1. Transit Service in Villages and Rural Areas

Service de transport en commun dans les villages et les zones rurales

Committee Recommendations

That Council approve the provision of transit services in the villages and rural areas of Ottawa, (as described in the reports dated 12 March and 27 March 2002), from September 3, 2002, and in particular that:

1. OC Transpo rural express service be increased from Stittsville and from Richmond, and new OC Transpo rural express service be introduced from Greely, Manotick, and Navan and Notre Dame des Champs;

2. OC Transpo Transitway service be introduced from Stittsville;

3. OC Transpo local service be introduced from Greely, Manotick (via South Nepean and via River Road), and Richmond;

4. The City tender for the supply of local bus service within Stittsville and for connector bus service from Ashton and Munster, Carp, Cumberland and Navan, Dunrobin, North Gower and Kars, and Vars;

5. The General Manager be authorized to enter into agreements with private inter-regional bus companies to enhance the service that they now provide from Cumberland, Osgoode, Vars, Vernon and Metcalfe, West Carleton, and other places inside and outside the City, and to enter into agreements with other municipalities to integrate any new services that they introduce with the OC Transpo system;

6. Small park and ride lots be established within existing lots in or near Constance Bay, Cumberland, Dunrobin, Greely, Kinburn, Manotick, Navan, Notre Dame des Champs, Richmond, and Stittsville;

7. Para Transpo service be extended to all parts of the City of Ottawa;

8. Fares be charged for the recommended services as listed in Tables 3 and 4;

9. A new Rural Transit Area be established, with two zones (as shown on Map 5), inside which a property tax levy will be charged;

10. The net annual operating and capital costs of the program be funded in full by a levy on the Rural Transit Area (this net operating cost is expected to be 50 percent of the operating cost of conventional service and 70 percent of the total cost of Para Transpo service);

11. City Council approve the 2002 operating and capital budget requirements as detailed in the Financial Implications section of the report, including debt funding of Project 901165 Rural Service Expansion (2002 Draft Capital Budget P606);

12. The boundaries of the inner zone of the rural transit area be revised to exclude the section of West Carleton south and west of Highway 417 and the section of Goulbourn south and west of Dwyer Hill Road (Map 1);

13. The connector bus service from Ashton be removed after August 30, 2002, cutting back the service to start at Munster;

14. A new rural express service be introduced from Vars and Carlsbad Springs on September 3, 2002, in place of the connector service previously recommended; and

15. The funding and fares for Para Transpo service be changed as detailed in this report, so that the service is funded 20 percent from customers’ fares and 80 percent from a property tax levy.

Recommandations du Comité

Que le Conseil municipal approuve la prestation de services de transport en commun dans les villages et zones rurales d’Ottawa à partir du 3 septembre 2002 (telle que décrite dans les rapports datés du 12 mars et 27 mars 2002), et notamment :

1. l’accroissement du service express rural d’OC Transpo à partir de Stittsville et de Richmond ainsi que l’établissement d’un nouveau service express rural d’OC Transpo depuis Greely, Manotick, Navan et Notre-Dame-des-Champs;

2. l’établissement d’un service du Transitway d’OC Transpo depuis Stittsville;

3. l’établissement d’un service local d’OC Transpo depuis Greely, Manotick (en passant par Nepean Sud et le chemin River) et Richmond;

4. l’émission d’un appel d’offres par la Ville pour la prestation d’un service d’autobus local dans Stittsville ainsi que d’un service d’autobus de liaison depuis Ashton, Munster, Carp, Cumberland, Navan, Dunrobin, North Gower, Kars and Vars;

5. que la directrice générale soit autorisée à conclure des ententes avec des compagnies d’autobus interrégionales privées afin d’améliorer le service qu’elles fournissent actuellement depuis Cumberland, Osgoode, Vars, Vernon, Metcalfe, West Carleton et d’autres endroits à l’intérieur et à l’extérieur de la Ville, ainsi qu’avec d’autres municipalités afin d’intégrer tout nouveau service établi au réseau d’OC Transpo;

6. l’aménagement de petits parc-o-bus dans les stationnements existants près de ou à Constance Bay, Cumberland, Dunrobin, Greely, Kinburn, Manotick, Navan, Notre-Dame-des-Champs, Richmond et Stittsville;

7. l’extension du service Para Transpo à tous les quartiers d’Ottawa;

8. le paiement de tarifs pour les services recommandés, tel qu’il est indiqué au Tableaux 3 et 4;

9. la création d’un nouveau secteur rural de transport en commun qui comporterait deux zones (tel qu’il est montré sur le Plan 5), et le prélèvement d’un impôt foncier dans ce secteur;

10. le financement total des coûts d’exploitation et des dépenses en immobilisations nets annuels du programme grâce à une taxe prélevée dans le secteur rural de transport en commun (on prévoit que ce coût d’exploitation net représentera 50 % du coût d’exploitation du service conventionnel et 70 % du coût total du service Para Transpo);

11. les exigences budgétaires de fonctionnement et d’immobilisations de 2002 telles qu’elles sont expliquées dans la section du rapport intitulée Incidences financières, y compris le financement de la dette du Projet 901165, Expansion du service rural (avant-projet de budget d’immobilisations 2002, P606);

12. Les limites de la zone intérieure du secteur rural de transport en commun seront révisées de manière à exclure la partie de West Carleton située au sud et à l’ouest de l’autoroute 417 et la partie de Goulbourn située au sud et à l’ouest du chemin Dwyer Hill (plan 1);

13. Après le 30 août 2002, le service d’autobus de liaison depuis Ashton sera réduit et commencera à Munster;

14. Un nouveau service express rural depuis Vars et Carlsbad Springs sera établi le 3 septembre 2002, à la place du service de liaison recommandé précédemment;

15. Le financement et les tarifs du service Para Transpo seront modifiés de la manière décrite dans le présent rapport, de façon que le service soit financé à 20 pour cent en provenance des tarifs perçus des clients et à 80 pour cent en provenance d’une taxe foncière.

Documentation

1. Transportation, Utilities and Public Works Department General Manager’s report dated 12 March 2002 is immediately attached (ACS2002-TUP-TRN-0003).

2. An Extract of Minutes, 20 March 2002, follows the report and includes the voting record.

3. Transportation, Utilities and Public Works Department General Manager’s supplementary report dated 27 March 2002 follows the Extract of Minutes (ACS2002-TUP-TRN-0006).

4. S. Brownrigg-Smith, President of Orchard Estates Community Association submission dated 2 April 2002 immediately follows the aformentioned report.

5. An Extract of Draft Minutes, 3 April 2002, will be distributed prior to Council and will include the voting record.

Report to/Rapport au:

Transportation and Transit Committee/

Comité des transport et des services de transport en commun

Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee/

Comité chargé de l’agriculture et des questions rurales

and Council/et au Conseil

March 12, 2002/le 12 mars 2002

Submitted by/Soumis par: R.T. Leclair, General Manager/Directrice générale,

Transportation, Utilities and Public Works/Transport, services et travaux publics

Contact/Personne-ressource: G. Diamond, Director/Directeur,

Transit Services/Service du transport en commun

842-3636 ext. 2271, gordon.diamond@transpo.ottawa.on.ca

Ref N°: ACS2002-TUP-TRN-0003

SUBJECT: TRANSIT SERVICE IN VILLAGES AND RURAL AREAS

OBJET: SERVICE DE TRANSPORT EN COMMUN DANS LES VILLAGES ET LES ZONES RURALES

REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Transportation and Transit Committee and the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee recommend to Council the provision of transit services in the villages and rural areas of Ottawa, as described in this report, from September 3, 2002, and in particular that:

1. OC Transpo rural express service be increased from Stittsville and from Richmond, and new OC Transpo rural express service be introduced from Greely, Manotick, and Navan and Notre Dame des Champs;

2. OC Transpo Transitway service be introduced from Stittsville;

3. OC Transpo local service be introduced from Greely, Manotick (via South Nepean and via River Road), and Richmond;

4. The City tender for the supply of local bus service within Stittsville and for connector bus service from Ashton and Munster, Carp, Cumberland and Navan, Dunrobin, North Gower and Kars, and Vars;

6. Small park and ride lots be established within existing lots in or near Constance Bay, Cumberland, Dunrobin, Greely, Kinburn, Manotick, Navan, Notre Dame des Champs, Richmond, and Stittsville;

7. Para Transpo service be extended to all parts of the City of Ottawa;

8. Fares be charged for the recommended services as listed in Tables 3 and 4;

9. A new Rural Transit Area be established, with two zones (as shown on Map 5), inside which a property tax levy will be charged;

10. The net annual operating and capital costs of the program be funded in full by a levy on the Rural Transit Area (this net operating cost is expected to be 50 percent of the operating cost of conventional service and 70 percent of the total cost of Para Transpo service); and

11. City Council approve the 2002 operating and capital budget requirements as detailed in the Financial Implications section of the report, including debt funding of Project 901165 Rural Service Expansion (2002 Draft Capital Budget P606).

