segment begins at timestamp 18:40.
The fleet-and-maintenance crisis continues to wrack the bus fleet, and service is still deteriorating. This issue came to a head in January, with daily cancellations reaching 10%; actually, bus cancellations have increased every month since August of last year, but the urgency of the situation was not really publicized until then.
In response, OC Transpo has reduced service by about 4%, and the number of buses needed for service has dropped from 520 to 500. Charter said that "on average," 494 buses are available for service on any given day, which is an improvement from early January when there were only 460 buses (!) available at any time. They have also introduced a "bus location strategy" to reduce cancellations by placing buses at strategic locations ... somehow ... and directed mechanics to prioritize critical work that would increase the number of buses available.
In the continuing game of whack-a-driver-shortage, OC Transpo admitted that lack of operators remains a problem. Charter cited the Canada Labour Code breaks and schedules, but the CLC codes are predictable, there is nobody rolling a dice to see whether it's a 15 minute break or a 45 minute break every other week. If OC Transpo does not have enough operators due to mandatory CLC breaks, then they should be rostering more operators to cover those runs. If they cannot afford to schedule operators with adequate CLC breaks and still maintain the schedule, then Council should either assign OC Transpo to axe trips with the aim of maintaining all scheduled service, or add budget so OC Transpo can roster more operators.
Charter provided daily information on bus delivery for a week before the meeting. I will not bore you with this data, which is has been posted on OC Transpo's website since the beginning of January.
When cancellations happen, the TOCC prioritizes low frequency routes, school routes, and the first and last trips on each route. Normally, OC Transpo schedules standby buses to fill in cancelled trips, but in the current situation, there are not enough buses to run the scheduled service, let alone standby.
The fleet has grown to 758 buses, 20 more buses since the last update in September. However, the number of buses available for service has fallen from 511 to 460-490. Of note, all categories of "buses with defects" have increased, revealing the continuing deterioration of the fleet.
Since last September, we have received the used buses from Grand River Transit and 18 new e-buses - compare that to the anticipated 20 by December 2025 - while losing several articulated buses, minibuses (for Para Transpo), and Inveros.
Looking ahead, OC Transpo is continuing its mechanic recruitment campaign, set to end this Q4; a new preventative maintenance plan in Q1-Q2, which will "reduce the number of times a bus is on the hoist"; and an automated inspections pilot, set for Q2-Q4. The maintenance backlog and bus refurbishments should abate starting Q3, and continuing until the end of 2027, and preventative maintenance become an increasing proportion of OC Transpo's maintenance efforts.
In response to a question from Wilson Lo, staff said that refurbishment assignments will be chosen on across the entire bus fleet, based on cost and availability.
Staff also presented this chart showing the labour backlog and the impact of new buses on mechanic hours. The arrival of new buses will reduce monthly labour needs from around 12,200 monthly hours to 9,700, a 20% reduction. The backlog, currently standing at 18,000 hours (or one and one half months of work), will also fall to 9,000 hours, a reduction of about half.
OC Transpo currently has the staff to conduct about 10,000-11,000 labour hours a month.
This year alone, they plan to receive 235 new e-buses and 14 articulated buses. Staff said they still expected to have 110 e-buses by the end of Q1, with 89 on OC Transpo property, and that there have been no new delays for months. But based on past performance, this timeline will likely be pushed back some more.
In response to Tim Tierney's questions, staff said that they would look into the possibility of clarifying the number of buses available versus the number of buses that were delivered. Brockington added that he would like to see a deliveries-per-quarter chart, currently presented erratically, at every Transit Committee.
Wilson Lo asked staff about the incentives to work for "the royal we" - that is, OC Transpo, instead of some other company. Staff cited three major pathways: a more competitive salary after union negotiations last year, the possibility of improving schedules to be more attractive to workers, and a restructuring of the apprenticeship program. They added that interest in OC Transpo's mechanic program was increasing, with far more applicants than in previous pushes, and that they expected to see five or six new mechanics on their team by the summer, all permanent hires. In a later section, they said that onboarding a net 14 mechanics would put OC Transpo in "a much better position moving forwards."
