TRANSIT BY-LAW

RÈGLEMENT MUNICIPAL DU SERVICE DU TRANSPORT EN COMMUN

ACS2007-PTE-TRA-0005

Mr. Alain Mercier, Director of Transit Services, reviewed highlights of the Transit Bylaw by means of a PowerPoint Presentation that is held on file with the City Clerk. He noted that the proposed Transit Bylaw represents both a consolidation of the existing former Regional Regulatory Code provisions governing Transit Services, as well as an updating of certain rules and regulations for Transit Services. He also noted that the proposed Bylaw is meant to encompass within one legislative instrument the rules and regulations governing the public transportation system. Upon enactment of this Transit Bylaw, the existing provisions of the former Regional Regulatory Code will be repealed.

Mr. Mercier noted an administrative error under Document 2, Section 42, Line 3, and asked that the report be amended, as follows, before it is forwarded to City Council – “…changes to individual service routes and timetables….”.

The Committee Coordinator also detected the following administrative error and made the following amendment to reflect the correct bylaw number for Document 2, which is By-law to amend By-law No. 2005-503 Respecting Delegation of Authority to Various Officers of the City.

Councillor Bloess posed some questions regarding “inappropriate competition” from private services. Mr. Mercier explained that there is no basis for the City to preclude someone from making an application to operate a service. Any potential competing service would be subject to review within the Bylaw definitions. He suggested there would be consideration of complementary services by other parties.

Mr. Mercier clarified that the exclusive jurisdiction is for transportation systems within the City, not transportation systems into the City. Thus the City does not regulate or control someone running a system into the City. Councillor Bloess put forward the example of someone running a private shuttle service between Orleans and Kanata. Mr. Mercier suggested that in that case, unless they saw a compelling reason to authorize a competing service, they would not authorize it. He suggested that the applicant would then have recourse through committee to have the City change their laws. He later clarified, after review with legal counsel, that when someone applies for service in competition with OC Transpo in the exclusive jurisdiction, if OC Transpo deems that the business should not operate, that decision will be final under the law. Thus they would not have recourse through the Committee to overrule the decision unless the Bylaw was changed.

Councillor Bédard wondered why the municipal regulation was responsible for governing tourist sightseeing buses. Mr. Mercier stated that in the current case, sightseeing tours request access to the Transitway system, and to that extent the City negotiates with them the access fees and the regulations as to where and when they can access the Transitway.

Councillor Wilkinson had questions regarding the jurisdiction of the Bylaw and whether it covered how the drivers operated within the buses, such things as drivers calling out stops. Mr. Mercier explained that the jurisdiction of the Bylaw is to regulate the operation of the vehicle on the private property of the Transitway. As to such operational matters as calling out stops, signage and the condition of the bus, those are subject to Transit Services internal policies and controls. Mr. Mercier advised that there was a scheduled presentation to Committee in August that would outline the policies on such matters, and at which time there will be an assessment of the feedback from citizens in terms of their view of these policies and applications.

In response to questions and concerns from Councillor Wilkinson regarding the Priority Seating provisions of the Bylaw, Mr. Mercier provided the following information:

· The issue of how operators might assist customers in priority seating is addressed by internal policies. The Bylaw designates the difference between a courtesy and a requirement.

· He confirmed that individuals with babies or small children are not explicitly included in the priority seating requirement. However, he noted that there is a requirement to give up a seat to people who are clearly unable to stand.

· More specifically, he pointed to Section 18.1 of the Bylaw, which defines a person with a child in a carriage or stroller, or a person with visible need of priority seating as entitled to priority seating.

· He suggested it was a question of degree, subject to the judgement and support of the driver.

Councillor Wilkinson suggested they should monitor the issue, and maintained it could be beneficial to include individuals with small children.

In response to questions from Chair Cullen regarding enforcement, Mr. Mercier explained that the application of the Bylaw once it is in force would fall under the jurisdiction of the Special Constables. They, along with any other Bylaw officer of the City, have he right to enforce this Bylaw and issue offence notices or fines. He confirmed that there was recourse through the special constables to handle conflicts over priority seating, and the constables have the authority to make judgement and have them potentially removed from the bus.

Regarding the regulation of private services, Councillor Cullen noted that residents of his community were upset about buses coming from outside the urban centre, such as those run by Thom Bus Line, and driving on residential non-arterial streets. Mr. Mercier explained that those bus services are regulated by the Province of Ontario, not by OC Transpo. As the City has no jurisdiction, concerns about the operation of these buses would need to be taken up with the Province.

Klaus Beltzner expressed his favourable opinion of the new Bylaw. As a puppy walker for the Guide Dogs of Canada and Canines with a Cause, he congratulated City staff and OC Transpo for the work they have done to broaden the definition of “service animal” and make it more inclusive. He also suggested that the consultation process was wonderfully run.

In response to further questions from Councillor Wilkinson regarding enforcement provisions, Ms. Valerie Bietlot, Legal Counsel, noted that there are offences and penalties provided for in Section 35 of the Draft Bylaw.

The Committee then approved the following report recommendations:

1. That the Transit Committee recommend that Council enact the Transit Bylaw as detailed in Document 1 to consolidate the existing transit regulations, and repeal Part 3 of the former Regional Regulatory Code.

2. That Transit Committee recommend to Council that the Delegation of Authority Bylaw be amended as detailed in Document 1, Schedule “A” to authorize the Deputy City Manager of Planning, Transit and the Environment, and the Director, Transit Services, individually to make changes to the hours of operation of the Park and Ride Lots and designate new Park and Ride Lots to reflect changes in transit schedules and other operational requirements.

CARRIED