RECOMMANDATIONS DU RAPPORT

Que le Comité des transports et des services de transport en commun et le Comité chargé de l’agriculture et des questions rurales recommande au Conseil municipal la prestation de services de transport en commun dans les villages et zones rurales d’Ottawa à partir du 3 septembre 2002, telle que décrite dans le présent rapport, et notamment :

2. l’établissement d’un service du Transitway d’OC Transpo depuis Stittsville;

3. l’établissement d’un service local d’OC Transpo depuis Greely, Manotick (en passant par Nepean Sud et un autre, en passant par le chemin River) et Richmond;

4. l’émission d’un appel d’offres par la Ville pour la prestation d’un service d’autobus local dans Stittsville ainsi que des services d’autobus de liaison depuis Ashton, Munster, Carp, Cumberland, Navan, Dunrobin, North Gower, Kars and Vars;

7. l’extension du service Para Transpo à tous les quartiers d’Ottawa;

8. le paiement de tarifs pour les services recommandés, tel qu’il est indiqué au Tableaux 3 et 4;

9. la création d’un nouveau secteur rural de transport en commun qui comporterait deux zones (tel qu’il est montré sur le Plan 5), et le prélèvement d’un impôt foncier dans ce secteur;

10. le financement total des coûts d’exploitation et des dépenses en immobilisations nets annuels du programme grâce à une taxe prélevée dans le secteur rural de transport en commun (on prévoit que ce coût d’exploitation net représentera 50 % du coût d’exploitation du service conventionnel et 70 % du coût total du service Para Transpo);

BACKGROUND

OC Transpo service and full Para Transpo service are provided in the urban part of the City of Ottawa, generally from Kanata to Orleans and as far south as South Nepean and Riverside South. This part of the City is defined by by-law as the Urban Transit Area (UTA), and within this area, a levy is applied on property taxes to fund transit service, and the transit service is provided according to service standards approved by Council.

Prior to the amalgamation of the new City of Ottawa in January 2001, limited transit services were provided outside the UTA. The Township of Goulbourn contracted with OC Transpo to provide express service to downtown from Stittsville and Richmond and with a private contractor to provide local service within Stittsville, and the Township of Rideau contracted with OC Transpo to provide a weekly shoppers’ service to Carlingwood. Para Transpo service for travellers with disabilities was provided in the rural parts of Cumberland, Gloucester, Goulbourn, Kanata, and Nepean, but not in Osgoode, Rideau, or West Carleton. Since January 1, 2001, these arrangements have continued. Details of the present service are provided in Appendix A.

At its meeting of March 20, 2001, the Transportation and Transit Committee approved a report entitled, “Service Standards – Regular Transit and Para Transpo Outside the Urban Transit Area.” This report outlined the history and the present status of transit service outside the UTA, and presented for approval a plan to develop service standards for transit service outside the UTA.

At its meeting of June 4, 2001, the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee received a further report, entitled, “Service Standards – Regular Transit and Para Transpo Outside the Urban Transit Area – Public Consultation Plan.” This report described the current status of transit service outside the UTA and presented a plan to consult with residents regarding their travel needs and how public transportation in their areas might be provided and how it might be funded.

These reports are available from Secretariat Services under Ref. Nos. ACS2001-TUP-TRN-0002 and ACS2001-TUP-TRN-0009.

Staff and Councillors organised and attended 12 public open houses, six in June 2001 and six in November 2001, to consult with rural residents on their travel needs and on their views on how any possible public transportation services should be operated and funded.

At the first round of open houses, staff presented information on population, travel patterns, current transit services, and potential options for expanded public transportation. Staff invited broad discussion about public transportation provision. As well as the more-traditional regular transit service, rural residents were asked to consider alternatives such as cooperation with private bus companies and van pooling.

Based on the public input from the first round and on detailed analysis of the most promising options, specific proposals were provided for the second round of consultation. This allowed the discussion to focus on implementation issues, so that the recommendations in this report could be developed.

The recommendations in this report do not impact the transit service that is now provided inside the Urban Transit Area. No changes are recommended to the boundary of the Urban Transit Area. Rather, a new rural transit area is proposed, with a combined funding from the rural property tax base and customers’ fares.

DISCUSSION

Potential transit travel market

Approximately 100,000 people live in the rural parts of Ottawa, outside the UTA. The largest villages are: Stittsville, with a population of approximately 14,000, Manotick, with 4700, Richmond, with 3700, Greely, with 3300, Osgoode, with 2700, and Constance Bay, with 2400. The villages of Carp, Cumberland, Metcalfe, Navan, and North Gower all have populations between 1000 and 2000. Table 1 shows the population of each village with a population over 500. The remaining approximately 60,000 rural residents live outside the villages.

Travel and employment surveys have found that within these villages, just over half the population is employed. Of these people, approximately one-fifth work in central parts of Ottawa and Gatineau that are easily-reached by transit. Experience within the UTA shows that between 10 and 30 percent of these people would use transit service if it were provided, depending on whether the service offered choices of departure times and whether the service was fast and direct.

It is estimated that between 900 and 1400 residents outside the UTA would be eligible to register for Para Transpo service because of the nature of their disabilities.

The comments received through the consultation process indicate that many rural residents do not have access to their own automobiles and thus are dependent on others for their travel needs. This includes young people, seniors, and people with disabilities.

Development of recommendations

Information from the consultation process indicates that the greatest interest among village and rural residents is for direct transit service to central Ottawa for work and school trips during peak periods. The next-greatest interest is for local service to and within the larger rural villages, to accommodate shopping trips, trips to work after school, and to connect with the OC Transpo network.

The comments that were received during the consultation process reflected a wide range of opinions on how any transit service in rural areas should be funded. Most of the comments supported funding from both transit fares and from property taxes. Many rural residents suggested that the funding through property taxes be shared widely across the city.

Based on the information that was received during the consultation process (see Appendix B for a summary) and from previous travel surveys, staff have calculated that peak-period express service to central Ottawa could be successful from villages with populations of 2000 or more, funded approximately 80 percent from fares and 20 percent from taxes. The number of trips that can be offered, and thus the attractiveness of the service, is greater in the villages with a larger population. In villages with a population smaller than 2000, if express service were provided, the number of customers would be smaller, and a higher proportion of the funding would need to come from taxes. For villages with populations between 1000 and 2000, low-cost contracted connector bus services, such as those now operated from Ashton and Munster to Richmond, could be successful. These services connect smaller villages with express services to downtown Ottawa, and serve as a phased approach to possible future direct express services.

It has been calculated that all-day local service could be successful from and within villages with populations of 3000 or more, funded approximately 30 percent from fares and 70 percent from taxes. As for rural express service, more choices in route and in departure time can be offered in villages with a larger population. The same choices could be offered in smaller villages, again with a high proportion of the funding from taxes.

Through the consultation process, staff heard from some customers who now use the privately-operated inter-regional bus services which operate into downtown Ottawa from villages and towns outside the city limits. These customers were generally very happy with the service they receive, but would prefer to have more choices of travel time and better integration with OC Transpo services.

Residents with disabilities or who have family members with disabilities suggested that Para Transpo service be expanded to cover the entire city, and that trips which start and end outside the UTA be permitted, in addition to the present trips between the UTA and the rural area. Some rural residents who are already Para Transpo clients suggested that the fares be reduced, by moving a greater share of the total cost from fares to taxes.

RECOMMENDED REGULAR TRANSIT SERVICES

The recommendations for public transportation outside the UTA are described below. These include an expansion of rural commuter services, like the 200-series routes operating from Goulbourn today, an extension of Transitway service to Stittsville, an expansion of all-day rural local services and commuter connector services, expanded park and ride facilities, expanded Para Transpo service (detailed in the next section), and partnerships with private inter-regional bus companies. There was little interest expressed through the consultation in van pools, and these have not been included in the recommendations.

Ridership on these services is projected to be approximately 1800 customer-trips each day from Monday to Friday, or approximately 454,000 per year, including weekend ridership. It is expected that ridership would reach this level within several months. A review of the actual ridership achieved would be included in a follow-up report after one year of operation.

While no formal service standards are proposed at this stage, the recommendations are based on a preliminary service design guideline of 80 percent average cost-recovery for rural express services and 30 percent for all-day routes. This enables villages of more than 2000 population to support rural express service during the morning and afternoon peak periods and those of more than 3000 to support all-day local service. Overall, the operating costs of the transit service would be covered approximately 50 percent through passengers’ fares and 50 percent through a tax levy on properties in a proposed Rural Transit Area. (For comparison, transit service in the urban area is funded 60 percent from fares and 40 percent from a tax levy.) The Rural Transit Area would have an inner zone, in which taxes would support regular and Para Transpo services, and an outer zone, in which taxes would support only Para Transpo services.

The recommended fares for regular service are based on an extension of OC Transpo’s current fare system, which would enable existing tickets and passes to be used. For rural express services from the rural area, the single fare would be $1.25, or one 85-cent ticket, more than the OC Transpo urban express fare. Passes would be available for unlimited travel, and would give the highest discount from the cash fare.

The new services would be introduced on September 3, 2002, on the same day as the fall service changes on the rest of the OC Transpo system.

The service provided by private inter-regional bus companies would be enhanced by integrating it more closely with OC Transpo services. These enhancements are expected to increase ridership on the inter-regional services, perhaps allowing the companies to increase service both within and beyond the boundaries of the City of Ottawa. The main companies now serving Ottawa are Bergeron Bus Lines, 417 Bus Line, Laidlaw Inc., Leduc Bus Lines, and Transport Thom (operating the former Carleton 3000 routes); additional services are provided by other smaller companies.

Ashton and Munster (Map 1)

· Continue the present connector bus service to Richmond, connecting there with rural express buses to downtown Ottawa. The two connector trips would meet two of the three rural express trips. Ridership on this service is estimated to be approximately 40 customer-trips each day, or 10,000 per year.

· Establish park and ride lots in Richmond and at the present Carp Road carpool lot north of Stittsville, where travellers can park their cars and transfer to the rural express service to central Ottawa.

· Work with Transport Thom to enhance the present inter-regional service on Highway 7 to downtown Ottawa by integrating fares, schedules, and public information with OC Transpo.

Carp (Map 1)

· Introduce a new connector bus service to the Carp Road park and ride lot, connecting there with rural express buses from Stittsville to downtown Ottawa. One trip would run south from Carp each morning from Monday to Friday and one trip would run north to Carp each afternoon. Ridership on this service is estimated to be approximately 20 customer-trips each day, or 5000 per year.

