1.             2011 DRAFT OPERATING AND CAPITAL BUDGET - TRANSIT COMMISSION

BUDGETS PRÉLIMINAIRES DE FONCTIONNEMENT ET D’IMMOBILISATIONS DE 2011– COMMISSION DU TRANSPORT EN COMMUN

 

 

COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS AS AMENDED

 

That Council, sitting as Committee of the Whole, approve the Transit Commission portion of the 2011 Operating and Capital Budgets as amended by replacement pages 17-52 of the Transit Commission Budget document and as amended by the following:

 

1.         Approve the fare schedule (Document 2 to the 2011 Marketing Plan), as amended by the following:

 

a.         That the fare table presented in the 2011 Marketing Plan be amended to reflect a $145 price point for the 2011-2012 school year; and

 

That the General Manager, Transit Services be authorized to enter into an agreement for a multi-year U-Pass program subject to the following conditions:

 

-          There is an increase in the U-Pass fee, an annual cost-of-living adjustment to be set solely at OC Transpo's discretion, to the point of revenue neutrality for the 2012-2013 school year and beyond; and

-          That the student representatives submit proof of referendum results permitting the agreement prior to March 31, 2012.

 

b.         That OC Transpo be directed to review the feasibility of an “Out of Ottawa” transit pass with the effect of charging a premium for residents living outside the City of Ottawa and report back to the Transit Commission as part of the 2012 Marketing Plan, prior to 2012 Draft Budget deliberations.

 

c.         That the expansion of free service to all seniors on Mondays and Fridays from noon onward be introduced as a pilot only for 2011 and that OC Transpo be directed to monitor the resulting travel patterns by seniors and consult seniors across the city as part of a review of the full fare structure offered to seniors and report back to the Transit Commission as part of the 2012 Marketing Plan, prior to 2012 Budget deliberations.

 

2.         That Council consider the approval of $81.8 million in additional capital authority for the purchase of 75 double-decker buses and supporting infrastructure, subject to the approval of the Interim Transit Commission of a business case that will be presented to the Interim Transit Commission on March 23, 2011 such that the funding for this purchase not impact the 2011 tax levy and that it include a maximum of $40M in transit tax-supported debt with the remaining balance to be funded from either gas, tax or transit capital funding sources.

 

 

RecommandationS MODIFIÉES De la commission

 

Que le Conseil, siégeant à titre de Comité plénier, approuve les parties pertinentes des budgets de fonctionnement et d’immobilisation de 2011 relatives au Commission du transport en commun telles que modifiées par le remplacement des pages 17-52 du document budgétaire du la Commission du transport en commun et telles que modifiées par ce qui suit :

 

            1.         Que le Conseil approuve la liste des tarifs (Document 2) dans le cadre du budget de la Commission du transport en commun par intérim, tel que modifié par le suivant :

 

            a.         Que la grille tarifaire comprise dans le Plan de marketing 2011 soit modifiée pour indiquer que le tarif en vigueur pour l’année scolaire 2011-2012 sera de 145 $; et

 

            Que le directeur général du Service de transport en commun ait l’autorisation de conclure une entente pour un programme U-Pass pluriannuel sous réserve des conditions suivantes :

 

-           Qu’on permette une augmentation du tarif de l’U-Pass, une indexation annuelle sur le coût de la vie établie uniquement à la discrétion d’OC Transpo, sans incidence sur les recettes pour l’année scolaire 2012-2013 et les années subséquentes; et

 

-           Que les représentants des étudiants présentent une preuve de résultats référendaires permettant la ratification de l’entente avant le 31 mars 2012.

 

b.         Que le personnel d’OC Transpo soit chargé d’examiner la faisabilité d’un laissez-passer du transport en commun « pour l’extérieur d’Ottawa » qui aura pour effet de percevoir un supplément pour les résidents vivant à l’extérieur d’Ottawa et qu’il présente un rapport à la Commission du transport en commun dans le cadre du Plan de marketing de 2012, avant les débats sur le budget préliminaire de 2012.

 

c.         Que l’expansion du service pour les personnes âgées aux lundis et vendredis à partir de midi soit intégrée comme projet-pilote pour 2011 seulement et que l’on demande à OC Transpo d’évaluer les habitudes de déplacement qui résulteront de cette expansion, de mener une consultation auprès de tous les aînés de la ville dans le cadre d’un réexamen des barèmes des tarifs pour cette clientèle et d’en présenter un compte rendu à la Commission de transport régionale dans le Plan de marketing 2012 avant les délibérations sur le budget de 2012.

 

2.         Que le Conseil envisage l’approbation de 81,8 millions de dollars pour l’achat de 75 autobus à deux étages et de l’infrastructure connexe, à la condition que la commission du transport en commun par intérim approuve l’analyse de rentabilité qui lui sera présentée le 23 mars 2011, et que ce financement n’ait aucune répercussion sur les impôts en 2011 et n’occasionne pas une dette financée par les taxes pour le transport en commun de plus 40 millions de dollars, dont le solde sera financé par l’essence, les taxes ou les sources de financement des immobilisations du transport en commun.

 

 

 

 

Documentation

 

1.                  Transit Commission Coordinator’s report dated 1 February 2011 (ACS2011-CCS-OTC-0002);

 

2.                  General Manager, Transit Services’ report entitled OC Transpo 2011 Marketing Plan - Information Supplemental to the Budget Estimates and dated 2 February 2011 (ACS2011-ICS-TRA-0005) is attached as Annex 1;

 

3.                  2011 Business Plan – (2.1 Fleet Plan; 2.5 Elimination of Duplication and Delay in the Existing Network; 2.7 Increase Capacity of O-Train Service and dated 15 February 2011 (ACS2011-ICS-TRA-0007) is attached as Annex 2;

 

4.                  Extract of Draft Minutes of the Transit Commission meeting of 24 February 2011.



 

Report to/Rapport au :

 

Interim Transit Commission /

Commission du transport en commun par intérim

   

and Council / et au Conseil  

 

1 February 2011 / 1 février 2011

 

Submitted by/Soumis par : Committee Coordinator / Coordonnateur du comité

 

Contact Person/Personne ressource : Rosemary Theriault, Committee Coordinator

City Clerk and Solicitor/Greffier et Chef du contentieux

(613) 580-2424 x, 21624

 

City Wide/à l'échelle de la Ville, City Wide/à l'échelle de la Ville

Ref N°: ACS2011-CCS -OTC-0002

 

 

SUBJECT:

2011 DRAFT operating and capital BUDGET - TRANSIT COMMISSION

 

 

OBJET :

budgetS PRÉLIMINAIRES de fonctionnement et d’immobilisations de 2011– COMmission du TRANSPORT en commun

 

 

REPORT RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Interim Transit Commission consider the relevant portions of the 2011 Operating and Capital Budgets and forward its recommendations to Council, sitting as Committee of the Whole, for consideration at the meeting to be held March 8 to 10, 2011, as required.

 

RECOMMANDATION DU RAPPORT

 

Que la Commission du transport en commun par intérim examine les sections pertinentes des Budgets d’immobilisations et de fonctionnement de 2011 et qu’il présente ses recommandations au Conseil, siégeant à titre de Comité plénier, aux fins d’examen lors de sa réunion prévue du 8 au 10 mars 2011, au besoin.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

City Council, on December 8, 2010, while considering the 2010-2014 Council Governance Review report, approved the 2011 Budget process which indicated that the individual Committees, Board and Commission would hold meetings to listen to public delegations, review their respective budgets and make recommendations to Council.  At that meeting, Council also approved a motion directing the City Treasurer to report back to Council on 15 December 2010 with a more detailed timetable, including suggested Standing Committee review dates, and budget development guidelines. 

 

On December 15, 2010 Council considered and approved the City Treasurer’s report entitled “2011 Budget Timetable and Process”, together with the following motion:

 

MOTION NO. 2/9

 

Moved by Mayor J. Watson

Seconded by Councillor S. Desroches

 

WHEREAS this Council is committed to promoting a culture of fiscal responsibility at City Hall; and

 

WHEREAS this Council wishes to proceed with the development of its 2011 Budget as soon as possible; and

 

WHEREAS budget directions with respect to any taxation target have not yet been provided to either staff or Standing Committees responsible for preparing and reviewing budget submissions; and

 

WHEREAS City Council’s first budget will set the pace and tone for all four budgets we will fashion together; and

 

WHEREAS Council is mindful of the tough choices many of its citizens must make every day in this economy and is prepared to make the same tough choices when deciding how to spend taxpayers’ dollars in 2011 and beyond; and

 

WHEREAS the Long Range Financial Plan that is to be developed after the adoption of the 2011 budget provides a term of Council forecast of the City’s financial situation;

 

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the 2011 Draft Budget for all of the City’s tax-supported programs be prepared on the basis of a maximum 2.5% total tax increase; and

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor and the City Manager present a budget overview report to Council that details how that tax target objective can be achieved at a Special Meeting on January 19, 2011; and

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that City Council direct each Standing Committee to work within the funding envelope for the budgets in their mandates, and that  any additions to the budget will require offsetting reductions; and

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that City Council request the Ottawa Police Services Board and the Ottawa Public Library Board deliver budgets that would have no more than 2.5% increase on their  tax requirement; and

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Long Range Financial Plan be developed with a maximum tax increase of 2.5% for the years 2012 to 2014.

 

                                                                                                            CARRIED

 

Of particular note to Committees, is the second resolutionof this motion, namely:

 

“BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that City Council direct each Standing Committee to work within the funding envelope for the budgets in their mandates, and that any additions to the budget will require offsetting reductions;"

 

City Council at its meeting of 19 January 2011, tabled the 2011 Draft Operating and Capital Budgets and referred the budgets within each Standing Committee's mandate, to that Committee for consideration and recommendation to Council.   

 

 

DISCUSSION

 

The 2011 Transit Commission Draft Operating and Capital Budget is now before the Commission for the purpose of hearing from public delegations and to consider and make recommendations to Council. 

 

 

RURAL IMPLICATIONS

 

The Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee will review and make recommendations on those portions of the budget with Rural Implications.

 

 

CONSULTATION

 

This meeting was advertised in the three daily newspapers and public delegations will be received by the Commission.  As well, there will be five multi-ward bilingual budget consultation meetings held in late February and early March, 2011 (i.e. in advance of Council's consideration of the Budget to be held March 8 to 10, 2011).  