Brockington introduced a direction to staff to provide information on the number of mechanics, the number of mechanics needed, and a summary of recruitment efforts.
Staff said, after a question from Marty Carr, that they aimed for a 20% spare ratio, which is an industry standard, with an MDBF goal of 10,000 km. However, the current spare ratio is 35% with unreliable service, and the MDBF was under 6,000 km as of the last Five-Year Plan update in April 2025.
Shawn Menard asked about the wisdom of outsourcing, and staff responded that the buses with the highest labour hours are sent outside the city, including at least one vendor in Toronto, for refurbishment, specifically citing new engines and transmission systems. Menard also asked about procuring more used buses; staff are using caution, as agencies often dispose of junk buses (why waste a good bus?), and other agencies are wary of following OC Transpo into a fleet shortage with bus deliveries backlogged at manufacturers.
He also asked how staff planned to avoid a similar situation in a few years time when the next large purchase (probably the Novas) reach end of life. Staff will rework the bus procurement plan, possibly buying new buses early if the reliability of a certain fleet is poor and the cost is right (which is how we got the 2009-2010 order of articulated buses in the first place), and looking at a wider range of bus types.
Staff implied, responding to Jeff Leiper, that they did not think 7% annual budgetary increases for bus operations were adequate. This may be related to a large salary increase for operators last year, or it may be inherent inefficiencies in OC Transpo's network.
With regards to the e-buses, David Hill mentioned warranty issues on the e-bus batteries, with buses sidelined for months. Staff said that there have been "no extraordinary issues," and that the e-buses, being an entirely new kind of bus, brought a new learning curve and new infrastructure to familiarize staff with. They specifically noted a problem with the battery prototypes, where overheating meant it could only be charged to about 75% of capacity - a problem with the charging infrastructure - and an issue with the accelerator pedals, but emphasized that these are normal problems for a new fleet.
Theresa Kavanagh asked how many buses the opening of Stage 2 East would save. Staff were evasive, saying it depended on the timing of electric bus deliveries (?), but we know that it would save 28,000 service hours annually, or about 1.5% of service, per an earlier response to an inquiry from Wilson Lo. Assuming that this is proportional to the number of buses, that would be seven buses.
Finally, Rawlson King noted the phenomenon of "ghost buses," where buses appear on the tracker and then disappear. This is apparently the result of OC Transpo trying to fill trips until the last minute, though he (and honestly, myself) remained skeptical. On behalf of King, Brockington introduced a motion to report on cancellation tracking, inform councillor offices of cancelled trips, and review steps on the temporarily cancelled trips.
Stage 2 East
This segment begins at timestamp 14:25.
The project remains stuck without its substantial completion, with no progress since September. Richard Holder, rail construction direction, said "we are validating the requirements of the project agreement have been satisfied" before certifying the project's completion. OC Transpo continued to affirm that they will hold a technical briefing before trial running begins on Stage 2 East, and another briefing after it is completed.
During the review, OC Transpo found problems with the "station structure [sic] support systems," platform edge cameras, and "adjusting rail infrastructure," phrases which could mean anything without further clarification.
Trial running is expected to begin in Q2 this year, a substantial step back from Transit Committee last November in which the entire extension was projected to open in Q1.
One problem the trial running may run into (imagine a Looney Tunes character hitting a wall) is a lack of trains available for service. Trial running will require more service than the schedule which OC Transpo cannot even meet - 46 trains, compared to 26 required for regular service and the 20 available now. Given OC Transpo's obfuscating of Line 2's operator shortage, and the situation with the CBAs, trial running very well may be delayed due to lack of trains. However, there is no impact on substantial completion, which staff said was "almost at the end."
Brockington expressed disappointment at the lack of a timeline for the opening of the line, saying that it is needed for accountability.