· Establish park and ride service at the present Carp Road carpool lot north of Stittsville, where travellers can park their cars and transfer to the rural express service to central Ottawa.

Constance Bay and Fitzroy Harbour (Map 1)

· Work with Transport Thom to enhance the present inter-regional service to downtown Ottawa by integrating fares, schedules, and public information with OC Transpo.

· Establish small park and ride areas within existing parking lots along Kinburn Side Road, where travellers can park their cars and transfer to the service provided by Transport Thom.

· Establish a small park and ride area within an existing parking lot near Dunrobin, where travellers from other areas in West Carleton can park their cars and transfer to the different services to Kanata and to central Ottawa.

· An expansion of the present Eagleson park and ride lot in Kanata is included in the 2002 capital budget; customers can park their cars there and transfer to the frequent urban express service to downtown Ottawa.

Cumberland Village (Map 3)

· Work with Leduc Bus Lines to enhance the present inter-regional service to downtown Ottawa by integrating fares, schedules, and public information with OC Transpo.

· Work with the City of Clarence-Rockland on their plans for future transit service. Buses from Rockland could stop in Cumberland en route to Place d’Orléans or downtown Ottawa. (If Clarence-Rockland does not proceed with these plans, introduce a new connector bus to the Trim Road park and ride lot in Orleans.)

· Introduce a new after-school connector bus from Place d’Orléans, to carry customers home from after-school events and jobs in Orleans and to accommodate connections from the rest of the OC Transpo network. Two trips would run east from Orleans each afternoon and evening. Ridership on this service is estimated at approximately 10 customer-trips each day, or 2500 per year.

· An expansion of the present Trim Road carpool lot and the introduction of new urban express service to downtown Ottawa is included in the 2002 capital and operating budgets.

Dunrobin (Map 1)

· Introduce a new connector bus to the Eagleson park and ride lot in Kanata, connecting there with urban express buses to downtown Ottawa. One new trip would run south to Kanata each morning from Monday to Friday and one trip would return north each afternoon. Ridership on this service is estimated at approximately 20 customer-trips each day, or 5000 per year.

· Introduce a new after-school connector bus to the Eagleson park and ride lot and to the Kanata Centrum, to carry customers to jobs in Kanata and to make connections with the rest of the OC Transpo network. One trip would run south to Kanata each afternoon and one trip would return north each evening. Ridership on this service is estimated at approximately 20 customer-trips each day, or 5000 per year.

· Work with Transport Thom to enhance the present inter-regional service to downtown Ottawa by integrating fares, schedules, and public information with OC Transpo.

· Establish a small park and ride area within an existing parking lot, where travellers from other areas in West Carleton can park their cars and transfer to the different services to Kanata and to central Ottawa.

Greely (Map 2)

· Introduce a new rural express service to downtown Ottawa, via Leitrim, South Keys, and Confederation Heights. Connections would be available at Greenboro Station with the O-Train for Carleton University and in downtown Ottawa for Gatineau. One trip would run north to downtown Ottawa each morning from Monday to Friday and one trip would return south each afternoon. Ridership outside the UTA on this service is estimated at 50 customer-trips each day, or 13,000 per year.

· Introduce a new local service to South Keys, via Leitrim and the Hindu Temple of Ottawa-Carleton. Connections would be available at South Keys and Greenboro stations with the O-Train and the rest of the OC Transpo network. This service would run every two hours, from approximately 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday. Ridership outside the UTA on this service is estimated at 100 customer-trips each day, or 30,000 per year.

· Establish a small park and ride area within an existing parking lot, where travellers from other areas in Osgoode Township can park their cars and transfer to the rural express and local services to South Keys and central Ottawa.

Kars and North Gower (Map 2)

· Introduce a new connector bus to Manotick, connecting there with rural express buses to downtown Ottawa. One trip would run to Manotick each morning from Monday to Friday and one trip would return each afternoon. Ridership on this service is estimated at approximately 20 customer-trips each day, or 5000 per year.

· Continue the present Friday-only shoppers’ service to Carlingwood. Ridership on this service is now approximately 30 customer-trips each Friday, or 1500 per year.

· Establish a small park and ride area within an existing parking lot in Manotick, where travellers can park their cars and transfer to the rural express and local services to South Nepean, South Keys, and central Ottawa.

Manotick (Map 2)

· Introduce a new rural express service to downtown Ottawa, via River Road, South Keys, and Confederation Heights. Connections would be available at Greenboro Station with the O-Train for Carleton University and in downtown Ottawa for Gatineau. Two trips would run north to downtown Ottawa each morning from Monday to Friday, and two trips would return south each afternoon. Ridership outside the UTA on this service is estimated at 100 customer-trips each day, or 25,000 per year.

· Introduce a new local service to South Keys, via River Road and Riverside South. Connections would be available at South Keys and Greenboro stations with the O‑Train and the rest of the OC Transpo network. This service would run every two hours, from approximately 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday. Ridership outside the UTA on this service is estimated at 100 customer-trips each day, or 30,000 per year.

· Introduce a new local service from Manotick, via South Nepean, to Fallowfield Station. Connections would be available there with the rest of the OC Transpo network. This service would run every two hours, from approximately 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday. Ridership on this service is estimated at 100 customer-trips each day, or 30,000 per year.

· Work with Laidlaw to enhance the present inter-regional service to downtown Ottawa by integrating fares, schedules, and public information with OC Transpo.

· Establish a small park and ride area within an existing parking lot, where travellers from other areas in Osgoode and Rideau townships can park their cars and transfer to the rural express and local services to South Nepean, South Keys, and central Ottawa.

Metcalfe and Vernon (Map 2)

· Work with Laidlaw to enhance the present inter-regional service to downtown Ottawa by integrating fares, schedules, and public information with OC Transpo.

· Establish a small park and ride area within an existing parking lot in Greely, where travellers can park their cars and transfer to the rural express and local services to South Keys and central Ottawa.

Navan and Notre Dame des Champs (Map 3)

· Introduce a new rural express service to downtown Ottawa, via Navan Road, Chapel Hill South, and Blair Station. Connections would be available at Hurdman Station for Carleton University and in downtown Ottawa for Gatineau. Two trips would run west to downtown Ottawa each morning from Monday to Friday, and two trips would return each afternoon. Ridership outside the UTA on this service is estimated at 100 customer-trips each day, or 25,000 per year.

· Introduce a new after-school connector bus from Place d’Orléans, to carry customers home from after-school events and jobs in Orleans and to accommodate connections from the rest of the OC Transpo network. Two trips would run south from Orleans each afternoon and evening. Ridership on this service is estimated at approximately 10 customer-trips each day, or 2500 per year.

· Establish small park and ride areas within existing parking lots in Navan and Notre Dame des Champs, where travellers from other areas in Cumberland Township can park their cars and transfer to the rural express services to central Ottawa.

Osgoode (Map 2)

· Work with Laidlaw to enhance the present inter-regional service to downtown Ottawa by integrating fares, schedules, and public information with OC Transpo.

Richmond and Fallowfield Village (Map 2)

· Increase service on the present rural express service to downtown Ottawa. Change the route to operate by Fallowfield Village and via Fallowfield Station, to reduce travel time and to increase the number of people with access to the service. Three trips would run east to downtown Ottawa each morning from Monday to Friday, and three trips would return each afternoon. Ridership outside the UTA on this service is estimated at 150 customer-trips each day, or 38,000 per year.

· Introduce a new local service from Richmond, via Fallowfield Village, to Fallowfield Station. Connections would be available there with the rest of the OC Transpo network. This service would run every two hours, from approximately 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday. Ridership on this service is estimated at 100 customer-trips each day, or 30,000 per year.

· Establish a small park and ride area within an existing parking lot, where travellers from other areas in Goulbourn and Rideau townships can park their cars and transfer to the rural express and local services to South Nepean and central Ottawa.

Stittsville (Map 1)

· Increase service on the present rural express services to downtown Ottawa. Six trips would run east to downtown Ottawa each morning from Monday to Friday, and six trips would return each afternoon. Establish two routes, one to serve the eastern part of Stittsville and Hazeldean Road, and one to serve the western part of Stittsville and the proposed Carp Road park and ride lot at Highway 417. Ridership outside the UTA on this service is estimated at 360 customer-trips each day, or 91,000 per year.

· Introduce a new extension to the Transitway service that now operates from Kanata to central Ottawa, so that some trips begin in Stittsville. This service would run every hour, from approximately 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday. Ridership outside the UTA on this service is estimated at 300 customer-trips each day, or 90,000 per year.

· Revise the current Stittsville Shuttle service so that it provides a local service within Stittsville, connecting residential areas, schools, shopping areas, and employment areas, and connecting with the Transitway services to Kanata and central Ottawa. This service would run every hour, from approximately 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday to Friday. Ridership on this service is estimated at 200 customer-trips each day, or 50,000 per year.

· Establish park and ride service at the present Carp Road carpool lot at Highway 417, where travellers from other areas in Goulbourn and West Carleton townships can park their cars and transfer to the rural express service to central Ottawa.

Vars (Map 3)

· Work with 417 Bus Line and Bergeron Bus Lines to enhance the present inter-regional services to downtown Ottawa by integrating fares, schedules, and public information with OC Transpo, and by improving access from the village of Vars.

· Introduce a new connector bus service to the highway interchange south of Vars, to connect there with the inter-regional bus services to downtown Ottawa. The schedule of this service would be set to meet all scheduled trips in the morning and afternoon from Monday to Friday. Ridership on this service is estimated at approximately 20 customer-trips each day, or 5000 per year.

· Introduce a new connector bus service to Navan, connecting there with the rural express service to downtown Ottawa. One trip would run north to Navan each morning from Monday to Friday and one trip would return south each afternoon. Ridership on this service is estimated at approximately 20 customer-trips each day, or 5000 per year.