 

 

COMMENTS BY THE WARD COUNCILLOR(S)

 

N/A

 

 

LEGAL/RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

 

There are no legal/risk management impediments to implementing the recommendations in this report.

 

 

CITY STRATEGIC PLAN

 

N/A

 

 

TECHNICAL IMPLICATIONS

 

N/A

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

Financial Implications are identified in the 2011Draft Operating and Capital Budgets, as well as in the City Treasurer's Transmittal Report dated 17 January 2011 and entitled "2011 Draft Operating and Capital Budgets - Tax Support Programs", tabled with Council on 19 January 2011.

 

 

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

 

Document 1 - City Treasurer's report dated 17 January 2011, entitled 2011 Draft Operating and Capital Budgets - Tax Support Programs (issued previously to all Members of Council and held on file with the City Clerk.)

 

Document 2 -  2011 Transit Commission Draft Operating and Capital Budgets (issued previously to all Members of Council and held on file with the City Clerk.

 

Document 3 -  Memo dated 31 January 2011 from the City Treasurer and the Deputy City Clerk transmitting replacement budget pages for the Transit Commission Budget book (previously distributed)

 

DISPOSITION

 

The Committee Coordinator will forward the Commission's recommendations to Council for consideration, at the meeting of March 8 to 10, 2011.  Budgets will be amended as per Council deliberation and adoption.

 



 

Report to/Rapport au :

 

Interim Transit Commission

Commission de transport en commun par intérim

 

31 January 2011 / le 31 janvier 2011

 

Submitted by/Soumis par: Alain Mercier, General Manager/Directeur général Transit Services/Services du transport en commun

 

Contact Person/Personne ressource : Vincent Patterson, Manager/Gestionnaire

Marketing and Strategic Development/Marketing et développement stratégique
OC Transpo

613-842-3636 x3672, Vincent.Patterson@ottawa.ca

 

 

City Wide

Ref N°: ACS2011-ICS-TRA-0005

 

 

SUBJECT:

OC TRANSPO 2011 Marketing Plan

 

 

OBJET :

Plan de marketing 2011 d’OC Transpo

 

 

REPORT RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Interim Transit Commission:

 

1.      Receive the 2011 Marketing Plan (Document 1) as information supplemental to 2011 budget; and

 

2.      Approve the fare schedule (Document 2) and forward the fare schedule to City Council for their approval as part of the Interim Transit Commission’s budget.

 

 

RECOMMANDATION DU RAPPORT

 

Que la Commission du transport en commun par intérim :

 

1.      reçoive le Plan de marketing 2011 (document 1) comme renseignements supplémentaires au budget de 2011; et

 

2.      approuve le tableau des tarifs (document 2) et qu’elle transmette ce tableau au Conseil municipal pour obtenir son approbation dans le cadre du budget de la Commission du transport en commun par intérim.

BACKGROUND

 

As part of the 2008 Strategic Branch Review, Transit Services committed to providing an annual OC Transpo marketing report.  Marketing strategy and activities play an important role in attracting and retaining public transit riders in Ottawa, by optimizing the mix of price, product, service delivery and promotion in a way that will satisfy consumer needs for mobility as well as achieve the best possible balance between revenue and cost.  Revised annually, the Marketing Plan looks at opportunities resulting from changes to the transit products and services we offer, as well as changing consumer needs, attitudes, and trends in purchasing behaviour.

 

 

DISCUSSION

 

Transit marketing strategies are designed to increase ridership per capita, revenue, as well as overall transit modal share.  The Marketing Plan is intended to create sustainable and affordable growth in transit usage over the long term.

 

The OC Transpo Marketing Plan for 2010 outlined objectives and strategies designed to restore ridership after the 2008-2009 bus strike.  By late 2010, ridership had recovered, and OC Transpo is again in a position to build on patterns of growth established since 2001.

 

A prime opportunity now exists to conduct social marketing campaigns in 2011 that revitalize the OC Transpo brand and reinforce the essential nature of transit in everyday’s life.  Marketing strategies in 2011 will focus on the following:

            Brand revitalization

            Safety

Reliability

            Wayfinding

            Optimized service design

            e-Transpo

            Affordability

            Advertising revenue

            Community partners and sponsorship

            Market research

 

 

CONSULTATION

 

Consultation/public notification was not required as part of the preparation of this document.

 

 

LEGAL/RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

 

There are no legal/risk management impediments to receiving this report.

 


CITY STRATEGIC PLAN

 

The attached OC Transpo 2011 Marketing Plan directly and indirectly supports the following objectives of the Strategic Plan.

 

A1.   Improve the City’s transportation network to afford ease of mobility, keep pace with growth, reduce congestion and work towards modal split targets.

 

B1.   Attain transit goals (30% modal split) by 2021.

 

E6.    Require walking, transit and cycling oriented communities and employment centres.

 

TECHNICAL IMPLICATIONS

 

N/A

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

The 2011 draft Operating Budget revenues for Transit includes both the July, 2011 fare rate changes and the 2011 projected ridership increase of 1.2% as outlined in the OC Transpo 2011 Marketing Plan.  Total fare revenue, inclusive of a full year impact of the U-pass pilot, will result in a $3.188M budget increase over the adjusted 2010 budget value for fare revenue.

 

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

 

Document 1    OC Transpo 2011 Marketing Plan (Previously Distributed)

Document 2    OC Transpo Fares

 

DISPOSITION

 

Upon approval of this report, staff will implement the recommendations included in the 2011 Marketing Plan and forward the fare schedule (Document 2) to Council for budget deliberations.

 

 


OC Transpo Fares                                                                                         DOCUMENT 2

fig 3-2-2.pngfig 3-2-1.png


 

Report to/Rapport au:

 

Interim Transit Commission /

Commission du transport en commun par intérim

 

15 February 2011 / le 15 février 2011

 

Submitted by/Soumis par : Nancy Schepers, Deputy City Manager/Directrice municipale adjointe, Infrastructure Services and Community Sustainability/Services d 'infrastructure et Viabilité des collectivités

 

Contact Person/Personne ressource : Vincent Patterson, Manager, Marketing and Strategic Development, Transit Services/Service de transports en commun

(613) 580-2424 x 3672, vincent.patterson@ottawa.ca

 

City Wide/à l'échelle de la Ville

Ref N°: ACS2011-ICS-TRA-0007

 

 

SUBJECT:

2011 BUSINESS PLAN – (2.1 FLEET PLAN; 2.5 ELIMINATION OF DUPLICATION AND DELAY IN THE EXISTING NETWORK; 2.7 INCREASE CAPACITY OF O-TRAIN SERVICE)

 

OBJET :

 

PLAN D’ACTIVITÉS DE 2011 – (2.1 PLAN RELATIF AU PARC DE VÉHICULES; 2.5 ÉLIMINATION DES CHEVAUCHEMENTS ET DES RETARDS DANS LE RÉSEAU ACTUEL; 2.7 AUGMENTATION DE LA CAPACITÉ DE L’O-TRAIN)

 

 

REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS

 

That the Interim Transit Commission:

 

1.                Table for consideration the 2011 Business Plan (Document 1) as information supplemental to the 2011 Budget and for approval at the March 23 meeting of the Interim Transit Commission; and

 

2.                Forward Document 2 (which includes network optimization options) to the Interim Transit Commission’s meeting on February 24th for consideration as part of the budget deliberations.

 

 

RECOMMANDATIONS DU RAPPORT

 

Que la Commission du transport en commun par intérim :

 

1.                  Reçoive le Plan d’affaires 2011 (document 1) pour examen à titre d’information supplémentaire pour le budget 2011 et pour approbation à la réunion du 23 mars de la Commission du transport en commun par intérim; et

 

2.                  Renvoie le document 2 (qui comprend les options d’optimisation du réseau) à la réunion du 24 février de la Commission du transport en commun par intérim pour examen dans le cadre des délibérations sur le budget.

 

 

BACKGROUND

 

As OC Transpo completed its Strategic Branch Review in 2008, it identified the need for a long-range vision for operation and financial planning.  As a result, the 10-Year Tactical Plan was developed, which ultimately, ensures that a sustainable delivery model for transit services is established.

 

Council received the 10-Year Tactical Plan as part of the 2010 Budget discussion.  This document was used as the starting point in identifying opportunities to achieve efficiencies through changes to the service delivery model.

 

As recommend by staff and approved by Council, OC Transpo will provide an annual update to the Tactical Plan, which, beginning with this report, will now be considered the “Business Plan.” This report will incorporate multi-year initiatives, fleet plans and changes to key resources required to meet services strategies and standards directed by Transit Commission.

 

The Business Plan is designed to fill the gap between the long-term vision of the Transportation Master Plan (TMP) and the short-term strategies produced annually through Transplan, the annual Marketing Plan and budget development.

 

The 2011 Business Plan is designed to build on the direction established by the Tactical Plan by reporting on key business metrics, both in the current context and long-term forecasts.

 

Specifically, the 2011 Business Plan will provide the Commission and Council with the first review and refinements of last year’s Tactical Plan.  It will also highlight key initiatives within OC Transpo that are designed to help achieve our longer-term vision for service delivery and asset management, including potential savings of up to 20 per cent or $100 million of annual operating costs by 2019.  Some of the key recommendations include mitigation measures in preparation for light rail conversion, the implementation of a trunk-and-feeder network with the opening of light rail, and the alignment with Council direction in terms of area coverage.

 

Reflecting on Council direction related to transit and the evolution of the light rail project, OC Transpo has developed a number of options for the 2011 Business Plan that will create significant efficiencies over the next 10 years.  In addition to examining the trunk-and-feeder network and area coverage of conventional transit, staff will look at increasing capacity of the O-Train and purchasing double-decker buses.

DISCUSSION

 

The 2011 Business Plan maps out the direction Council should consider over the next decade to achieve its vision for both service delivery and capital asset management.

 

The main recommendations of the 2011 Business Plan set the stage to create service delivery options that will provide safe and reliable service within a sustainable framework. This direction will provide a growth model that will place Ottawa’s transit system on solid and sustainable financial foundation for years to come. 

 

If these changes are made, the transit system will be able to properly fund capital and operating within its share of a 2.5 per cent tax increase. If these changes are not made, this will not be possible and the transit service will require a significant increase in property tax support. 

 

RURAL IMPLICATIONS

 

NA

 

CONSULTATION

 

There is no consultation required for the preparation of this report.

 

COMMENTS BY THE WARD COUNCILLOR(S)

 

NA

 

LEGAL/RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

 

There are no legal/risk management impediments to the implementation of this report's recommendation.