Tim Tierney commented on his "predictions" for the likelihood of Stage 2 East opening in 2026. Councillor Tierney is deeply committed to being the biggest prick possible, and seems to take delight in project delays, not even performatively angry for constituents who may ride the train.
This is what leadership looks like at the City of Ottawa.
General Update
In addition to the detailed updates on everything that's going very well at 1500 St. Laurent, staff also presented the more general update which appears at every Transit Committee meeting.
The afternoon peak extended transfer period, approved in this year's budget, went into effect on 2 March. Four free monthly senior trips on Para Transpo have seemingly been implemented (?) but the presentation was not clear on this.
OC Transpo launched new Accessibility Plan consultations in January. The new plan will cover the three years and is planned to go into effect in June.
Deliveries of new Para Transpo minibuses continue. 42 of these buses are in service, and 40 more will arrive by Q3. Of these buses, ten will be used for on-demand transit, which staff emphasized, will only begin service after all minibuses are delivered.
Some of the 7 metre buses have had problems with their heating systems. This problem is being fixed, and the buses will return to service.
The safety KPI charts are oddly cropped, as though someone put them together in a hurry.
In 2025, the number of employee occurrences increased by about 5%, an increase of 40 incidents. The "top" (or bottom) category was harmful, environmental, traumatic, and stressful events, followed by being struck/caught and slip-and-trips. Staff mentioned that they plan to improve mental health supports for employees this year.
The number of red light infractions (only at intersections with red light cameras) fell from 47 to 45 infractions in 2025.
The customer injury rate is significantly up in 2025, with higher injury rates every month except January, pushing this KPI slightly above OC Transpo's target. The top causes were braking, bus-in-motion, slip-and-trip, and embarking/disembarking.
The number of preventable collisions was very high last winter due to heavy snowfall, and is far above OC Transpo's target. The charts show a decrease in the collision rate, but this fall owes to a change in reporting procedures, not because there are necessarily fewer collisions. But the KPI looks good, and that's what matters.
With respect to the Westboro collision inquest recommendations, staff promised to report at the next Transit Committee.
Staff presented a large number of "headline statistics," of course, without the clarifying information that would make these KPIs useful.
The regular transit service saw 70.6 million rides in 2025, a 4% increase from 67.9 million in 2024; Para Transpo ridership was 885,600; OC Transpo's questionable "bus service delivery" stat was 97.2%, which means cancellations were 2.8% (about four and a half times higher than target); O-Train Line 1 cancellations were 0.9%, Lines 2/4 cancellations were 2.8%, challenging the conventional narrative that Line 2 is the reliable line and Line 1 is worse; bus headway spacing was allegedly good at 82%; punctuality was less good at 72%; and Para Transpo on-time performance was 94%.
Staff clarified, in response to Carr, that bus ridership is at 90% of pre-pandemic levels, while LRT ridership is at 65% of pre-pandemic levels.
Looking at more granular reliability statistics, bus cancellations sat at 4.6% in January, "regularity" was 80%, and on-time performance was 70%. 11% of buses ran early (from February 2025 to January 2026) while 17% ran late.
The 12-month average for these statistics is falling, compared to the December 2025 stat.
OC Transpo's chart for cancellation statistics has no useful y-axis (and therefore shows no useful information). As this continually happens, even with "headline statistics", one might almost start to believe conspiracy theories that the agency is trying to hide or obfuscate some kind of information.
Staff said 1/3 of cancellations were due to lack of buses, 1/3 were due to "on-street adjustments", 1/4 were due to lack of operators, and the remaining 8% or so were due to mechanical breakdowns, although the proportions do not look so neat in the chart.
The routes with the most cancellations were Route 12, with 9.2%; Route 6, 8.7% of trips cancelled; and Route 7, whose cancellation rate was 8.6%. These three routes are all perennials for top cancellations, along with Route 11. Given that they are among the busiest routes in OC Transpo's network, it is plausible that the average rider experiences a far higher rate of cancellations than the headline number.