· Establish a small park and ride area within an existing parking lot in Navan, where travellers can park their cars and transfer to the rural express service to central Ottawa.

COSTS AND FARES FOR REGULAR SERVICES

Capital costs

The capital costs to introduce the recommended services would be to buy buses, to establish park and ride areas in existing parking lots, and to buy and install shelters at some of the major bus stops.

To operate the rural express services, the extension of Transitway service to Stittsville, and the local services to Greely, Manotick, and Richmond as part of the OC Transpo system would require the use of nine buses. To make nine additional buses available for service each day requires eleven additional buses in the OC Transpo fleet. These eleven buses would be made available through late 2002 and early 2003 by delaying the planned retirement of older buses. From 2003, the eleven buses would be made available by buying seven new articulated buses and reassigning to the rural services eleven 40-foot buses from busy routes in central Ottawa. The new articulated buses would cost approximately $4.9-million.

Shelters would be installed at the bus stops at the park and ride locations and at other major stops in the central parts of villages. Approximately ten shelters would be required, at a cost of approximately $50,000. Renovation and modification would be required at some parking lots to create park and ride areas. This work is estimated to cost another $50,000.

The cost of buses for the contracted local and connector services would be included in the amount that would be paid to the contractor.

Operating costs

The operating costs for the services that would be operated by OC Transpo would cover the cost of operators’ wages, fuel and maintenance, and supervision. The total cost to provide the conventional transit services that would be operated by OC Transpo would be approximately $1.7-million per year ($570,000 in 2002), as shown in more detail in Table 2.

The operating costs for the contracted services would cover all costs related to the provision of service, including the cost for the contractors to buy and own the buses they would use. The total cost to provide the contracted services would be approximately $370,000 per year ($123,000 in 2002), as shown in more detail in Table 2. The exact cost of the contracted services would be known only after contracts have been awarded to the successful bidders.

The costs of information, marketing, and other common elements are shared between the services that would be operated by OC Transpo and the contracted services and are included in the above numbers.

Fare revenue

The fares for the rural services would be fully-integrated with the OC Transpo fare structure. The recommended fares for conventional service are listed on Table 3. Overall, the fares would cover approximately 50 percent of the operating cost of the recommended services, with the remaining 50 percent coming from property taxes.

The fares for the rural express services would be higher than the fares for express services within the urban transit area, to reflect the higher cost to operate these services over longer distances and also to cover a greater share of the costs of these services from fares rather than from property taxes. For cash fares, an additional $1.25 would be collected, for a fare per trip of $4.75. Four tickets could be used, for a fare of $3.40. Discounts would be given for the use of passes, so that the effective cost of a trip would be as low as $2.43 for an Ecopass subscriber. Discounts would also be given on monthly passes for students and seniors and on single fares for children from 6 to 11. Fares would cover approximately 80 percent of the operating cost of these services.

The fares for the local and Transitway services would be the same as the current OC Transpo regular fares. There would be no surcharge on these fares, to encourage the use of the new transit services at off-peak times. The adult cash fare would be $2.50, and discounts would be given for the use of tickets or monthly passes, and for children, students, and seniors. Fares would cover approximately 30 percent of the operating cost of these services.

No fare would be collected on the connector bus services from Ashton and Munster, Carp, North Gower and Kars, and Vars. Almost all of the customers who would use these services would be connecting to the rural express services or inter-regional services, and the fare they pay on those services would contribute a large part of the total cost of their trip.

A special reduced fare would be charged for local travel within Stittsville and on the connector buses from Dunrobin and to Cumberland and Navan. This fare would be $1.25 cash or one OC Transpo ticket, and rural express passes would also be accepted. Customers boarding the Stittsville local service could pay the regular OC Transpo fare, and receive a transfer to change to the Transitway service, or the reduced local fare, and receive no transfer. Customers using the connector bus from Dunrobin would pay the same fare to travel to downtown Ottawa as customers on any of the rural express services, but they would pay it in two parts. As on the local service in Stittsville, customers using the after-school services from Dunrobin and to Cumberland and Navan could pay the reduced fare if they were not transferring to or from other OC Transpo services.

A special fare would be charged on the connector bus from Dunrobin, because it would be the only one of the connector buses that connects with the OC Transpo system within the boundary of the UTA, where the rural express fare surcharge would not be collected. The fare on this service would be $1.25 cash or one OC Transpo ticket, and rural express passes would also be accepted. The fare that customers travelling from Dunrobin to downtown Ottawa would pay would be exactly the same as the fare that customers on any of the rural express services would pay, but they would pay it in two parts.

The recommended services to rural parts of Ottawa have been designed so that, where possible, they are shared with residents of the UTA, to reduce the costs for rural taxpayers and to increase travel options for urban residents. This would be done only where it is possible to give customers travelling to or from the rural area first priority. In particular:

· The rural express services running to downtown Ottawa in the morning peak period would pick up additional customers in Chapel Hill South, Kanata, Leitrim, Riverside South, South Keys, and South Nepean, so that the buses would be full as they travel to downtown.

· In the afternoon, the rural express buses to Greely and Manotick would carry some customers to Leitrim and Riverside South, where there is now no direct service from downtown Ottawa. All customers would pay an urban express fare as they board the bus downtown, and customers travelling to points outside the UTA would pay the surcharge or show their rural express pass as they leave the bus.

· On the other rural express buses, customers would pay their rural express fare as they board the buses downtown. This would encourage customers travelling to points within the UTA to ride other services and thus to make sure that customers travelling to Navan, Notre Dame des Champs, Richmond, and Stittsville are not left behind.

· The all-day local services from Greely, Manotick, and Richmond would carry additional customers in Leitrim, Riverside South, and South Nepean.

The fare revenues listed in Table 2 include a contribution from these customers’ fares and from the urban transit levy equal to the cost that would normally be required to carry these customers within the UTA. This strategy reduces the net cost of operation of the recommended services by approximately $165,000.

Based on the projected levels of ridership, fare revenue for the recommended services is expected to be approximately $1.1-million per year ($353,000 in 2002).

RECOMMENDED PARA TRANSPO SERVICE

Para Transpo service would be expanded so that it is available to residents throughout the entire City of Ottawa. This would bring new service for travellers with disabilities to Osgoode, Rideau, and West Carleton, and would also allow for the first time trips to be made between any two points in the rural area. The new service would be administered along with the present Para Transpo service in the UTA and would be provided by Para Transpo contractors. The fares for Para Transpo service in the rural areas would be higher than in the urban area, and would vary according to the distance travelled. The service would be funded approximately 30 percent from fares and 70 percent from property taxes.

The same eligibility criteria and operating method would be used for Para Transpo services in the rural area as are now in place in the urban area. People who have permanent or short-term disabilities who are physically unable to walk to or board regular transit can register for Para Transpo service. Customers call the Para Transpo office in advance to make reservations, and a van or car is dispatched at the specified time.

It is estimated that between 900 and 1400 residents in the rural area would be eligible to register for Para Transpo service because of the nature of their disabilities, and that these people would make approximately 12,000 trips each year.

Para Transpo fares for the rural area would range from $3.50 to $27.75, depending on the distance travelled. These fares are higher than those within the UTA, to reflect the higher cost to operate these services over longer distances and also to cover a greater share of the costs of these services from fares rather than from property taxes.

Trips entirely within the villages of Greely, Manotick, Richmond, or Stittsville would have a flat fare of $3.50. Trips between Stittsville and Kanata or between Manotick and South Nepean would have a flat fare of $7.50. Trips between the rural area and the UTA would be charged according to the zones shown on Map 4, with fares of either $12.00, $20.50, or $27.75, depending on the distance from the UTA.

Para Transpo service would also be available for trips between two points in the rural area, such as from West Carleton to Stittsville or from Greely to Manotick. The fare for these trips would be calculated based on the distance between the points, and the fare would be calculated and quoted at the time that the trip is booked.

The fares and service levels would be recalculated after the first year of service, based on customers’ observed travel needs, and any recommendations for changes would be presented to the Transportation and Transit Committee.

The cost of buses for the contracted local and Para Transpo services would be included in the amount that would be paid to the contractor. The operating costs for the Para Transpo services would cover all costs related to the provision of service, including the cost for the contractor to buy and own the buses they would use.

Based on the estimated number of potential registrants, the demand for ridership, and average trip length, the total cost to provide Para Transpo service in the rural area would be approximately $257,000 per year, and fare revenue would be approximately $74,000 per year, or 30 percent of the cost. The remaining 70 percent, or $183,000 per year, would be funded from a new levy on property taxes, described in the next section.

These recommendations would improve transit service for travellers with disabilities by extending Para Transpo service to all parts of Ottawa, by accommodating trips between points outside the UTA and by providing local trips within villages at a modest price.

Rural Transit Area and property tax levy

Part of the costs to provide the recommended services would be covered from a levy on property taxes in the villages and rural areas that would be served. This approach is the same as is taken in the UTA, except that the amount of the levy would be less in the rural areas, because of the lower amount of service that would be provided and the higher share of the cost of the rural express services that would be generated from fares. The operating costs of the recommended services would be covered approximately 50 percent from fares and 50 percent from property taxes. (For comparison, the operating costs of transit service in the UTA are funded 60 percent from fares and 40 percent from taxes.)

The total amount to be funded from property taxes would be approximately $1.9-million per year ($500,000 in 2002). This amount is made up of approximately $1.2-million per year toward the operating cost ($400,000 in 2002) and approximately $680,000 toward the capital cost ($100,000 in 2002).

A new Rural Transit Area, shown on Map 5, would be established by by-law. Within this area, there would be two zones, one nearer to central Ottawa, where residents would have access to the recommended new regular services and Para Transpo service, and one further from central Ottawa, where Para Transpo service would be available but where public transportation service is provided by the private inter-regional bus companies.