 

CITY STRATEGIC PLAN

 

The attached 2011 Business Plan directly and indirectly supports the following objectives of the Transportation Master Plan and previous Council strategic directions..

 

A1.    Improve the City’s transportation network to afford ease of mobility, keep pace with growth, reduce congestion and work towards modal split targets.

B1.    Attain transit goals (30 per cent modal split) by 2021.

E6.    Require walking, transit and cycling oriented communities and employment centres.

 

TECHNICAL IMPLICATIONS

 

NA

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

The Business Plan forecast and underlying assumptions have been reviewed for reasonableness and consistency.   OC Transpo’s planned network changes, as proposed in the 2011 Budget, in addition to operational changes corresponding with the introduction of light rail transit and higher capacity double-decker buses are reflected in the Business Plan’s 10-year financial results.  The operating budget is properly aligned with the 10-year capital investment plan for Transit.

 

Please note that the double-decker savings are based on initial estimates and subject to further analysis in an upcoming business case. 

 

The Business Plan fairly represents the tax requirements for Transit operations over the 10 year period 2011 - 2020 based on the underlying assumptions.

 

The Long Range Financial Plan will address the financing of the 10-year Transit capital investment plan.

 

 

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

 

Document 1 – 2011 Business Plan (previously distributed)

Document 2  – Sections 2.1, 2.5 and 2.7 of the 2011 Business Plan

Document 3 - Results of Double-Decker Pilot Project

 

 

DISPOSITION

 

Upon Transit Commission approval, OC Transpo will develop business cases for both the purchase of new high-capacity buses and expanding O-Train capacity.  Staff will also bring forward route optimization options for Transit Commission’s review.

 


 

Document 2

 

 

 

OC Transpo

2011 Business Plan

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Presented to Transit Commission on

Wednesday, February 16, 2011

The information contained in this document is sections 2.1, 2.5 and 2.7 of the 2011 Business Plan.  The information has been included as a separate document to align with the recommendations of the Business Plan report and to allow Transit Commission and Council to consider the information as part of the 2011 Budget process.

 

2.1 Fleet Plan

 

OC Transpo maintains a multi-year fleet plan for the acquisition, refurbishment and retirement of buses.  The plan sets out long-term capital costs to ensure high availability of vehicles and efficient use of maintenance resources.  The fleet plan is based on projected ridership changes, expected opening dates of new rapid transit projects, and options for the provision of system capacity with different bus types.

 

In 2010, the decision was made to renew the articulated bus fleet by purchasing 306 new articulated buses.  This allowed the retirement of 226 inefficient and problematic older articulated buses, creating substantial improvements in reliability and fuel economy.  This renewal moved forward the planned date of replacement of those buses and changed the fleet plan by eliminating the need for refurbishment of many older buses.  All of these new buses are expected to be in service by March 2011.  Customers are already receiving the benefits of improved comfort, higher reliability, and higher capacity on some busy trips.  The acquisition of these buses has resulted in significant financial savings already incorporated in Budget 2011.  The cost of financing these new buses has been more than offset by associated savings in fuel and maintenance of more than $9 million a year.

 

The current fleet plan extends from 2011 until 2030, and includes the bus savings from the planned network optimization in 2011.  It also includes a reduced requirement for buses enabled by the opening of new sections of Transitway where faster operation requires fewer buses. Further, and as highlighted in the graph below, it anticipates the opening of sections of the light rail system where trains replace buses and requirements for buses to serve expected ridership growth and expanded service to meet that growth.

 


Table 2

 

Double-Deckers

 

In 2009 and 2010, OC Transpo tested a small fleet of three double-decker buses.  These buses have proven to be highly successful, especially for operation on long-distance express routes during peak periods and are well suited for future feeder routes planned for implementation at the opening of the new light rail line through the downtown core.

 

The chief advantage of double-decker buses is that they can carry more customers – and include more seating – than any other bus type, at approximately the same capital cost as an articulated bus and in the same road space as a 40-foot bus.  Details of the results of the trial are in Document 3 to this report.  

 

In today’s system, OC Transpo uses a 45 person standard for a 40 foot bus and a 70 person standard for an articulated bus.  The APTA peer review indicated that this standard is low relative to transit systems in comparable cities, leading to higher operating costs per customer.  Consideration has been given to moving this standard up to 50 persons for a 40 foot bus and 77 for an articulated bus as such a change would save approximately $1.9 million a year in operating costs.  This would, however, also result in more buses on express routes arriving full during peak periods than customers experience today.  Moving now to upgrade older 40 foot buses with double-decker buses would eliminate the need to change this standard, and provide a more comfortable ride for our customers along with additional system benefits.  It will also produce better efficiencies saving approximately five times as much annually than increasing crowding standards.

 

The Transit Commission will be presented in April 2011 with a detailed lifetime business case for the purchase of approximately 75 double-decker buses to replace the oldest, lowest-capacity buses in the fleet.  This purchase will result in significant lifecycle savings as well as specific immediate efficiencies.  It will allow for substantial operating cost savings, as the same number of customers would be carried on fewer buses, and long-term capital cost savings, as there would be fewer buses in the fleet.

 

Based on the results of the pilot, the new double-decker buses would be assigned primarily to busy, long-distance express routes, where customers would benefit the most from the increased seated capacity that double-deckers have.  On an articulated bus operating at capacity, 20 per cent of the customers need to stand, but on a double-decker bus operating at capacity, only nine percent of the customers need to stand.  The articulated buses currently on express routes would then be assigned to Transitway and main-line routes, where they would replace 40-foot low-floor buses.  Those 40-foot buses would then move to the local routes where they would replace the retired first-generation low-floor buses.

 

The first generation low-floor buses, acquired between 1997 and 1999, have disadvantages for customers in that they have only a small number of seats and restricted standing area.  They also have many advantages for transit operation because existing buses cannot be assigned to anything other than the lowest-ridership routes, have relatively poor availability, and present high maintenance costs.

 

The use of double-decker buses may also reduce the capital cost of building the terminal stations for the light rail line. Double-decker buses take up less space than articulated buses and provide the same capacity with fewer trips, reducing the platform and staging space required.

 

Double-decker buses can also be a vital part of operations during light rail construction, where there will be a need to acquire a large number of buses to temporarily increase the fleet size during the construction period (as outlined in Section 3).

 

The 158 first-generation low-floor buses in the fleet would be replaced by approximately 75 double-decker buses.  This reduction in fleet size could create an estimated $10 million in operating cost savings per year with a full year financing cost of approximately $4 million. Overall the replacement of older 40-foot buses with double-decker buses could provide between approximately $2.5 million in 2012 operating savings net of costs of advancing the purchase.  These net savings grow to approximately $6 million annually from 2013 to 2015 with the full $10 million savings in annual operating costs enabled by these new buses being realized in 2016.

 


Table 3

Double-decker bus acquisition net savings:

 

 

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

Savings

$2.5 M

$10 M

$10 M

$10 M

$10 M

Cost to Acquire

$ 40 M

 

 

 

 

Financing Cost over Base Case

$ 0

$4 M

$4 M

$4 M

0

Net savings

$2.5 M

$6 M

$6 M

$6M

$10 M

 

The Transit Commission will be presented with the business case for a plan to purchase double-deckers to replace the oldest, lowest-capacity buses in the fleet and drive these efficiency savings.  As part of this Business Plan estimates of the required supplementary Capital authority, funded entirely from operational savings, have been tabled for inclusion in Budget 2011.  To achieve the estimated savings, the procurement procedure would need approval by May 2011 so that the new double-decker fleet could be delivered and operating by August/September of 2012.

 

Over the next two years, comprehensive improvements to the maintenance system will continue, including changes to the supply chain and measures to boost productivity.   A move to vendor-managed inventory and point-of-use storage will reduce process steps and create efficiencies.  The re-design of the maintenance process along with an enhanced focus on reliability management will enable OC Transpo to maintain high levels of bus availability with a smaller fleet, while reducing capital and operating costs.

 

2.5 Elimination of Duplication and Delay in the Existing Network

 

OC Transpo strives to provide quality transit options throughout its service area that are as convenient to as many people as possible.  A balanced system provides attractive transit options to as many customers as possible in an economically efficient way.

 

The current route network design exceeds the Council-approved policy standards that 95 per cent of the population be within a five-minute walk of transit service during peak periods and within a ten-minute walk at off-peak times.  The current network also includes a number of routes which are indirect or which have sections which duplicate other routes.  These characteristics stretch the resources of OC Transpo and result in lower productivity and higher costs.  These inefficient parts of the route network are not only costly but also little-used by customers.  Applying the norms and best practices of more-efficient transit systems will reduce costs significantly without reducing system ridership.

 

Budget 2011 calls for this network inefficiency to be addressed and for an improved network design to be implemented.  The vast majority of transit users will experience either no change or an improvement in the overall service they use through better reliability and more direct routing.  Only about 6 per cent of daytime off-peak transit users would have a slightly longer walk to the bus, and in most of these cases, the walk would be limited to one or two additional blocks.  At peak periods about 1 per cent of transit users would have a longer walk to the bus.

 

Approximately 94 per cent of transit users would see no change at all but would gain the benefit of shorter travel times through more direct routes.  In 2011, network optimization efforts will aim at meeting the existing Council-approved policy standard of 95 per cent of urban households within a 5-minute walk.

 

 The customer’s travel experience is made up of a number of elements:

 

1.  The time it takes to walk to a bus stop;

2.  The time it take to wait for a bus;

3.  In-vehicle travel time;

4.  The number of times as transfer needs to be made; and

5.  Overall reliability of service.

 

Though most of the possible route changes described below would increase walking distance or would increase the number of transfers, many of the customers who are affected by those changes would also receive the benefits of a shorter waiting time and a shorter in-vehicle travel time. 

 

While modest, these changes to the route network will dramatically improve productivity.  These benefits would come at a significantly lower cost than the existing network design, will reduce upward pressure on fares and taxes, and will put the transit network on a sustainable footing that is consistent with the proposed budgets for 2011 and future years.

 

As mentioned, there would be no change in the crowding standard for buses as a result of the move to double-decker buses.  The carrying capacity of routes would remain the same with more seats available reducing the need for customers to stand. Changing the crowding standard is avoided because it would primarily affect customers on the busiest routes, it would substantially reduce service quality on those routes, and it would reduce the reliability of service and increase the likelihood of customers being left behind at stops.