On Line 1, the most frequent cause of cancellations was the spalling issue (sigh), passenger incidents - often medical ones, and switch problems. January service delivery was 87.1% (that is, 12.9% cancellations), and I expect that figure to slide as the spalling problem only made its appearance in late January.
January cancellations on Lines 2/4 were 4.9%. The main cause was said to be switch problems at South Keys, but rumours abound that they are still short on operators. Either way, the lightly used Line 4 bears the brunt of these cancellations.
Para Transpo on-time performance in January was 93%.
Miscellaneous
The meeting also tangentially covered other topics which are not included in the categories above.
After a "really good discussion" with staff, Leiper asked about the timeline for transit priority in his ward. Staff said that such measures require coordination with Traffic Services and Public Works, and said that they would continue to update councillors. They noted the Bank Street bus lanes in particular and the beginning of a review of Route 30.
Menard asked staff how they consider surface transit funding at budget time, to which staff responded with "cooperating with councillors" and how "things are improving". Menard floated the idea of accelerating bus lanes and funding for reliability measures, but the mayor and Council must make clear to staff that this is their direction, and fund it out of property taxes, not vague handwaves at upper levels of government. Additionally, if transit priority is what Council wants, they must prioritize transit in new suburbs and rebuilt roadways, which is the opposite of the happenings at City Hall.
In this vein, Carr asked whether staff had the money and authority to find used buses, refurbish them, and hire new mechanics this year, to which staff replied in the affirmative.
Kavanagh asked staff to investigate the effect of Stage 2 on accessibility on Richmond Road. This section is home to a quite high density of seniors, and Stage 2 created a patchwork of diversions, lumpy sidewalks, odd pathways, and crosswalks. With construction allegedly wrapping up next year, this is a little late to ask these questions, but Stage 3 should plan pedestrian access before construction starts.
Lessons learned, or not, if you're OC Transpo.
David Hill's motion on reporting LRT reliability carried without dissent. Given the (lack of a) contract structure with RTG and Alstom, it's not entirely clear what, if anything, the City can do to push Alstom to get moving on the CBAs.
Stephanie Plante introduced an inquiry on how cancellations affect low-income and disadvantaged groups, especially in her ward; Desroches introduced an inquiry on improving access to and increasing the park and ride spaces at the Line 2 stations in his ward; Carr submitted three inquiries - one on buses catching fire (?), a second on elevator downtime, especially at stations with only one elevator, and a third on feedback for OC Transpo's provision of free bus passes to homeless shelters and temporary housing programs.
There were nine delegations at this meeting. The mood was negative, as usual - despite cheery promises from OC Transpo and self-congratulations from councillors, it seems that transit riders do not agree.
Two delegations highlighted the lack of focus on Para Transpo, and the needs of users with mobility challenges. Once again, as a non-Para Transpo user, I cannot speak to the experience myself, and the data on this service is limited to two useless headline statistics in the updates.
This speaks to the continued lack of real, detailed data on transit operations, a focus on limiting the transit subsidy, and the lack of a vision to improve Para Transpo. The lack of transparency is reaching the point that councillors are turning to civil society for reliability data (as noted in one delegation). This should not be considered acceptable in the capital of Canada and a city of one million people, but it is the status quo.
Council lacks any transit improvement plan, apart from shouting slogans at City Council meetings. Eschewing transparent representation of the situation, they choose instead to talk about improvement, as they have for years (and none of it has appeared). Despite the ever present whack-a-mole, there's no indication that Council wants to put in work to create, prepare, and implement a transit improvement vision.
Through all this, new problems appear, though if you only read OC Transpo's "Next Stop Blog," you could be forgiven for believing that no one could predict "time." All this leaves the impression of a game of whack-a-mole. Transit riders wait for a bus that doesn't show up, jam onto stuffed trains every day, and if they can, drive, walk, or cycle. That's the real loss in how the City goes around the merry-go-round.
Until next time.
No comments:
Post a Comment