Breakdown of these graphs:
Revenue hours/ Year- remained consistent
Revenue hours/ Capita- Decreased
Cost Recovery- Decreased
While is appears on the face that Transit isn't keeping up with growth, seeing a dip in cost recovery while maintaining revenue hours means that there was a ridership decrease.
What they didn't do was a graph on revenue hours per ridership
2014- 45.3 passengers/ service hour
2015- 43.8 passengers/ service hour
2016- 42.2 passengers/ service hour
2017- 42.7 passengers/ service hour
2018- 42.5 passengers/ service hour
2019- 42.3 passengers/ service hour
No surprise, these numbers align with the graph showing the decline in farebox recovery. So why did the population increase, but ETS ridership dropped? What was the root cause of that? Would tossing more money into more service get those riders back? Or would it just reduce the cost recovery ratio?
Over a longer timeframe of 2002-2019:
2002: 30.5 million revenue kilometers, 1.7 million vehicle hours, ridership 44.4 million
2019: 43.7 million revenue kilometers, 2.3 million vehicle hours, ridership 86.7 million
2002 population 700,000ish (data missing from CoE website)
2019 population 972,223
Population growth was 38.9%
Revenue kilometer growth 43.4%
Generally funding has kept pace with City growth over the long term. Certainly, service levels did stagnant in the 2014-2019 timeframe however, ridership did drop and importantly, service hours remained intact. I feel it is important to understand the root cause of that drop in ridership. Trust me. We did see lots of growth over the years. One particularly interesting time was 2007-2010 when Edmonton received 350ish new buses in a 3 year time span. The first 230 were supposed to replace the high floor buses, but into 2009 there were still upwards of 70-80 high floor buses. 2009's 121 new buses finally killed off the high floors plus expanded the fleet. On top of that the full length of the SLRT opened, and buses and service hours not used for LRT, remained with the bus network.
Additionally, this was under the old network. How will these metrics look under the BNR?
Already we have seen a increase in funding for Transit given that the BNR kept the same budget as the previous network had, so, when the money was put into On Demand that represented growth. It sounds like too that ETS might well get to keep the service hours from the 510x when the Valley Line SE LRT opens. That will represent further growth to Transit.
Theoretically, what would happen is that once TransEd is operating the Valley Line, ETS/ CoE would reduce the ETS budget by the 510x costs and allocate that towards the monthly payments to TransEd for operating the LRT line. The 510x costs wouldn't cover all of that, however, that means without it the City needs additional funding to pay TransEd.