 

Where routes are being consolidated, the combined routes will operate more frequently than they do today to provide sufficient capacity.  At certain times of day, or in areas with lower ridership, frequencies will remain the same as today, as the additional ridership can be accommodated within the existing capacity.

 

OC Transpo will continue to extend the route network into new areas as they are developed. In fact, in 2011, there are some newly-built areas of the City which already warrant route extensions.  These expansions will also be incorporated as part of the revised network.

 


2.5.1 Unchanged Routes / Enhanced Routes

 

The vast majority of customers’ trips will remain exactly as they are today with no change. Some of these trips will be enhanced through greater frequency on routes or with larger capacity vehicles such as double-deckers and articulated buses.  Due to the length and capacity of these buses, we will be able to better accommodate peak ridership while alleviating some congestion through the downtown core.

 

Bus routes expected not to change or to receive enhanced service include: the O-Train and Routes 1, 2, 7, 8, 14, 15, 20, 21, 22, 24, 27, 33, 35, 38, 60, 61, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 73, 76, 77, 86, 87, 94, 95, 96, 98, 99, 114, 118, 122, 123, 124, 126, 128, 135, 146, 148, 157, 164, 170, 172, 173, 176, 177, 183, 184, 186, 187, 189, 194, 199, 245, 261, 262, and 263.

 

2.5.2 Elimination of Duplication and Consolidation of Routes

 

Throughout the City, a number of routes have evolved to cover identical ground for large portions of their journey.  In some other cases, two or three routes run parallel to one another very close together.  These routes will be candidates for consolidation into fewer more efficient routes.  For example, instead of having two under-used buses serving the same customers, the new design will have one better used route.  This category of change will have almost no effect on walking distance to access transit.  Customers will, in most cases, not have any further to walk to get to their bus. 

 

An example of this type of change is depicted below.  In this example, two express routes in Kanata which serve neighbouring areas would be consolidated into a single route, which would operate more frequently but which would have a lower operating cost because the capacity would match more closely aligned to the actual ridership.

 

Figure 1 - Current Routes 63 and 64 in Kanata

SYSTEM-MAP-2009-(Kanata-2011)

 

 

Figure 2 - Possible consolidation into one new Route 63

SYSTEM-MAP-2009-(Kanata-2010)

 

While these changes will mean some adjustment for customers to determine which new route to take for their trip or commute, the result will be almost identical service with the realigned route structure.

 

Routes under review for consolidation to reduce duplication include: Routes 3, 4, 5, 6, 16, 23, 32, 34, 39, 40, 43, 57, 62, 63, 64, 65, 85, 88, 101, 111, 112, 115, 116, 117, 125, 130, 131, 133, 141, 142, 143, 144, 150, 151, 154, 155, 156, 158, 160, 165, 166, 168, 182, 188, 190, 191, and 316.

 

Not all of these routes will be combined with other routes.  They are candidates for consultation with customers and consideration by Transit Commission.  In some cases routes listed here will be altered slightly to be able to properly serve customers from discontinued routes that run in parallel to along the same routes.

 

2.5.3 Removal of Inefficient Local Loops and Crescents

 

Many of our bus routes take detours down side streets to shorten the walk for particular employment centres and neighbourhoods.  These so-called “milk runs” through local residential and collector streets are very costly to maintain and slow travel times for riders already on the bus. Service would be available by walking a short distance to catch the bus for all of the customers affected by these changes.

 

An example of this type of change is depicted below. In this example, a local route which now follows a complex route in Overbrook would be changed to follow a simpler and more direct route.  The frequency of service would remain the same, travel times for customers would be reduced, and there would be a cost saving because of the reduction in the distance that buses travel to complete each trip.


 

Figure 3 - Current Route 18 in Overbrook

SYSTEM-MAP-2009-(Vanier-2010)

 

Figure 4 - Possible revised Route 18

SYSTEM-MAP-2009-(Vanier-2011)

 

 

Routes under review for this category include: Routes 5, 18, 31, 37, 101, 102, 179, 221, 231, and 283.

 

 

2.5.4 Reduce Hours of Service for Low-ridership Routes or Route Sections

 

Some routes that have a reasonable number of users at peak times drop off dramatically between peak periods yet continue to run at the same frequency.  Others routes have specific sections with very low ridership. These routes starve the rest of the system of valuable resources that could be better deployed in high ridership areas.  Where ridership at off-peak times is very low, consideration will be given to eliminating off-peak service or to discontinuing service to sections of the route.

 

An example of this type of change is depicted below. In this example, a local route in Elmvale would be reduced from its current hours of service (6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, plus 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday) to operate only during peak periods (generally 6:00 to 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 to 7:00 p.m., Monday to Friday).  During peak periods, the route would run at the same frequency as today (every 15 minutes in the morning and every 20 minutes in the afternoon).

 

Figure 5 - Current Route 149 in Elmvale - Possible reduction to peak periods only

SYSTEM-MAP-2009-(Elmvale-2010)

 

Routes under review for this category include: Routes 103, 116, 127, 136, 137, 140, 143, 145, 147, 149, 152, 153, 161, 163, 165, 167, 171, 174, 175, 178, and 306, and certain sections of Routes 5, 6, 9, 12, 16, 18, 40, 82, 97, 105, 106, 115, 120, 121, 125, 129, 131, 151, 154, 156, 166, 169, 190, 191, 192, 197, and 232.

 


 

2.5.5 Overall Results of Network Reorganization

 

The combined result of route changes such as those outlined in the three sections above will be to create a streamlined, more productive transit network that carries the same number of customers at a considerably lower cost.  Generally, some customers will have a longer walk to their nearest bus stop and some will have an additional transfer to complete their trips, but many customers will have a shorter waiting time and a shorter travel time on board the bus, and overall the system will be more reliable and easier to use.”

 

The following map illustrates how different types of route changes on different routes can combine to create an effective, convenient, and reliable transit network.  This map shows a possible network of all-day local routes in Orleans. Along with Transitway Routes 94 and 95, five local routes would bring transit service within a ten-minute walk of almost all residents.  Such a network would have considerably lower operating costs than the current network, which has eight local routes in Orleans.  On this map, the shaded area is the area within a ten-minute walk of a bus stop.

 

Figure 6 - Possible all-day route network for Orléans

 

In planning the revised route network, OC Transpo staff will be paying particular attention to retaining direct service or easy connections to major points, including downtown.  The revised network will have sufficient capacity to carry all current customers.  Some routes will operate more frequently than they do now, and many buses which now have available capacity will carry more customers than they do now.

 

OC Transpo staff are currently examining all routes in the system to identify opportunities to improve productivity as described here, aiming always to minimize inconvenience for current customers while making better use of available resources.  Proposals will be made available for consultation with customers and residents, and the input from the consultation will inform the recommendations that staff make for approval by the Transit Commission.  The approved changes would begin in September 2011.


 

2.7 Increase Capacity of O-Train Service

 

Initially established as a two-year pilot program in 2001, the O-Train continues to attract more customers every year and has become an essential part of the OC Transpo system.  The O-Train serves two predominant travel markets: transportation to and from Carleton University and north-south travel that is not to or from downtown, such as from Ottawa South to Tunney’s Pasture.  During 2010, with the increased ridership from Carleton University resulting from the introduction of the U-Pass, the capacity limits of the O-Train service are being reached at the busiest times.

 

Budget 2011 provides funds to acquire one additional spare Talent train to allow for future O-Train service without interruption or reduction due to maintenance programs. Budget 2011 also provides for upgrades and improvements to O-Train stations initially constructed for a pilot period.  The new Talent train, bringing the complement to 4 train sets, will allow for a full set of spare vehicles, decreasing service interruptions in the future.

 

In addition to these investments, staff are exploring the possibility of increasing O-Train frequency, additional system upgrades and putting 4 vehicles in operation on the line at one time instead of 2 as we have today.   If O-Train service can be increased from 15 minutes to 10 minute service, O-Train capacity would be increased by 50 per cent, from 1200 to 1800 customers per hour in each direction.

 

This strategic investment would contribute to balancing the number of customers from the south entering downtown from the east and from the west.  Many customers who now enter or pass through downtown via the Transitway from Hurdman Station would choose to use the O-Train as part of their trip if it were more frequent and had more capacity.  It would reduce pressure on the link between Hurdman Station and downtown during the years of light rail construction, and it would provide a second attractive option for travel after the opening of the initial light rail line, building the market for the future north-south light rail line.

 

This solution would also decrease the number of buses required during the construction of the light rail line by using the existing fixed infrastructure and reducing overhead.  Implementing the new trains would avoid short-term bus acquisitions, stranded costs or higher cost leases required to accommodate the construction of the light rail system. 

 

In early 2011, staff will be evaluating the business case for expanding the capacity of the O-Train service to carry more customers at a lower operating cost than buses.  The business case will be presented to the Transit Commission before May of 2011, so that necessary improvements in service can be made in time for light rail construction.

 


 

Document 3

 

 

 

OC Transpo

 

Double-Decker Pilot Project Evaluation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pat Scrimgeour

Manager, Transit Service Design

 

Presented to Transit Commission on

Wednesday, February 16, 2011


Double-Decker Pilot Project Evaluation

 

 

Background

 

In June 2007, Ottawa City Council approved the purchase of three double-decker buses to operate under a pilot project as part of the OC Transpo Fleet Acquisition Strategy.   The three double-decker buses were tested in regular service through 2009 and 2010, to determine their applicability for future operations.  

 

As part of the pilot project, staff studied issues such as winter operability, fuel costs, emissions and customer satisfaction. 

 

Evaluation of double-decker buses

 

The evaluation has found that double-decker buses offer considerable capital and operating cost savings when used on particular service types, and that there are no physical or logistical obstacles preventing their use in the system. There are, however, changes to the detailed design and configuration of the buses that staff would make if further double-decker buses were to be acquired.

 

Ridership on the OC Transpo system continues to grow, particularly through the downtown core. Until the light rail line opens and replaces the rapid transit and express bus operation, there is no ability to operate more buses along Albert and Slater streets. Capacity increases to respond to ridership growth can only be made by assigning higher-capacity buses.

 

New articulated buses have replaced 40-foot buses to provide more capacity. Once all of the trips through downtown are operating with articulated buses, however, double-decker buses are the only identified feasible way of increasing capacity beyond that point (double-articulated buses take more space on the street and thus are not a practical solution). Current estimates are that the first phase of light rail will be complete before ridership reaches that point, but if downtown employment levels increase sooner or if there is any delay in the construction of the light rail line, double-decker buses may be required to increase capacity.