The inner zone of the Rural Transit Area would include the villages of Greely, Manotick, Navan, Notre Dame des Champs, Richmond, and Stittsville, all of the rural parts of Cumberland, Gloucester, Goulbourn, Kanata, and Nepean, and parts of Osgoode, Rideau, and West Carleton. The outer zone of the Rural Transit Area would include the northern part of West Carleton, the western part of Rideau, and the southern and eastern parts of Osgoode.

In the inner zone of the Rural Transit Area, a transit levy of approximately $52.00 would be charged each year (approximately $14.00 in 2002) on a residential property assessed at $150,000. This amount would cover approximately 50 percent of the operating cost of the regular transit services and approximately 70 percent of the cost of Para Transpo service in the area. (For comparison, the current levy inside the UTA is approximately $320.00 per year on a residential property assessed at $150,000.)

In the outer zone of the Rural Transit Area, a transit levy of approximately $5.00 would be charged each year (approximately $2.00 in 2002) on a residential property assessed at $150,000, to cover approximately 70 percent of the cost of Para Transpo service in the area.

This proposal differs from the initial proposal introduced in Phase 2 of the consultation, during November 2001. That proposal would have set a higher tax rate (approximately $144.00 per year) in the villages and an intermediate rate (approximately $12.00 per year) in the rest of the rural area. The recommendation in this report was developed to respond to residents’ suggestions to share the costs more broadly across the rural area.

CONTINUING WORK

Upon approval of these recommendations, a by-law would be brought to Council to enact the Rural Transit Area and its two zones.

Staff and Councillors would work with groups of present and prospective transit customers to determine the details of the routes that the recommended services would take within the villages, and to set the best scheduled trip times.

Introduction of the services in September 2002 would include a special marketing campaign to launch the new services, and the new services would be included in all regular OC Transpo information sources. The network of fare vendors would be expanded to the villages in the rural area to increase the availability of tickets and passes.

Once the services begin, ridership levels would be monitored and customers’ comments would be gathered and evaluated. Any service adjustments, which should be made immediately, would be made at the first possible opportunity. If any trips become overcrowded, service would be increased as soon as possible if it could be done without increasing costs, or a further report would be brought to the Transportation and Transit Committee if funding increases were recommended.

Ridership levels and travel patterns on the Para Transpo service would be monitored closely as soon as the service begins. If the demand for ridership is greater than predicted, then recommendations could be made to increase funding to expand the amount of service available. If travel patterns are such that the average length of a trip is longer or shorter than expected, then recommendations could be made to change the fare structure in future years.

Other possible service improvements would be evaluated and recommendations developed, to be presented to the Transportation and Transit Committee after one year of operation. This could include expanding the services to new areas, adding more trips, converting connector bus services to rural express services, expanding park and ride lots, or making changes to reduce costs on services with low ridership. In subsequent years, the services would be managed as a regular, but distinct, part of the OC Transpo system, with funding levels approved through the normal budget process and service changes approved through the annual Transplan and service performance processes.

Staff have discussed with the major inter-regional bus companies the possibilities of improving the integration of inter-regional bus services with the OC Transpo network, so that additional customers would be attracted. These discussions will continue. Some possible ways to enhance the inter-regional services would be: to integrate fares and allow inter-regional bus customers to transfer to OC Transpo services without an additional fare; to have the inter-regional buses operate on the Transitway and on bus-only lanes on city streets, as Voyageur buses do now; joint advertising and customer information; inclusion of the inter-regional services on OC Transpo maps and other information sources. There is no recommendation to enter into a contractor-client relationship with the inter-regional bus companies.

Several of the municipalities which adjoin Ottawa to the west, south, and east are investigating the feasibility of introducing new public transit services to connect nearby towns with central Ottawa. Staff and Councillors from the City of Ottawa have been co-operating with staff and Councillors from these municipalities to share information, experiences, and findings from research. Councillors from these municipalities meet regularly with Ottawa Councillors at monthly meetings of the Canada’s Capital Municipal Gateway Association. City of Ottawa staff will continue to work with these municipalities, and will seek to ensure that any new inter-regional transit services are integrated with the OC Transpo network.

The future of rapid transit in Ottawa is being studied through the Rapid Transit Expansion Study, which has recently begun, and which will be completed in the fall of 2002. Some of the options that will be evaluated in that study would affect transit service from the villages and rural areas of Ottawa.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS

The recommended transit services in the rural areas will lead to increased use of transit for local and long distance travel. This will lead to reduced use of automobiles, and thus reduced emissions and reduced requirements for land to be used for road construction.

RURAL AND URBAN IMPLICATIONS

The recommendations in this report would provide new or improved public transportation in the villages and rural areas of the City of Ottawa. The nature of the service that would be provided in each area has been recommended according to the population of the villages and rural areas and the travel needs of the people who live there. The largest villages would have new direct OC Transpo service to downtown Ottawa during peak periods and new local service at other times, and the other villages and rural areas would have enhanced inter-regional bus service or new connector bus service. Para Transpo service would be extended to all parts of the City.

The recommended services would also have a benefit for the urban part of the city. Increased use of public transportation would result in reduced use of individual automobiles for many trips, thus reducing air pollution and traffic congestion. The addition of new transit customers from the villages and rural areas would allow transit services in the urban part of the city to be improved in future, to everyone’s benefit.

CONSULTATION

This report has been developed by City staff based on extensive consultation with residents and transit customers in the villages and rural areas of Ottawa, with the Councillors who represent these areas, and with other stakeholders.

Two series of public open houses were organised, in June and November 2001, and approximately 650 people attended these meetings. Two sets of leaflets were delivered to rural transit customers and made available to all City residents, and two sequences of advertisements were placed in local and city-wide newspapers to advise people of the open houses. The information that was presented at the open houses was made available on the OC Transpo web pages for people who could not attend the open houses. Approximately 500 communications were received from village and rural residents and transit customers, via mail, fax, and e-mail. Appendix B gives a summary of the open houses and the written comments that were received.

City staff consulted continuously with the Councillors who represent the villages and rural areas, and the Councillors hosted the public open houses.

City staff also met with groups of interested residents from some areas, as organised through councillors’ offices.

City staff presented the interim findings of this work to the Mobility Issues Advisory Committee on October 18, 2001, and presented the recommendations of this report to the OC Transpo Sub-Committee of the Mobility Issues Advisory Committee on February 25, 2002. These groups expressed their support for the concepts and the recommendations.

Staff presented the interim findings of this work to the Ottawa Youth Cabinet on December 11, 2001. The members of the cabinet expressed their support for an expansion of public transit service into rural parts of the City, and, in particular, they supported services that would allow young people to travel independently after school, in evenings, and on weekends.

All of the recommendations in this report have been made based on the input that City staff received through this consultation process.

TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN

The Transportation Master Plan establishes a principle that travellers will be encouraged to use transit in preference to individual automobiles. The plan calls for park and ride lots and rural bus services to promote transit use by rural residents.

The recommendations in this report promote the aims of the Transportation Master Plan, by introducing improved public transportation services to all parts of the City of Ottawa outside the Urban Transit Area.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The annual operating and capital costs of the program are to be recovered in full from ratepayers in the newly established Rural Transit Area. Estimated 2002 and annual operating budget requirements, as contained in this report, are summarized as follows:

Rural Transit Service - Estimated Expenditures / Revenues
Regular Transit	2002 (Part Year)	Annualized
	($000)	($000)
Expenditures
OC Transpo Costs	570	1,700
Contracted Costs	123	374
	693	2,074
10 Additional Shelters	50	-
Park & Ride Modifications	50	-
Debt Servicing Costs (2003)*	-	700
	793	2,774
Fare Revenues	(353)	(1,060)
Net Taxation Requirement	440	1,714

Para Transpo Service

Expenditures
OC Transpo Costs	-	-
Contracted Costs	85	257
	85	257
Fare Revenues	(25)	(74)
Net Taxation Requirement	60	183

Total Rural Transit Service

Expenditures	878	3,031
Fare Revenues	(378)	(1,134)
Net Taxation Requirement	500	1,897

Estimated Tax Impact on Rural Residential Property ($150,000)

Inner Service Zone
Regular Transit Service	$12.00	$47.00
Para Transpo Service	$ 2.00	$ 5.00
	$14.00	$52.00

Outer Service Zone
Regular Transit Service	-	-
Para Transpo Service	$2.00	$5.00
	$2.00	$5.00

* – Represents the estimated annual debt servicing costs for additional bus purchases, 2002 project 901165.

2002 Budget Approval

Council approval of the recommendations constitutes approval of the following additions to the 2002 budget, based on service beginning in September 2002, to be funded by an additional tax levy on ratepayers in the Rural Transit Area:

2002 Operating Expenditures Budget: $778,000

Less: 2002 Projected Fare Revenue: (378,000)

2002 Net Operating Budget $400,000

Additional Capital Requirement

900270 Park & Rides and Shelters $100,000

(2002 Draft Capital Budget, P611)

2002 Part Year Net Tax Requirement $500,000

To service the new Rural Transit Area, an additional 13 FTEs will be required in 2002 for the September to December time period.

The impact of the estimated 2002 tax requirement of this program is estimated to be approximately $14.00 in the inner part of the Rural Transit Area and $2.00 in the outer part, on an average residential property assessed at $150,000.

Expenditure authority is required in 2002 for the purchase of 7 articulated buses to allow the shift to a higher proportion of articulated buses in the urban area, and redirect 11 standard buses to service in the rural area.

901165 Rural Service Expansion $4,991,000

(2002 Draft Capital Budget, P606)

The purchase of the required buses is recommended to be debt financed, with annual debt servicing costs recovered from the rural transit levy beginning in 2003, as indicated above.

