TRANSIT FARES IN 2007

TARIFS DES SERVICES DE TRANSPORT EN COMMUN 2007

ACS2007-PTE-TRA-0007

At the outset, Chair Cullen noted that Council had approved a 2% increase in transit fares at Budget, and explained that the present report recommendations were with respect to the fare structure. Alain Mercier, the Director of Transit Services noted that there was no staff presentation and that the report contains all the data.

Having no staff presentation, the Committee proceeded to hear from the following delegation:

Charles Matthews, Access Now, explained that his presentation on this matter is to insist that Para Transpo be included in this Transit Fare Structure.

He expressed his concern for not having the opportunity to address this issue before Council’s decision. He felt that many of the budget cuts would affect those who were least able to afford it. He congratulated Council for reducing the transit fare increase from 7.5% to only 2%.

Mr. Matthews supported the staff recommendation and endorsed appendix one of the staff report. He expressed concern about the increase in ticket prices in Attachment 2 and advised that many of the most vulnerable, such as those in the disabled community who do not fall within the criteria for the Community Pass but still have low incomes, rely on tickets as the cheapest way to get on the bus. He wished to ensure that the fare increase is limited as in Attachment 1 where there will be no increase to fares or tickets.

In addition to that, he would have liked to see a little more emphasis placed on the Para Transpo issue. He noted that there are still 7 points of fare increases that Para-Transpo users would pay using Para Transpo Service instead of regular buses. He gave the example of the community bus pass user having to pay a top up fee of one ticket on the buses. He asked that over the next year the Transit Committee look at the fare structure in regards to the difference between OC Transpo and Para Transpo, and then apply it to next year’s budget.

Councillor Bloess noted that the rationale for the fare top-up Mr. Matthews mentioned was for express fares. Dr. Gault confirmed that before 9:00 a.m., Para Transpo charges an express rate, thus the fare top up. She noted that Mr. Matthews was referring to the fact that that Seniors Passes were not used to be accepted on ParaTranspo at all, and some years ago it was agreed that seniors passes would be accepted on ParaTranspo but that there would be a top up. Thus at regular times where there is no express fare, there is a top up on seniors passes. She also noted that Seniors Passes and Community Passes on the regular service are the equivalent of Express Passes. She suggested the top ups were a bit of a demand management strategy, which provide a lot of benefit on the regular service, and encourage those that have the choice to do so.

In response to Councillor Bloess’ question regarding the subsidy on a Para Transpo fare compared to a regular fare, Dr. Gault confirmed that while 50% of the cost of a regular trip is covered by the fare, only 7% of a Para Transpo trip is covered by the fare, with the average trip cost being about $25.

Councillor McRae thanked the delegation for raising the issue of the Community Pass and the tickets, and wondered if staff could find a reasonable, economical way to sell tickets to those people that are caught in the gap, where they are definitely challenged financially and may have disabilities, but do not qualify for ODSP and the subsidized bus pass.

Mr. Mercier noted that one of the areas where there is tremendous pressure is meeting the goal on the revenue-cost ratio. He suggested that if staff were to look for improvements to accommodate a fare structure that may provide a financial benefit to a segment, they would have to address that. He stated that staff were coming forth with a report on the revenue-cost ratio and some of those avenues where the pressures are coming in over the longer term, at which point they could perhaps address which segments of the market are not being addressed, and that may be one.

Councillor McRae wondered if Council, by adopting the inflationary increase instead of the 7.5% increase to transit fares, de-facto changed their policy on the ratio of what transit users are paying versus what the tax base is paying. Dr. Gault advised that the policy had not been changed. However, she acknowledged that the City was now going in the opposite direction of the policy. She noted that the percentage paid by transit users would have been up to 49.9% with the 7.5% increase, but was now just around 49%. She explained that staff would be bringing back to Council an overview so that Councillors would be able to review the policy, its implications and how to achieve it.

Councillor McRae noted that staff was involved earlier that day with a very difficult vigorous meeting regarding Para Transpo and how that affects people who are living in the Urban Transit Area (UTA) and want to travel outside of the UTA. She wondered if Council’s upcoming debates on where Transit was going would include a discussion about changing the UTA boundaries. Dr. Gault answered that this was something that should be dealt with separately. She pointed out that it would be quite a challenge to look at the fare system as it stands, and how to improve the revenue-cost ratio, but advised that the UTA issue could be done as a separate item. In response to a further question from Councillor McRae, Dr. Gault explained that such a review would not necessarily be for the purposes of changing those boundaries to generate more revenue.

Chair Cullen noted his conversation with various Councillors indicates the need for a discussion on the revenue cost ratio in the context of trying to achieve the TMP goal of 30% modal split. He believed that there would be a healthy debate about the extent to which taxes subsidize public transit unlike in the United States, where there is a lot of federal money going into public transit, thus the public subsidy is much higher and prices are much lower.

In response to a question from Councillor Wilkinson regarding priority-seating cards, Dr. Gault advised that those would continue to cost $7.00. In response to Councillor Wilkinson’s question regarding possible changes in the locations of paid Park & Rides, Dr. Gault explained that there were no plans to make any changes. However, she pointed out that if the Strandherd Park & Ride were to fill up, they would certainly introduce gold parking there.

That the Transit Committee recommend Council approve the fare structure in Attachment 1, that represents a two percent increase in average fares.

CARRIED