 

Though double-decker buses may not be required to provide sufficient capacity, staff conducted an evaluation to determine if there were economic or customer-service advantages of double-decker buses compared to articulated buses. The following table summarizes the findings of the evaluation. The figures in bold show the more favourable bus type for each characteristic.


 

Characteristic

Articulated buses

Double-decker buses

Remarks

Seated capacity

55

82

 

Service capacity standard

70

90

 

Availability of seats

79% of capacity

91% of capacity

 

 

Crush load

 

105

 

96+

Double-decker crush load could be higher with a different axle specified than on the pilot buses

Waiting times for customers

Shorter

Longer

 

Operating speed downtown

Same

Same

 

Operating speed outside downtown

Faster

4 percent slower

Pilot buses, with an unsatisfactory rear door mechanism, are 6 percent slower than current articulated buses

Fuel economy per bus

Higher

11% lower

 

Fuel economy per customer

Higher

31% lower

 

Emissions per customer

Higher

31% lower

 

Winter handling

Worse

Better

 

Maintenance facilities

No new costs

Modifications required

 

Transitway road structure

No new costs

Earlier replacement and slightly higher future costs

 

Management of clearances

Not required

Required

 

New operating procedures

Not required

Required

 

Specialized training

Not required

Required

 

Security on-board

Concerns with rear section

Concerns with upper deck

 

Emergency response

Easier

Harder

 

 

 

When the first section of the light rail line is complete there will be high numbers of feeder bus routes terminating at Blair, Hurdman, and Tunney’s Pasture stations. Double-decker buses would require less platform and staging space than articulated buses, because they are only 40 feet long, and would require fewer trips to operate, because of their higher capacity. This may allow cost savings in the design of the new bus platforms at these light rail stations.

 

To illustrate the difference in costs between the different bus types, staff compared the costs to operate all peak-period service from Kanata with different bus types:

 

 

 

 

These calculations illustrate that the operating cost of part of the system could be 19 per cent lower with double-decker buses than with articulated buses, and that the capital cost to buy the buses could be 16 per cent lower with double-decker buses than with articulated buses. The operating cost savings of the double-decker more than compensate for the slower operation of double-decker buses. Cost savings can more than offset the costs of training and new operating procedures.

 

The evaluation identified several ways that double-decker buses are less suitable than articulated buses. Some of these, such as slower operation of the rear doors and a lower crush capacity, would be addressed by revising the specifications for any future orders. Others, such as clearance management and safety/security matters, would be addressed by operating procedures.

 

Customer Satisfaction

 

Through 2009, customers provided approximately 40 comments about the operation and configuration of double-decker buses.  Almost half of the comments reported that the operation of the double-decker buses was unsatisfactorily slower than operation of other bus types. Most of these comments were received early in the trial period, when some introductory problems with the pilot buses had not yet been resolved.  The next-highest groups of comments reported either that the headroom on the upper level is too low or the seat spacing is too close, balanced by an equal number of positive responses, referring to the additional seating and capacity or a general positive impression.   Apart from these groups, there are no significant groupings of comments.

 

Very few comments were received from customers during 2010, as the operation of double-decker buses became a more normal part of OC Transpo service.

 

Conclusion

 

Based on the evaluation, the conclusions of the double-decker buses are:

 

 

 

 


            2011 DRAFT OPERATING AND CAPITAL estimates – TRANSIT COMMISSION

            budgetS PRÉLIMINAIRES de fonctionnement et d’immobilisations de 2011– COMmission du TRANSPORT en commun

ACS2011-CCS-OTC-0002                                         CITY WIDE / À L'ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE

 

            Alain Mercier, General Manager of Transit Services gave a detailed overview of the 2011 Draft Operating and Capital Estimates.  Also in attendance was Nancy Schepers, Deputy City Manager of Infrastructure Services and Community Sustainability and Marian Simulik, City Treasurer.  A copy of the presentation is held on file.

 

            Moved by Commissioner K. Egli

 

WHEREAS the Standing Committee Budget books were aligned with Standing Committees based on the former Terms of Reference; and

 

WHEREAS on 26 January 2011 Council directed that staff review the Books to ensure that the budget items are addressed by the Standing Committee with the mandate under the new Terms of Reference; and

 

WHEREAS the City Treasurer, in conjunction with the City Clerk and Solicitor and affected Committee Chairs, were delegated the authority to route budget pages to the appropriate Standing Committee;

 

WHEREAS in a memo dated 31 January 2011 the aforementioned budget pages were distributed to all members of Council;

 

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT pursuant to Section 84(3) of the Procedure By-law (being By-law No. 2006-462), the Interim Transit Commission consider the amended pages reflected in the memo to members of Council.

 

                                                                                                CARRIED

 

            In addition, three Motions were being presented for the Commission’s consideration, the operative portion of each was as follows:

 

1.         That the fare table presented in the 2011 Marketing Plan be amended to reflect a $145 price point for the 2011-2012 school year.

 

And that the General Manager, Transit Service be authorized to enter into an agreement for a multi-year U-Pass program subject to the following conditions:

 

-          There is an increase in the U-Pass fee, an annual cost-of-living adjustment to be set solely at OC Transpo's discretion, to the point of revenue neutrality for the 2012-2013 school year and beyond; and

 

-          That the student representatives submit proof of referendum results permitting the agreement prior to March 31, 2012.

 

2.         That OC Transpo be directed to review the feasibility of an “Out of Ottawa” transit pass with the effect of charging a premium for residents living outside the City of Ottawa and report back to the Transit Commission as part of the 2012 Marketing Plan, prior to 2012 Draft Budget deliberations.

 

3.         That the expansion of free service to all seniors on Mondays and Fridays from noon onward be introduced as a pilot only for 2011 and that OC Transpo be directed to monitor the resulting travel patterns by seniors and consult seniors across the city as part of a review of the full fare structure offered to seniors and report back to the Transit Commission as part of the 2012 Marketing Plan, prior to 2012 Budget deliberations.

 

            Public delegations who spoke to the Commission regarding any of the three reports listed on the agenda are contained below.  Motions put forward and discussion by the Commission pertaining to Items 1 and 2 i.e., OC Transpo 2011 Marketing Plan – Fare Schedule and 2011 Business Plan, are captured under those respective items.

 

Deborah Mohr-Caldwell, Goldie- Mohr Ltd. with Dale Harley, National Capital Heavy Construction Association spoke to the importance of investing and maintaining the City’s infrastructure.  Their presentation addressed more of a transportation component as opposed to a transit component of the Commission’s budget.

 

Sarah Jayne King, Student Federation of the University of Ottawa (SFUO) spoke in strong support for continuing with the U-Pass.  She indicated that the resounding success has allowed OC Transpo to significantly increase its ridership, noting that since last August, they have distributed over 27,000 U-Passes to students.  Overwhelmingly, students are happy with the program and it is expected that the perceived and real benefits will increase with time.  Benefits of the U-Pass program include:

·         increased ridership (over 1 million more rides can be attributed to the U-Pass program alone)

·         providing a reliable, guaranteed source of revenue for the City

·         it creates a habit amongst students to use transit as their primary mode of transportation and they are much more likely to become lifelong riders if they use transit in their university career

·         the decrease in traffic as well as road maintenance costs associated with it and the environmental benefits; these all have a positive impact on the financial and environmental sustainability of the City

 

The SFUO understands the financial constraints the City faces, but as mentioned in the presentation by the General Manager earlier, enrolment is projected to grow 2.5% and this will bring an increase in revenue to the program.  The Federation supports the idea of a revenue neutral program in the future and in order to secure this long-term program, the U-Pass program needs to continue this year at a rate of $145.

 

Allistair Mullin, University of Ottawa Administration remarked that this pilot is mandated on the university side by the SFUO based on the results of an independent referendum.  The university remains supportive of the students’ decision but their role is limited to collecting funds on their behalf.  He stated that the program compliments the university’s objective to promoting transit and finding alternative transportation to commute to campus; students use this pass not only to attend class but also to travel to co-op and internship placements within the local community.  For example, last year the U-Pass offered over 2000 co-op students a basic means of transportation to 587 employers and organizations in the city.  This initiative also improves accessibility and promotes a more sustainable and environmental approach to transit; this is particularly important for those who engage in co-op placements and internships as part of their education.  Further, the U-Pass allows students a wider array of choices in housing location which again spreads the economic impact throughout the region.  For these reasons, it is hoped that the Commission and Council would look favourably towards an extension of the U-Pass and work together with the students to make a mutually acceptable arrangement.

 

The Mayor noted that one of the Motions put forward is to go to full cost recovery in the following academic year and the requirement to hold a referendum so students know what the cost would be (suggested at $175 for the U-Pass).  He inquired what the SFUO position was on cost recovery and if they had a sense whether or not the student body would be supportive.  Ms. King indicated that most students on campus are in support of the U-Pass program and, as a principle, they do agree with the idea of revenue neutrality based on the costs and benefits of the program.  They have committed to running a referendum in the coming year, but she could not guarantee success with the vote.

 

Commissioner Desroches wanted to see this program succeed and noted that the previous challenge the City had last year was that the students picked the price for the U-Pass that went on the ballot and this caused a lot of concern from the administration of OC Transpo and for some Councillors.  He inquired what their expectations are that a price could be arrived at jointly, which would go on the ballot.  Ms. King recognized that a solution was required to maintain a long-term, sustainable U-Pass and discussions were needed on what the right cost is, what is best for students and what is reasonable within the constraints of the budget and OC Transpo.

 

Commissioner Egli recognized that the U-Pass was a pilot project and he inquired what the SFUO thought was going to happen at the end of the year and what steps they took to deal with that other than not having a referendum.  Ms. King explained that on numerous occasions, the student unions provided OC Transpo with their schedule should they be required to hold another referendum before the next academic year to increase the price.  However, they were not provided with those numbers in time so the unions were put in a position where they could not run a referendum.  Had those deadlines been followed, they might have been able to run a referendum, but they were in a position that they could not do that so in the upcoming year, the price of $145 remains because they do not have a mandate from students to charge more than that in the upcoming year.  In response to further questions posed by the Commissioner, she explained that they have set regulations (in combination with Provincial ancillary regulations on fees) on how they can run referendums and they provided staff with those timelines well ahead of time and did not receive the indication that they would need to run the referendums well ahead of time.