Subject to Council approval, every effort will be made to include the rural transit levy on the final 2002 tax bills. However, should uncontrollable factors compromise the City’s ability to complete all necessary requirements within the prescribed timeframe, the Financial Services Branch will report back to Committee and Council with alternative methods of funding the program in 2002.

ATTACHMENTS

Table 1 – Population of villages

Table 2 – Summary of costs and revenue

Table 3 – Recommended fares for rural express, Transitway, and local services

Table 4 – Recommended fares for Para Transpo service

Map 1 – Recommended transit services in western Ottawa

Map 2 – Recommended transit services in southern Ottawa

Map 3 – Recommended transit services in eastern Ottawa

Map 4 – Proposed Para Transpo zone fare boundaries

Map 5 – Proposed Rural Transit Area boundaries

Appendix A – Current transit service in villages and rural areas

Appendix B – Fare calculations

DISPOSITION

Upon the approval of this report by Council, staff would take the following actions:

· Prepare Transit Area by-law for the approval of Council;

· Plan the details of the new routes and schedules, in consultation with rural residents;

· Order additional buses;

· Prepare tenders for the supply of the recommended local and connector services;

· Reach agreement with the private inter-regional bus companies to integrate their fares, schedules, and public information with those of OC Transpo;

· Establish park and ride areas within existing parking lots;

· Expand vendor network to locations in rural Ottawa;

· Develop a detailed plan for the delivery of additional Para Transpo service in rural areas;

· Develop a public information program and marketing plan to promote the new services; and,

· Introduce the new services on September 3, 2002.

Table 1

Population of villages

Village or township	Population in 2000
Carp	1,200
Constance Bay	2,400
Cumberland (rural areas)	6,500
Cumberland Village	1,600
Gloucester (rural areas)	5,300
Goulbourn (rural areas)	7,000
Greely	3,300
Kars	600
Manotick	4,700
Metcalfe	1,900
Navan	1,400
Nepean (rural areas)	3,300
North Gower	1,600
Notre Dame des Champs	500
Osgoode	2,700
Osgoode (rural areas)	9,400
Richmond	3,700
Rideau (rural areas)	6,100
Stittsville	14,000
Vars	900
Vernon	600
West Carleton and Kanata (rural areas)	16,700

Sources: 1996 Census of Canada; City of Ottawa.

Notes: Villages with a population under 500 are included with the adjacent rural areas: Fitzroy Harbour and Kinburn with West Carleton and Kanata, Heart’s Desire with Nepean, and Sarsfield with Cumberland.

Table 2

Summary of costs and revenue

SERVICE	RIDERSHIP PER YEAR	OPERATING COST	PROJECTED FARE REVENUE	NET COST FROM TAXES

Rural express services
Greely	13,000	$39,000	$56,000 *	($17,000)
Manotick/River Road	25,000	102,000	111,000 *	(10,000)
Navan and Notre Dame des Champs	25,000	150,000	93,000 *	57,000
Richmond	38,000	136,000	140,000 *	(4,000)
Stittsville	90,000	388,000	311,000 *	77,000
Sub-total	146,000	814,000	711,000	103,000

Transitway and local services
Greely	30,000	134,000	41,000 *	100,000
Manotick/River Road	30,000	131,000	45,000 *	92,000
Manotick/South Nepean	30,000	116,000	41,000 *	81,000
Richmond	30,000	174,000	41,000 *	139,000
North Gower/ Kars/ Manotick Friday-only shoppers’ service	2,000	16,000	2,000	14,000
Stittsville (Transitway)	91,000	324,000	109,000	216,000
Stittsville (local)	50,000	148,000	55,000	93,000
Sub-total	263,000	1,037,000	334,000	704,000

Connector services
Ashton/Munster	10,000	49,000	–	49,000
Carp	5,000	25,000	–	25,000
Cumberland/Navan	5,000	25,000	5,000	20,000
Dunrobin	10,000	49,000	10,000	39,000
North Gower/Kars	5,000	25,000	–	25,000
Vars	10,000	49,000	–	49,000
Sub-total	45,000	222,000	15,000	207,000

Para Transpo services
All areas	12,000	257,000	74,000	183,000

Total regular service	454,000	2,074,000	1,060,000	1,014,000
Total Para Transpo	12,000	257,000	74,000	183,000
Total	466,000	$2,331,000	$1,134,000	$1,197,000

Notes: * – This amount includes a contribution from the regular OC Transpo budget equal to the cost to carry the expected number of customers within the Urban Transit Area. Some numbers do not add because of rounding.
Table 3

Recommended fares for rural express, Transitway, and local services

FARE TYPE	AMOUNT	COST PER TRIP
Fares for rural express services
Adult/student/senior cash fare	$4.75	$4.75
Adult/student/senior ticket fare	4 tickets	$3.40
Adult monthly pass for rural express services	$108.50 pass	$2.71
Ecopass subscription for rural express services	$44.92 per pay period ($97.33 per month)	$2.43
Students’ monthly pass for rural express services	$92.75 pass	$2.32
Children’s cash fare – Valid on all services	$1.25	$1.25
Children’s ticket fare – Valid on all services	1 ticket	$0.85
Seniors’ monthly pass – Valid on all services	$25.50	–

Fares for local or Transitway service – Regular OC Transpo fares
Adult/student/senior cash fare	$2.50	$2.50
Adult/student/senior ticket fare	2 tickets	$1.70
Adult regular monthly pass	$60.50	$1.51
Students’ regular monthly pass	$49.75	$1.24
Children’s cash fare – Valid on all services	$1.25	$1.25
Children’s ticket fare – Valid on all services	1 ticket	$0.85
Seniors’ monthly pass – Valid on all services	$25.50	–
DayPass – Not valid on rural express service in the morning peak period; valid on all other services; valid as a family pass on Sundays and holidays	$5.00	–

Special local fares (Stittsville local service and connector routes to/from locations in the UTA)
Cash fare – Adults, students, seniors, and children	$1.25	$1.25
Ticket fare – Adults, students, seniors, and children	1 ticket	$0.85
Passes for rural express services are also valid	–	–

Notes: All amounts are based on the proposed OC Transpo fare structure for July 2002. Upgrades also available from regular and urban express passes and from O-Train tickets. The costs per trip are based on 40 trips per month. The Ecopass cost per pay is based on 26 pay periods per year. The special local fares for local and connector services would not allow transfers to other OC Transpo services.

Table 4

Recommended fares for Para Transpo service

TRIP TYPE	CASH FARE	TICKET FARE
Between Rural Transit Area and Urban Transit Area
To/from Zone A (includes Greely, Manotick, Richmond, and Stittsville)	$12.00	–
To/from Zone B	$20.50	–
To/from Zone C	$27.75	–

Local service in villages
Within Greely, Manotick, Richmond, or Stittsville	$3.50	3 tickets
Between Stittsville and Kanata, or between Manotick and South Nepean	$7.50	–

Between two points in the Rural Transit Area
Base amount if both points are in Zone A	$4.01	–
Base amount if either point is in Zone B	$10.22	–
Base amount if either point is in Zone C	$16.43	–
Amount per kilometre	$0.93	–

Passes: Discounts are available with the use of monthly passes, as follows:

· Regular OC Transpo pass or Ecopass – Discount of $2.50 from the cash fare

· Urban express pass or Ecopass Plus – Local trips within villages at no additional fare; discount of $3.50 from the cash fare

· Rural express pass or Ecopass for rural express – Local trips within villages at no additional fare; discount of $4.75 from the cash fare

· Seniors’ pass – Discount of $1.25 from the cash fare

Notes: Persons travelling as attendants (with an attendant card) pay no fare; persons travelling as companions pay the regular Para Transpo fare of $3.50 or three tickets before 9:00 a.m. from Monday to Friday and $2.50 or two tickets at other times. Customized fares-by-distance for trips entirely in the rural area will be calculated at the time the trip is booked.

Appendix A

Current transit service in villages and rural areas

Richmond

· OC Transpo express service to downtown Ottawa during peak periods from Monday to Friday. Two trips to downtown each morning, and two return trips each afternoon. Fare: regular OC Transpo fare plus $1.00 surcharge.

Stittsville

· OC Transpo express service to downtown Ottawa during peak periods from Monday to Friday. Three trips to downtown each morning, and two return trips each afternoon. Fare: regular OC Transpo fare plus $1.00 surcharge.

· Goulbourn Shuttle within Stittsville and connecting to Kanata, during the daytime from Monday to Friday. Service every 30 minutes during peak periods and every 60 minutes in the midday. (No evening or weekend service). Fare: $1.75 to or from Kanata, $1.00 within Stittsville. Operated by Premier Bus Lines under contract.

North Gower, Kars, and Manotick

· Shoppers’ service to Carlingwood on Fridays only. One trip to Carlingwood on Friday mornings and one return trip on Friday afternoons. Fare: $3.35 to $4.55, depending on distance travelled.

Para Transpo service

· Service provided from Goulbourn and rural parts of Cumberland, Gloucester, and Nepean to points within the UTA. (No service in Osgoode, Rideau, or West Carleton; no service between two points outside the UTA.) Fares according to zone and time of day: $10.75 to $28.75.

Funding

· Goulbourn rural express service funded 57 percent from fares and 43 percent from transit tax levy in Goulbourn. Goulbourn shuttle service funded 25 percent from fares and 75 percent from transit tax levy in Goulbourn. Continuation of express service inside UTA funded approximately 60 percent from fares and 40 percent from UTA transit levy. Total cost in 2000 was approximately $324,000.

· Rideau shoppers’ service funded approximately 50 percent from fares and 50 percent from property taxes. Total cost in 2000 was approximately $10,000.

