Quote:
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.