Ideas for transit revenue and fares

Review status

Ottawa has a sponsorship policy that covers City programs, infrastructure, and facilities. The Confederation Line project agreement says the City retains rights to name the system and any part of it. That establishes a policy and contractual starting point, not an available sponsorship, approval, or revenue estimate.

What to verify

• Which line assets are eligible under the current sponsorship policy and any line-specific agreements; which approvals and competitive process apply.
• Term, renewal and exit rights; bilingual and accessibility requirements; Indigenous and community consultation; naming continuity in maps, announcements, emergency response, and transfers.
• Market demand, valuation method, administrative cost, and the net amount that would actually reach transit after delivery and oversight costs.

Tradeoffs to weigh

• Could create a non-fare revenue stream, but no amount is established by the sources reviewed.
• A commercial name could make familiar stations and lines harder to recognize and would need strong public-interest and brand safeguards.

Review status

OC Transpo already offers adult fare capping up to the monthly-pass price. STO already offers a reloadable electronic purse: its regular 2026 rate is $4 per ride, with examples such as 10 rides for $40; it also lists 12 paper tickets for $57. Those products are useful comparators, not proof that another discount would add net revenue.

What to verify

• How many riders fall into each proposed frequency band, their current fare media, and how often they already reach OC Transpo’s fare cap or buy a monthly pass.
• Whether “pack” means discounted rides, stored value, or a payment bundle; eligibility, expiry, refunds, transfer rules, accessibility, and cross-operator acceptance.
• Net revenue after cannibalized full-fare or monthly-pass trips, unredeemed balances, payment and distribution costs, and impacts on riders with low incomes.

Tradeoffs to weigh

• Bulk products may make costs more predictable and reduce repeated purchases; an upfront bundle can also exclude people who cannot afford to prepay.
• Discounted packs could attract or retain occasional riders, but might shift existing trips from higher-yield fares or add fare-media complexity.

Review status

OC Transpo supports both PRESTO and O-Payment. City contract disclosures identify fare-collection-system operations and maintenance work with Scheidt & Bachmann, and O-Payment’s terms say its portal is managed by that company on the City’s behalf. The public records reviewed do not establish the full current contract scope, the division of PRESTO and payment-processing fees, or a complete cost comparison.

The proposed 2% → 6% → 10% Metrolinx fee sequence has not been verified from an official contract or fee schedule. Do not treat those percentages as established charges, savings, or a forecast; first obtain and reconcile the underlying agreements and transaction records.

What to verify

• Obtain current agreements, fee schedules, transaction and settlement records, contract terms, renewal dates, termination costs, and the roles of the City, Metrolinx/PRESTO, Scheidt & Bachmann, card networks, and STO.
• Model total lifecycle cost: hardware, software, staffing, security, fraud, customer support, accessibility, outages, data portability, refunds, and transition or dual-running costs.
• Define required fare capping, transfer, clearing, privacy, and interoperability outcomes before comparing in-house and external bids under the current procurement rules.

Tradeoffs to weigh

• An open competition may reveal alternatives and prices; it does not guarantee lower costs or permit changing a live contract outside its terms.
• In-house control may increase flexibility, but adds staffing, security, system-operation, and transition responsibilities.