· Para Transpo service funded one-third from fares, one-third from property taxes (previously from area municipalities’ taxes), and one-third from UTA transit levy (originally from the Province of Ontario). Total cost in 2000 was $50,000.

Appendix B

Summary of consultation

Public open houses

DATE	LOCATION	ATTENDANCE
Phase 1 – June 2001
Wednesday, June 20	Goulbourn municipal offices	54
Thursday, June 21	Manotick Arena	32
Monday, June 25	Navan Memorial Centre	65
Tuesday, June 26	Greely Community Centre	70
Wednesday, June 27	West Carleton Client Service Centre	30
Thursday, June 28	Carlsbad Springs Community Centre	35
Total attendance at Phase 1 meetings		286
Number of written comments in Phase 1		337

Phase 2 – November 2001
Wednesday, November 14	Greely Community Centre	30
Thursday, November 15	R. J. Kennedy Centre, Cumberland	160
Monday, November 19	West Carleton Client Service Centre	35
Tuesday, November 20	Manotick Arena	50
Wednesday, November 21	Goulbourn Municipal Offices	60
Thursday, November 22	Carlsbad Springs Community Centre	20
Total attendance at Phase 2 meetings		365
Number of written comments in Phase 2		165

Summary of written comments in Phase 1

What kind of public transportation? (All responses from all areas)

	All areas
Responses	335
Transit*	62%
Para Transpo	3%
Park and ride	32%
Car pool	1%
Van pool	0%
None/no change	2%

Note: * – “Transit” included extended OC Transpo service, direct commuter service to downtown, local collector service, and light rail (see below).

What kind of public transportation? (Responses from villages and rural areas)

	Responses	Transit*	Para Transpo	Park and ride	Car pool	Van pool	None/no change
East rural	103	67%	1%	29%		1%	2%
South rural	74	53%	3%	40%	3%		1%
Manotick	22	77%		18%			5%
Southwest rural	10	70%		20%	10%
Richmond	13	69%		23%			8%
Stittsville	40	78%		20%			2%
Northwest rural	30	40%	17%	43%

Note: * – “Transit” included extended OC Transpo service, direct commuter service to downtown, local collector service, and light rail (see below).

What kind of transit?

(Responses from those who chose any of the “transit” categories for “What kind of public transportation?”)

	All areas
Responses	88
Extended OC Transpo service	33%
Direct commuter service to downtown	22%
Local collector service	38%
Light rail	7%

How should public transportation be funded? (Responses from all villages and rural areas, together.)

	All areas
Responses	335
Taxes	26%
Fares/user fees	38%
Shared tax/fare	34%
No service	2%

How should public transportation be funded? (Responses from villages and rural areas.)

areas	Responses	Taxes	Fares/ user fees	Shared tax/ fares	No service
East rural	85	13%	53%	32%	2%
South rural	59	19%	37%	44%
Manotick	16	25%	31%	38%	6%
Southwest rural	6	66%	17%	17%
Richmond	9	45%	22%	33%
Stittsville	32	59%	16%	22%	3%
Northwest rural	20	25%	30%	45%

Summary of written comments in Phase 2

AREAS	Total number of people who wrote	Agreed with proposal to provide public transit service?		Agreed with proposal to provide Para Transpo service?		Agreed with proposal to fund transit from property taxes chiefly in villages?*
		Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes	No
Totals	145	112	32	7	–	30	29
Ashton	1	1	–	–	–	–	–
Carlsbad Springs	5	4	1	–	–	1	–
Carp	8	7	1	–	–	–	–
Constance Bay	1	–	1	–	–	–	–
Cumberland Village	20	19	1	1	–	6	1
Dunrobin	2	2	–	–	–	1	–
Edwards	2	1	1	–	–	–	1
Greely	15	13	1	2	–	3	2
Kinburn	3	3	–	–	–	1	–
Manotick	21	15	6	–	–	4	6
Navan	6	4	2	–	–	1	3
North Gower	1	–	1	–	–	–	1
Notre Dame des Champs	6	5	1	2	–	4	2
Osgoode	4	–	4	–	–	–	1
Osgoode Twp	5	4	1	–	–	2	1
Richmond	5	3	2	–	–	–	3
Stittsville	38	29	9	2	–	7	8
Vars	2	2	–	–	–	–	–

Outside city – East	15	14	1	–	–	2	1
Outside city – West	5	5	–	–	–	–	–

Note: * – During Phase 2 of the consultation, the tax level was proposed at $144 per year in villages and $12 per year in other rural areas; this has been revised for the recommended services.

Extract of Minutes 1

20 March 2002

Extrait du procÈs-verbal 1

20 mars 2002

TRANSIT SERVICE IN VILLAGES AND RURAL AREAS

SERVICE DE TRANSPORT EN COMMUN DANS LES VILLAGES ET LES ZONES RURALES

ACS2002-TUP-TRN-0003

In an overview of the report before committee, Dr. Helen Gault, Manager of Transit Schedule and Service Development provided the following comments:

- transit is funded by a transit levy inside the Urban Transit Area (UTA) at approximately $320/year for a $150,000 household; outside the UTA there was no general levy, but Goulbourn residents paid approximately $15/year/household for their transit service;

- as part of the preparation of this report, extensive consultation was carried out with the rural areas and the councillors representing those areas; it revealed that most people want to see extended OC Transpo services, direct to downtown commuter service, local collector and park and ride as well as more access to Para Transpo;

- the detailed routings and trip times will be developed with the assistance of councillors and residents and, once implemented in September, the service will be monitored closely; any urgent adjustments will be made immediately and staff will report back in May 2003 with recommendations for any longer term changes;

- the total annual operating costs are $2.23M, almost half of which is for the rural express routes and their connector services;

- $324,000 would allow Route 97 to be extended to Stittsville, $713,000 would cover the local all-day routes and $257,000 would cover the expansion of Para Transpo services;

- it is estimated that $100,000 in capital costs would be required to develop park and ride facilities in existing lots and an additional $5M would be required to purchase vehicles;

- for regular services it is recommended that half the costs be covered through property taxes and half through fares, and for Para Transpo that seventy percent be covered through taxes and thirty percent through fares;

- to cover the balance of the costs, it is recommended there be two zones in the rural transit area; the costs in the inner taxation area for a home assessed at $150,000 would be $52 per year and $14 in 2002 because the services are proposed to be implemented in September; the cost in the outer tax zone would be $5/year and $2 in 2002;

- the two-zone approach was adopted based on the fact that in the outer tax zone regular service is supplied largely by private contractors; staff proposes to partner with these contractors to improve access to their services, through in-kind cooperation such as ticketing and information.

Pat Scrimgeour, Manager of Service Planning provided details of the types of services to be provided. Further information is contained in the staff report.

From a historical perspective, Councillor Cullen noted that as communities developed, they were brought into the UTA and he inquired whether this was done in a staged approach in terms of a transit levy, or were they required to contribute to the whole system. Dr. Gault acknowledged that there has been a gradual growth of the UTA as development occurred within its boundaries. The councillor was of the opinion, therefore, that the approach of providing only a partial contribution from the rate payers has been a direct expansion of the area. Staff confirmed this approach.

Councillor Cullen noted that staff had originally recommended a transit levy contribution at $144 in the villages and the intermediate rate of $12; however, staff are now recommending $52 and $5, respectively and he asked what determined this change. Dr. Gault responded by stating the original proposal for the rural areas was made in November and which included more service. However, during the consultation, residents believed staff were being over-ambitious in the service they were proposing to get started with, so adjustments were made accordingly. Also, the people suggested that focusing the taxation level on the larger villages was not reasonable because so many people would have access to these services through the park and ride, connectors, et cetera. Consequently, she indicated that staff adjusted their original recommendation to have two taxation zones; one within which the subsidized City services would be accessible and the other zones which were in the further corners of the region currently served by the private contractors.

Councillor Cullen questioned whether the reduced transit levy would generate the same revenues as those originally forecasted. Dr. Gault informed committee it would not because there would be less service. She confirmed that all the costs of the rural service will be borne by the tax payers in the rural transit area. The councillor noted that people travelling from the rural areas into the downtown, for example, may move onto the regular service at some point and questioned who would be responsible for covering that cost once they cross over into the UTA. Dr. Gault confirmed they would pay their share of the service to the downtown and back. The councillor stated, however, that they would be consuming a service that in his community costs $320. Dr. Gault indicated the costs of the service that are being considered are the costs to provide the limited rural services staff are recommending and the rural residents will pay higher fares to reflect the longer trips. What has also been taken into account, however, is that some urban residents will share those services so there is more service going through the park and ride lot.

Councillor Stewart noted that Para Transpo users from the rural areas will have to pay more and Dr. Gault confirmed the new service will be expensive to deliver in the rural communities; it is really a balance of how much rural residents are willing to pay. The councillor asked whether staff considered increasing the cost share in the urban area to make it equitable throughout the city and was advised that currently, the urban area covers the costs of Para Transpo services for urban residents. Dr. Gault added that if fares were changed in the rural areas for Para Transpo, without changing the contribution of rural residents, it would mean that urban residents were then contributing towards rural residents’ Para Transpo trips.

Councillor Deans expressed concern that some areas such as Carlsbad Spring, which did not meet the criteria to receive rural transit service, appears to be in the catchment area for paying the rural transit fee, even though they are not supposed to receive the service. She inquired how much of the rural areas are going to be served and are there significant portions where there is still going to remain a gap in service and yet residents will be expected to help pay for the service. Mr. Scrimgeour indicated that it is a question of what is ‘access’ to transit service and while walking distance is easy to define, the possibility of driving to a location and using park and ride gives people access to service. He explained that the purpose of the two different zones is to show the areas where the transit levy is to be applied uniformly over all of the rural areas, except in those particular areas where the primary service is provided by private companies. He agreed with her concern as it applies to residents living in Carlsbad Springs south of Highway 417; however, those living north of Highway 417 would have pretty good access to Navan and Notre Dame Des Champs and Vars and could use the service from these locations. In response to her concerns, he agreed to review this in an effort to remove some areas of Carlsbad Springs.