 

The Commissioner suggested they could have suspended their by-law regulations to have an emergency vote and wondered what was stopping them from doing that.  Ms. King explained that there are four student unions, all with different constitutions and by-laws and it is not reasonable to expect them to suspend their legally-binding constitutions.  Also, for the two larger student unions, they had already passed their general election period and any opportunity for general referendums to pass has passed.  Running referendums outside of this is not a good idea for anybody and would likely not result in any successful outcomes.

 

Commissioner Blais inquired what the percentage increase was in tuition from this past academic year to the coming one and Mr. Mullin indicated it would be about 4.5%.  When asked if there was there an increase in ancillary fees as a percentage for inflation, he advised that tuition fees are separate from the ancillary fees and they vary across faculties.  What regulates them on ancillary fees is not the same thing that regulates the student federation.

 

The Commissioner asked if some ancillary fees increased at the rate of inflation and Ms. King confirmed that the ones that were passed by referendum increased accordingly.  The Commissioner inquired if it is the administration’s position that while they are raising tuition above the rate of inflation, the City should be holding the price of the U-Pass constant.  Mr. Mullin offered that sthe administration has not interjected one way or another on what the proper price for this particular service should be.  He stated that this is a discussion between the SFUO and City officials and it would be improper for the administration to express a view on a particular price point because they would not be paying it and the actual price would be fixed to a student referendum.  Having said that, he remarked that the Province sets the maximum that tuition can be raised, whereas they are governed by their own internal cost of inflation.  Further, the subsidy from the Province, which also funds a large portion of student education, has been flat and does not and has not increased for a number of years.  Therefore, this is the only way they can increase their revenue.

 

When asked what their view was of the student’s ability to hold a referendum in time for the next academic year, Mr. Mullin explained that they all have their own internal by-laws and must adhere to Provincial regulations on this, and they do not intervene in that.  When asked how confident the university was of its’ ability to meet the increase in the student population this fall, Mr. Mullin advised that those are projections they produced for their own budgetary projections and they are as confident with those projections given to OC Transpo as they are of their own.  He added that they are usually within 30-40 students, depending on the program and there is an increase in demand this year.

 

Patrick Imbeau and Mike Fancie, University of Ottawa Graduate Students’ Association spoke in support of the U-Pass, stating that a cost of $145 per semester is the only viable option for the 2011/2012 academic year.  With projected growth in enrolment and with thorough planning, he posited they could have a sustainable, long-term U-Pass program.  Mr. Imbeau explained that when they first entered contract discussions with OC Transpo they provided staff with the timelines the student unions had to follow in order to have a referendum on a price increase of the U-Pass.  However, and even though the issue was raised on several occasions, the proposed increase was not communicated to them until well passed their deadlines.  For a number of reasons, therefore, it is too late to hold another referendum for the 2011/2012 U-Pass.

 

Mr. Fancie added that recently, representatives of the student unions, both universities and executive bodies met with the General Manager of Transit Services to discuss ways to preserve the U-Pass in the context of fulfilling City Council’s mandate to increase all fare revenues by 2.5%.  The most obvious proposal so far has been to increase the cost of the pass to the individual student by 2.5%, however their by-laws prevent them from asking for that mandate before the end of this school year.  However, in anticipation of increased enrolment for the coming year, this would allow Council to approve the U-Pass for one more year at the current rate of $145/semester without adding additional budget pressures as the projected increase of revenue due to cost adjustment would instead be obtained through the increase of pass sales.  This would also allow them to negotiate beyond the restrictions of a one year project and map out a long term sustainable course for the U-Pass.

 

In response to questions posed by Commission members, Mr. Fancie indicated that they had not lobbied individual councillors when they were unable to get the necessary information from OC Transpo because they felt it was staff that they were to be in discussions with.  He explained that they met regularly with staff and at every opportunity to discuss this at stakeholders meetings and they felt they were doing their best to ensure those deadlines were in people’s minds in terms of fare increases.  He did recall that staff was unable to respond because they did not have the numbers at that point.

 

Chair Deans acknowledged that the process for conducting referendums on university campuses is not an easy process and suggested that before going to a referendum, she recognized that they would want to understand stable and predictable costs for the future.  Mr. Fancie agreed with this assessment, adding that they had a special circumstance last year as it was going to be a pilot program so they did not know if there was going to be a referendum the following year and was why the cost was set at $145.  The Chair asked that if the proposal that the associations are putting forward is to pass by the Commission and Council, their commitment to the City is they would run a referendum that would have that contractual arrangement, which would effectively be a continuation of the one year with the current conditions and the promise from the associations that there will be referendums for full cost recovery in the future.  Mr. Fancie confirmed this understanding.

 

The Mayor asked the delegation to forward to him the wording from last years’ referendum.

 

Dina Skvirsky, Carleton University Students’ Association indicated she was here on behalf of approximately 18,000 undergraduate students who have benefited having access to the U-Pass this past year.  The U-Pass has been overwhelmingly received by students across Carleton University and in just a few months of having access to the pass they saw public transit rider ship increase dramatically while seeing a drop in the number of students who rely on cars as a means of transportation (72% of full-time Carleton University students use public transportation at least four times a week).  The U-Pass is a step in the right direction to create a culture of transit rider ship amongst Ottawa citizens and they support the continuation of the pass at the current rate because they feared that approving a fare hike for the 2011/2012 year would defeat the program.

 

Commissioner Egli wondered if the question on the referendum ballot was the same at both universities but the delegation could not answer that question.  The Commissioner felt that was something Council would like to know and following up on what the Mayor previously requested, asked that the Association provide Commission members with all the referendum questions before it debates the Motion.

 

Kimalee Phillip, Carleton University Graduate Students’ Association focused her presentation on the benefits that the U-Pass offers to the City, including:

·         between September and December of 2010, ridership increased 5.7% higher than the same period in 2009; a survey conducted by the association concludes that the increase is a direct result of the U-Pass

·         as students become accustomed to the program more will adapt to their transportation and living arrangements to the U-Pass environment

·         two thirds of students entering the two city universities come from the greater Ottawa area and therefore it is more than reasonable that after graduation these residents will acquire commuter habits based on public transportation; these trends are experienced in other Canadian cities

·         fewer cars on the roads means less road maintenance and less pollution and according to OC Transpo surveys, Carleton students are making over 7,000 fewer car trips each day

 

She looked forward to the continued discussions with OC Transpo and the Commission on the costs of a revenue neutral U-Pass.

 

Federico Carvajal, Canadian Federation of Students Ontario stated that the last four delegations discussed the issues that he wanted to cover so he offered to field any questions from the Commission.

 

When asked by Commissioner Bloess what he thought is a fair price for a U-Pass, the delegation indicated that OC Transpo had suggested something around $175 this year but he did not have all the information available to address that further.  He reiterated the fact that there is a commitment from the student unions to go towards revenue neutrality and they agree to run referendums for that process.  To that end, he suggested that the Motion being introduced about the U-Pass includes, as part of the agreement, a number that will come from OC Transpo.

 

            Dr. John K. Waller spoke to a PowerPoint presentation detailing how the City needs fast, green and smart service and subways in congested regions.  He provided illustrations of a subway system in the downtown, which would connect with a bus rapid transit to take people outside the core.  A copy of his detailed presentation is held on file.

 

            Catherine Gardner spoke to a number of issues; namely:

·         The community bus pass needs more promotion so people on ODSP turning 65 years of age can benefit from this reduced rate

·         There is less accessible space on the double-decker buses and the operators attention is divided between driving and having to keep an eye on the monitor that shows people on the upper deck to ensure passengers are not standing; she felt this division of attention is a safety issue

·         Some elevators are not always working, despite what the information says on the OC Transpo website; this causes hardship to those who may have to transfer and either miss their bus or have to pay another fare if their transfer expires

·         The new cars for the O-Train should be accessible to ensure the emergency buttons are low enough for people sitting in wheelchairs to reach if necessary

·         Adjusting routes may force people back onto para transpo, which is a major concern because of the supply and demand

 

Commissioner Wilkinson noted the concerns about elevators breaking down at stations and the hardship this places on the disabled who rely on them.  She asked if the 2011 budget will help to address this problem.  Mr. Mercier confirmed it would, noting that there are a variety of issues they hope to be addressed and completed in the next two years as they are upgraded.  The Commissioner felt it would be helpful if staff could share with the delegation the list that will be addressed.  Mr. Mercier indicated that the list is normally provided through the City’s Accessibility Office but he confirmed that staff would be more than pleased to share those plans with the delegation.

 

Iman Al-Khatib and Christine Santele, City for All Women Initiative read from a prepared statement which spoke about the concerns they had if some bus routes are changed.  Ms. Al-Khatib urged the Commission not to cut routes because it will impact on her ability to participate in community life.  Ms. Santele asked that bus fares not be increased because for some, transit is their only means of transportation.

 

The Commission took a lunch break between 12:35 p.m. and 1:05 p.m.

 

Michael Ircha, Chair, Pedstrian and Transit Advisory Committee read from a prepared statement addressing the 2011 Business Plan.  He stated that improving the transit system’s efficiency and effectiveness is a laudable goal, but doing so means hardship to some people; altering current routing means a small percentage of riders will be inconvenienced either through the elimination of routes at certain times, longer walks to a bus or reduced service frequencies.  Such inconvenience for a minority of customers is purportedly offset by “unchanged or improved” service to the majority of riders.  The question must be asked:  Who are the people that make up the minority?  The Business Plan is silent on this, but the media is commenting on the difficulties that seniors and the disabled will face due to the proposed route alterations.

 

The PTAC does not oppose sustainability improvements to OC Transpo’s operations, but would like to know the degree of impact and inconvenience that such route alterations will create.  Is the cost savings of specific route alterations worth the pain and inconvenience to customers?  Should improved services be provided to the majority at the expense of the minority?

 

At its January meeting, PTAC recommended that if the reductions in service are required, that the PTAC be involved in the implementation of the comprehensive service changes.  Through their Transit Sub-Committee, they would like to engage OC Transpo staff by reviewing and discussing the implications of the proposed route alterations.  Such engagement should be considered as a normal part of the overall public consultation process that OC Transpo is proposing, in an effort to assist the Commission and Council to advise on the efficacy of specific route alterations prior to final recommendations being brought forward.  A copy of their previously distributed material is held on file.