Councillor McNeely supported these concerns, adding that people living in Carsbad Spring and in Vars do not feel they are being provided service and therefore should not be in the same tax bracket as those who will have bus service. He asked whether something better can be offered to these two communities. Mr. Scrimgeour indicated that staff would examine ways of continuing the service to these areas. When asked what type of service is envisaged for the Vars community, Mr. Scrimgeour indicated it is almost well-served by private bus companies, although their service does not come into the village proper; staff would work with them to bring the service closer and to enable people to make connections to the regular service. After some further thought, the councillor preferred that all of Cumberland ward receive the service at $14/year and asked if it was possible to do this and then decide, at the end of 2002, whether or not to retain the service. Staff advised that if the decision is to run more service than being recommended, at a higher cost, then it would put pressure to raise the tax levy. If there are more costs to be borne on the same assessment base, then the tax rate will increase. The councillor explained that what is being offered to those residents is not meaningful and he believed it could be revised in the next two months that it would be within the same dollars and therefore would be worthwhile. He wanted to be able to offer that to residents and felt it would still not be too late for OC Transpo to remove the service if a compromise cannot be reached.

Councillor Harder expressed concern about the need to provide service to youth from the rural areas who have jobs in the suburban or urban areas. She noted the proposed service will end at 9:00 p.m. while their jobs may not finish until 10:00 p.m. Staff agreed this particular issue could be addressed through further consultation.

Councillor Eastman indicated there is still ongoing consultation with communities and in light of this and the fact the next tax bill comes out in June, he wondered whether in fact it would be more logical to delay the implementation of this new service until January to allow this process to wrap up and to get all the feedback. He asked whether staff can report back with a report detailing any refinements they may recommend. The committee was advised that in light of further consultation being planned, a Motion would be coming forward recommending deferral.

Dr. Gault emphasized that it would be best to implement the service in September, because if that date is missed, service will not be implemented in January. She indicated there is a window of opportunity (two weeks) within which staff could bring back recommendations in response to the concerns raised today, and, in light of the additional consultation being conducted by councillors. This would still give staff the time to do the necessary schedule and routing work required for implementation in September.

Councillor Stavinga referred to the transit levy paid for by residents of the former Township of Goulbourn, noting they also pay a surcharge when they use the bus. However, since the buses go through the park and ride lot in Kanata, people in the UTA can then get on that bus so there is a cost-sharing relationship and therefore, that aspect of fairness has been introduced. In terms of looking at additional service in some areas come September, the councillor suggested rather than delaying the implementation of all the proposals, that they be implemented and an evaluation be carried out and perhaps reflect for the 2003 budget as to whether certain areas should be included. Dr. Gault agreed that could be done, noting there is no need to hold up what is good if there are still areas that councillors want to be included.

With respect to excluding areas from transit service, Councillor Stavinga inquired whether staff could review and provide information on the tax impacts of including those rural communities in the outer transit area vs the proposed inner transit area. Staff agreed that should this report is deferred for two weeks, they would be able to respond to the councillor’s question within that timeframe. The councillor indicated she had two Motions to bring forward in this regard.

Councillor Cullen spoke to the issue of providing Para Transpo service to the rural areas, taking into consideration the distances involved and the fact there are already unmet trip requests. Dr. Gault confirmed it will be an integrated, shared service, with clients being dropped off or picked up along the way. The intent is to provide service to rural residents, paid for by rural residents. It will not be at the expense of the service in the urban areas. She confirmed the need to develop the procedures and the detailed way of handling this service.

The committee received the following public delegations:

Charles Matthews, Disabled and Proud believed that providing para transit service to the rural areas will affect existing Para Transpo service. He noted there were many factors to be considered before this service can be offered and suggested the proposal be reassessed. By way of example, he recognized it takes several months to order new wheelchair accessible vans and he wondered whether there will be time to do this for implementation in September. He asked members to also keep in mind that the costs for disabled residents using the para transit service are extraordinarily high and a vast majority of para transit users are on some kind of assistance. Disabled and Proud suggests staff take a second look at the service to be provided before the end of year, with a view to perhaps implementing instead in the fall of 2003.

In response to his concerns about vehicle availability, Rose Leclair, General Manager, TUPW, explained that the current number of buses serves existing need and because the Para Transpo service does not currently exist in the rural areas, it is not yet known what the demand will be. She advised it would be the responsibility of the contractor (FirstBus) to do that, but she believed there is capacity and lead time to adjust the service as necessary.

Phil Sweetnam, former Goulbourn Transportation Committee stated that one of the most important factors is the cost of the service and to this end, believed staff have grasped the consensus of the community in bringing forward a service at less cost to rural taxpayers. With respect to the question of the different costs for services provided within and outside the UTA, he stressed that it is a different level of service and he did not believe residents would be surprised to see the proposed rate they will have to pay towards the transit levy. He believed the committee should approve the report today and do any adjustments that have to be made between now and the next meeting. He believed rural residents are paying their fare share for bus service.

Councillor Brooks proposed the following:

Whereas the Joint meeting of the Transportation and Transit and the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committees have received recommendations for new Transit and Para Transpo Services in Ottawa villages and rural areas, that acceptance of these recommendations be deferred until public consultation has taken place in the rural wards.

Further, that this consultation be completed prior to the first Council meeting of April, 2002.

Councillor Arnold suggested a friendly amendment to the Motion so it would now read:

Whereas the Joint meeting of the Transportation and Transit and the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committees have received recommendations for new Transit and Para Transpo services in Ottawa villages and rural areas, and;

Whereas some ward councillors have scheduled public consultation meetings on the details of the proposal during the next two weeks;

Therefore be it resolved that the recommendations be adopted in principle, and that specific recommendations for amendments be brought forward to the next Joint meeting of Transportation and Transit and the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committees, prior to forwarding the report to Council.

She indicated this would encapsulate the majority of the debate today, that committee agrees in principle with the direction that this is going, but a number of affected councillors have specific issues they want reviewed and, in consultation with their communities and staff, would be prepared to bring forward specific recommendations that could be considered. Councillor Brooks accepted the amendment.

Dr. Gault advised that providing the changes to be made are minor, delaying approval for two weeks would not affect September implementation.

Councillor Stavinga asked that the following Motions be considered today because the information being requested needs to come forward on 3 April.

Moved by J. Stavinga

That staff be directed to review and provide information to the Committee, on the tax impacts of providing Para Transpo services based on funding these services, 20% from fares and 80% from property taxes, as well as the scenario of 10% from fares and 90% from property taxes, in keeping with the level of subsidy supported in the urban transit area.

CARRIED

Moved by J. Stavinga

That staff be directed to review and provide information to the Committee on the tax impacts of including those rural communities raised by the Committee (e.g. portions of West Goulbourn, Gloucester-Southgate, Cumberland) within the Outer Rural Transit Area to recognize the limited access to public transportation services versus the existing recommendation for inclusion in the Inner Rural Transit Area.

CARRIED

In considering the Motion to defer, Councillor Legendre expressed some concern that taxing for transit service is justified on the basis of whether or not residents receive the service. He suggested it should be justified on who receives the ‘benefit’ because all taxpayers in the urban area pay for bus service, whether or not they use it. He believed the same should apply to people in the rural areas because if their ultimate destination is downtown, then they receive a benefit even if they do not use transit, because their trip is made easier because more people using transit means less congestion on the roads.

Councillor Cullen reiterated his previous comments about fairness and stated he was looking at how all residents of the City can benefit from having one transportation system in place. He proposed the following:

That the property tax levy proposed for the Rural Transit Area for 2002 be the first step towards harmonization with the Urban Transit Area transit levies.

And that staff report to committee and Council with a strategy to accomplish this harmonization of transit levies.

He explained that with the introduction of such a levy, he expected both an upward and downward movement depending on where people are because there are more people coming into the UTA. He expected the tax burden to be treated equitably amongst residents.

Councillor Doucet was of the opinion that extending the service will impact the core services which pay for that service and he maintained there was still a lot to be done to improve the core service. However, he was sympathetic to those councillors representing the rural areas and in an effort to reach out to these areas, he indicated he would support the Motion for deferral, albeit with considerable reserve.

The committee commended staff for the work done in bringing this report forward, particularly the consultation process that lead to the report being considered. It was stated that what staff is recommending is a good starting point, the service being offered is at a reasonable cost and committee members should look beyond the economics of who pays for what. In particular, staff were commended for continually providing a level of service to those rural communities which currently enjoy service.

In speaking to his Motion, Councillor Cullen stated that his residents would find it more acceptable if there was a process by which the tax burden was fairly shared, and for people using the OC Transpo and being able to go to other places in the UTA, there is no justification that one person pays a fraction of the taxes to support the system when others pay 100%. He stated that the benefit to expanding the service is global and maintained, therefore, that there should be a strategy and have public debate on the fairness of the tax burden and proceed from there.

Moved by G. Brooks

Whereas some ward councillors have scheduled public consultation meetings on the details of the proposal during the next two weeks;

CARRIED with Councillor Cullen dissenting

Moved by A. Cullen

That the property tax levy proposed for the Rural Transit Area for 2002 be the first step towards harmonization with the Urban Transit Area transit levies;

And that staff report to committee and Council with a strategy to accomplish this harmonization of transit levies.

LOST

YEAS (1) A. Cullen

NAYS (10) E.Arnold, R. Bloess, G. Brooks, C. Doucet, D. Eastman, J. Legendre, P. McNeely, J. Stavinga, D. Thompson, M. Meilleur