 

            Jeff Cuffe, Canadian National Institute of Health asked that students attending their institute be given the same opportunities to be eligible for lower fares as students at other colleges.  Currently, the only criteria imposed by OC Transpo to qualify for a student fare, that the Institute does not have, is OSAP (Ontario Student Assistance Program) funding.  The City of Toronto recently passed something whereby such certification is not required and he asked that his and other accredited colleges be treated the same.

 

            In response to these comments, Vincent Patterson, Manager, Marketing and Strategic Development explained that Commissioner Wilkinson had submitted a formal inquiry about this at the last Commission meeting and staff is preparing a response to that.  He briefly explained the existing policy, noting that OSAP is a stringent accreditation that the colleges use.  The Chair suggested it might be worthwhile to meet with the CNIH on this and Mr. Patterson agreed to take that under consideration.

 

            Commissioner Wilkinson added that for a very small school to get involved in OSAP it would not be worthwhile and she suggested that the response to her inquiry address how it can be offered to those institutions.  The Chair suggested she meet with staff to discuss that.

 

            Ashton Starr, Ottawa Transit Riders Union stated that any fare increase with no increase in service is not an improvement to the existing service.  He read out various examples of grievances from people complaining about the price of fares, service and driver behaviour.

 

            Peter van Boeschoten, Chair, Seniors Advisory Committee spoke about the proposal for a reduced seniors fare which originated with the Ottawa Seniors Transportation Committee.  The SAC supported this proposal and passed a Motion to carry it further.  In summary, they support the proposal to charge one ticket for seniors because it is simple to administer and easy for seniors to understand.  However, staff proposes in this budget to offer two additional half day free service for seniors (Monday and Friday) but this does not address the needs of seniors on other days.  In discussions with seniors, they see the one-ticket proposal having many benefits and it is their preference because it is non restrictive and allows seniors to volunteer, go to church, socialize, attend seniors centres and fitness classes, visit loved ones in hospitals, et cetera.  It truly allows them to be a part of and contribute to Ottawa society.  He offered that encouraging seniors to remain healthy, active and independent by making public transportation affordable is not only something to consider – it is a necessity.  Therefore, the SAC recommends that the City retain the one ticket proposal at $1.4M and delete the proposal for free half day service on Monday and Friday.

 

            Commissioner Desroches suggested that what the SAC are recommending may not necessarily include all seniors views, because he has received positive feedback for the additional half days free service.  Mr. van Boeschoten stated that all the seniors groups they have talked to favour their recommendation because it suits them better and gives them greater flexibility to travel.  When asked if he supported the Motion about having the additional half days as a pilot project, he offered that while a pilot is good, it should be for the one ticket proposal instead.

 

            Mr. Patterson remarked on the revenue gained by seniors using tickets, noting that of the $43M in ticket revenue, 8% is derived from seniors; cash sales are $11M with 8% coming from seniors.  Commissioner Wilkinson suggested that staff meet with the SAC to review those figures and Mr. Patterson confirmed they would follow-up accordingly.  In response to a question posed by Commissioner Bloess, Mr. Patterson explained that staff’s real concern about the one ticket proposal is a loss of revenue.

 

            Jean McQuilliam, Ottawa Seniors Transportation Committee explained that their proposal came as a result of listening to seniors.  She explained that even at the discounted rate, a large number of seniors do not travel frequently enough to justify purchasing a monthly pass.  Sales of seniors passes represent 4% of monthly passes and 2% sales revenue.  The community as a whole benefits from seniors being able to be independent.  Another disadvantage of what is being proposed is the weather and complications of getting around.  Our proposal takes all this into account.

 

            In response to her comments about seniors bus passes, Commissioner Qadri asked if the numbers were the same and Mr. Patterson explained that most seniors make 30 trips or more each month (with a pass) which is a 61% discount compared to individual ticket prices.  He advised that he would get back to the Commissioner about whether or not that figure is up each year.

 

            Chair Deans believed that what the City is offering is cost effective with 100% discount 30% of the time.  Conversely, Ms. McQuilliam indicated that the answer is choices and flexibility which the City’s proposal does not offer.  The Chair offered that the Commission and Council have to recognize that it is the tax base that picks up the difference when service is provided free or discounted and she found it unrealistic to think it would discount ticket prices and offer free Wednesday service.  The delegation indicated she could only speak for the seniors they consulted with.

 

When asked by the Mayor who their organization represents, she indicated that they are 12 people representing 12 different agencies.  Should her proposal fail, he asked if she would support and promote free Wednesdays and free p.m. service on Monday and Friday.  Ms. McQuilliam said they would but she wondered if there had to be a specific time of the day.  The Mayor stated that the Motion being proposed by Commissioner Wilkinson recommends that it be a pilot and suggested that if the tax rate can be kept down, while at the same time offering added benefits, maybe this proposal is acceptable.  He recognized that it is not what everyone wants but it is reasonable and affordable.

 

            Chris Bradshaw focused his comments on the fact that when taking the bus, seniors tend to do so for shorter trips, but the walking distance standard that is proposed will see them walking greater distances to their stops because the frequency in service will be different.  He mentioned that seniors tend to travel during off-peak periods and as such, they will be asked to walk twice as far to a service that is not as good.  He remarked that OC Transpo charges by the trip as opposed to distance travelled and seniors have limited needs in transportation.  With respect to the proposal for one ticket rides vs. two additional half days of free service, Mr. Bradshaw posited that the cost of both programs is almost the same and he believed the City should eliminate the free Wednesdays if it agrees to a one ticket per ride for seniors.  A copy of his written presentation is held on file.

 

            In response to the comments made about the walking distance, Pat Scrimgeour, Manager, Transit Service Design confirmed that the direction is to examine routes that now exceed the previous Council policy that 95% of the population should be within a 10 minute walking distance of the nearest bus route.  The senior population is not be asked to walk twice as far and are not proposing any reduction in frequency.

 

            Responding to questions posed by Commission members, Mr. Bradshaw indicated that for the cost of a pass seniors would not use it to the full value so charging seniors one ticket per ride while being about the same, provides more flexibility to travel when they want to.

 

            Paul Rochow spoke to the issue of integrity and customer relations and provided the following recommendations:

 

1.         Change customer relations policy or practice to ensure concerns are acknowledged and followed up with a decision, reasons for the decision and action plan.

2.         Customer Relations should provide a progress report and request clarification where warranted.

a.                   Hire and/or train Customer Relations staff to handle the task

b.                  Purchase computer and other technology to assist Customer Relations staff in their work

c.                   Resolve outstanding issues from 2008/2009 labour dispute

d.                  Hire an outside firm to investigate, understand and resolve the problems between management and employees at OC Transpo and put the resulting recommendation in to practice.

e.                   Hire an outside firm to review and report on employee satisfaction on an annual basis.

f.                   Encourage employee feedback and act on recommendations.  Drivers know the pitfalls of the system first hand.

g.                  Reduce overcrowding on buses through increasing frequency/capacity on crowded routes

h.                  Make a direct access route between the transitway at Billing Bridge station to Data Centre Road

 

            A copy of his written submission is held on file.

 

Adele Muldoon spoke about the inequity in rural Para Transpo fares and the need to provide an affordable and compassionate transportation system for seniors.  She explained that the present fare structure for rural clients of Para Transpo is very complicated and for some unaffordable.  The rural area has been divided into three zones and a trip into Ottawa for someone living in zone 4, for example, is $18.50 or $37.00 return.  Fares are not based on distance travelled.  An urban client pays $3.50 to go one block or all the way from Kanata to Orleans.  In the rural area, transportation to medical appointments for seniors and the disabled is the most significant social service required to ensure the health and well being of the most vulnerable citizens and to allow them to remain in their own homes as the ‘AGING in PLACE’ initiative encourages them to do.

 

Volunteer driver programs run through local Community Resource Centres and Senior Agencies are finding it difficult to operate at an affordable rate and inequities are increasing.  Once again it is those who live the farthest out who suffer the most.  She remarked that the LIHN has been funding a pilot project in the southern rural area which is working well and helps to keep the cost of drives down.  Along with volunteer drivers who use their own cars to transport clients, drivers have been hired to drive vans that transport several seniors going in the same direction.  With co-operation between Para Transpo and the Social Services Department, she offered that the City could expand this project to the East and West.  A copy of her written submission is held on file.

 

            Chair Deans referred to having worked with staff on this issue and she asked when the Commission could expect to hear a solution to this issue.  Mr. Scrimgeour indicated that staff expect to have something to the Commission in April or May.

 

            Brian McGill spoke about veteran’s passes and how other cities offer free service to their veterans.  He indicated that the proposal for additional free days for seniors does not address the symbolic need to recognize veterans and he encouraged the Commission to support free passes for veterans.

 

            As a result of the presentation, the Chair asked how veterans were being treated in this budget and whether there was specific proposal in this budget.  Mr. Patterson indicated that it is recommended to expand the free service to seniors for half days on Monday and Friday and that group would include veterans.  He further confirmed that free transit service was extended to veterans on Remembrance Day last year and will be offered again this year.

 

            Kevin Kinsella expressed concern about the double-decker buses.  He recognized that the City needs to go ahead with them but the design needs to be accessible for all users.  He acknowledged that these vehicles would be a savings over the articulated buses and are better for the environment, but steps should be taken to find a way to make them more accessible for all people who board in a wheelchair.  He suggested better consultation with the disabled community when selecting a model.  He appreciated the move to replace the aging fleet of para transpo vehicles.

 

            With regards to his concerns, the Chair asked what standards are used and could they be improved.  Mr. Mercier indicated that the double-decker buses were designed in coordination with American standards and these are the latest and best standards available.

 

            To the delegation, the Chair asked if he was perceiving a difference between the double-deckers and the rest of the fleet and Mr. Kinsella indicated that the corners on the double-deckers as you first enter the bus are a little sharper than the other buses and he questioned whether his wheelchair would fit down the aisle in the middle.  He suggested looking into the standard used in Great Britain.

 

            Mr. Scrimgeour explained that all new buses (since 1999) have been low floor with two wheelchair spots and clear paths to get to one of those positions.  He agreed that each is a slightly different design and some customers may have issues getting around the corner, but generally, they are designed to the same specifications.

 

            The Mayor asked Mr. Mercier to remind the Commission what will be invested in para transpo this year and would staff work with the Accessibility Advisory Committee on the purchase of the buses to meet the needs of the community.  Mr. Mercier indicated that the cost of the new vans is $13M and in this budget there is a request for the authority for that purchase.  Part of this budget is to explore a vehicle that is adapted to the community and he confirmed they would consult with the community on the design.  The Mayor suggested it might be worthwhile having someone from the disabled community testing access and egress from those vehicles.

 

            Mike Buckthought was concerned about increased bus fares noting it will be placing it outside of reach for most people and that could result in reduced ridership.  With regards to the proposed increase to the U-Pass, he felt it should be kept at the existing $145 because it is a great program and it has proven to be successful in Ottawa and other cities.  The more students who use the U-Pass will mean less are driving on a daily basis and that saves money on the maintenance of our roads.

 

            Klaus Beltzner spoke to the trunk and feeder system for the peak hour service and he felt it was time to move it forward on it so when the Commission and Council makes decisions on what routes may be changed, it would have a larger area of savings to draw from.  He supported having main service provided at the transit stations direct to downtown and to have the feeder routes in the local community being shorter and which would circulate to those stations.  There should also be limited services provided by the articulated buses at the stations, noting it would be the 40-foot buses that would pick people up in the suburbs them and ‘feed’ them to the hub at the stations.  A copy of his submission is held on file.

 

            In response to a question posed by Commissioner Wilkinson, Mr. Mercier explained that staff is focused on the 2019 opening of the rail system and the short term strategy is the composition of the fleet and trying to build a sustainable network.  Once that is completed, they will have another update on the TMP and that will be the ideal forum to bring all parties together and look at ways to grow the system in an affordable manner.

 

            Tim Lane also spoke to the advantages of a trunk and feeder systems in the various areas of the city, particularly in the east end.  He offered suggestions on how the double-decker buses can be utilized in this system to ensure more people get a seat.  He referred to a series of stations in the east end that could function as truck and feeder routes where buses can wait and people can make their connections.  He offered that it would not be a good idea to delay a trunk and feeder system until light rail comes in.  A copy of his submission is held on file.

 

            David Jeanes spoke in support of the recommendations for the O-Train but recognized that it is at its limit and more capacity is needed now.  He recognized that work needs to be done to improve the loading/unloading abilities of the double-decker buses where these vehicles are consuming a lot of street space.  He supported the double-decker bus purchase, but noted some people in wheelchairs have accessibility issues with the ramp.  He briefly spoke to the issue of seniors fares and posited that seniors do a lot of volunteering and the proposal to offer two free half days may not coincide with the days they volunteer.  Mr. Jeanes also spoke specifically to the proposed route changes for the 63 and 64, noting that the proposal would result in every bus having a longer trip and people losing their express to downtown.  He commented that the amount of money proposed to be removed from the system is proportionately worse than what was taken out of the 2003 budget.

            Following the public delegations, the Commission proceeded to speak to the budget book and the Motions before them.

 

            Commissioner Bloess was frustrated with the process taken this year that any changes to routes will be done after the budget has been established.  He could not give his residents any assurance that certain routes would not be affected.  He was not convinced that the Commission could approve a budget, without first knowing what the impact will be on service.  While he agreed with the reduction of $7.3M to route optimization (Service Innovation and Efficiency Program) as detailed at page 8 of the budget book, he requested a separate vote on that particular line item.

 

            Commissioner Blais felt that a good budget should be set before determining what the City can and cannot afford.  Otherwise, it will lead to overspending and increased property taxes.  He felt the reduction in the route optimization would lead to a more successful service and he welcomed the public consultations so the Commission can see what routes are being reviewed with a view to making the service more efficient.

 

            Mayor Watson recognized that the existing system is no longer sustainable and making tough decisions will be a part of attaining the goal to create a more efficient system.  He was open to any suggested alternatives to replace the recommended reduction of $7.3M in savings, but recognized that there is a process that must be respected.  He understood that some people will be inconvenienced and some will be better served.  But the long term goal is to have a system that is sustainable and if fundamental changes are not made now, the transit budget alone will take up 1.5-2% of the tax bill each year.  He felt that what has been brought forward is a reasonable and balanced budget.

 

            Commissioner Bloess referred to his previous inquiry about what the cost per ride is now.  Mr. Mercier indicated that with the current van service the cost per trip is $37.67 compared to using a taxi at. $32.08/trip (customers have a choice through their medical requirements).  Further, the bus has capacity for more than one wheelchair and many times there will be more than one person going to the same location so the difference in costs rises out of the desire of the service to the customer and the priorities of multiple rides ending or starting together.  He confirmed that the cost of the ride includes both capital and operating costs.

 

            The Chair referred to page 8 of the Operating budget and Commissioner Wilkinson indicated she would like to receive a breakdown of staffing costs (bus drivers, et cetera) before this item rises to Council.  Mr. Mercier confirmed he would provide that information.

 


As requested previously, a separate vote was called for the reduction of $7.3M for Route Optimization (Service Innovation and Efficiency Program) at page 8 of the Operating Budget.  The item was CARRIED with the following vote:

 

YEAS (7):       S. Blais, S. Desroches, T. Tierney, M. Wilkinson, K. Egli, D. Deans, Mayor Watson

NAYS (1):      R. Bloess

 

            Further to the Motions contained at Items 2 and 3, the Commission then considered the report recommendation on the 2011 budget:

 

That the Interim Transit Commission consider the relevant portions of the 2011 Operating and Capital Budgets as amended by replacement pages 17-52 and forward its recommendations to Council sitting in Committee of the Whole to be held March 8 to 10, 2011, as required.

 

                                                                                                            CARRIED, as amended

 

            OC TRANSPO 2011 MARKETING PLAN – FARE SCHEDULE

PLAN DE MARKETING 2011 D’OC TRANSPO - LISTE DES TARIFS

ACS2011-ICS-TRA-0005                                         City Wide / À l’échelle de la ville

 

            In considering the Motion put forward by Commissioner Tierney, members acknowledged the move by the students associations to work with OC Transpo towards a revenue neutral cost of the U-Pass in the future.  Some members were reluctant to support it, suggesting that the student groups have not put enough effort into it and the request for the wording of the referendums by both universities has gone unanswered.

 

            While he fully supported the second portion of the Motion, Commissioner Blais indicated that he could not support having no increase while almost all other transit fares have increased.  He asked that a separate vote be taken for the two operative portions of the Motion.

 

            Mayor Watson agreed that it is not a perfect solution but he would support it.  He wanted to ensure that it was clear for 2012 that it would be cost-recovery, bringing the cost of the U-Pass up to $195.  He also wanted to get agreement in writing with the student leaders that they have to have a referendum and there will be full cost recovery which is still a good deal for the students but less of a burden for the overall taxpayer.  There will be an automatic escalation so the City does not have to deal with this year after year.

 

            Commissioner Wilkinson stated that if the Commission does not support the first part of the Motion, then the second part will automatically fail and she suggested the full Motion should be approved because she believed it would be beneficial to see how it works and to help establish continued ridership into the future.

 

            Chair Deans spoke briefly to the Motion, stating that she agreed with the earlier comment that if the first part is voted down the U-Pass will be cut for this year because the students do not have the authority to do that this year.  The growth of the two campuses can be addressed this year and it gives students the opportunity for cost recovery going forward for student pass in perpetuity.  She noted that the U-Pass would foster a new generation of transit riders in future and students have limited financial means and this will help to take some of the pressure off.  She believed it was a good program and the City should appreciate the efforts the students have put into this program.

 

            Moved by Commissioner T. Tierney

 

WHEREAS staff have met with various student unions and representatives from both the University of Ottawa and Carleton University to discuss the continuation of the U-Pass; and

 

WHEREAS OC Transpo has received and reviewed student enrolment projections for the 2011-2012 U-Pass program that reflect an increase in the projections used by staff as part of their budget preparation; and

 

WHEREAS the additional revenue that would be generated from the growth in enrolment is equivalent to the revenues that would be realized by the increase in price proposed in the 2011 Marketing Plan, and

 

WHEREAS a referendum by students at participating institutions will be required to enter into a new agreement for 2011-2012;

 

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the fare table presented in the 2011 Marketing Plan be amended to reflect a $145 price point for the 2011-2012 school year.

 

                                                                                                            CARRIED

 

YEAS (7):       R. Bloess, S. Desroches, T. Tierney, M. Wilkinson, K. Egli, D. Deans, Mayor Watson

NAYS (1):      S. Blais

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the General Manager, Transit Service be authorized to enter into an agreement for a multi-year U-Pass program subject to the following conditions:

 

-          There is an increase in the U-Pass fee, an annual cost-of-living adjustment to be set solely at OC Transpo's discretion, to the point of revenue neutrality for the 2012-2013 school year and beyond; and

 

-          That the student representatives submit proof of referendum results permitting the agreement prior to March 31, 2012.

 

                                                                                                            CARRIED

 

            The Commission then considered a Motion put forward by Commissioner Blais, which called for staff to review the feasibility of an “Out of Ottawa” transit pass with the effect of charging a premium for residents living outside the City of Ottawa.

 

            Commissioner Bloess supported the Motion but wanted to know if it would go far enough.  For example, buses that bring people from areas outside the city are allowed to use the transitway and he asked if they are required to pay a fee to do so.  Mr. Mercier indicated that they are not charged and further confirmed that those riders, if they want to ride OC Transpo, must buy a bus pass.  Mr. Scrimgeour understood that the Motion refers to charging people a higher premium if they live outside the city but use OC Transpo.

 

            Commissioner Wilkinson suggested that it should also examine what the detrimental aspects of doing this would be.

 

            Commissioner Desroches recognized that people who use the park and ride lots are having difficulty finding spaces to park and he felt the City owed it to transit users to let them know this was being investigated with a view to looking at addressing those who are not paying into the property taxes, but who use the service.

 

            Moved by Commissioner S. Blais

 

WHEREAS the municipalities surrounding Ottawa continue to grow; and

 

WHEREAS a significant number of residents from neighbouring municipalities are using OC Transpo and taking space in Ottawa park and ride locations; and

 

WHEREAS residents in neighbouring municipalities do not pay property taxes to the City of Ottawa; and

 

WHEREAS residents in neighbouring municipalities can ride OC Transpo for the same fare as Ottawa taxpayers and are therefore being subsidized by Ottawa taxpayers;

 


THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that OC Transpo be directed to review the feasibility of an “Out of Ottawa” transit pass with the effect of charging a premium for residents living outside the City of Ottawa and report back to the Transit Commission as part of the 2012 Marketing Plan, prior to 2012 Draft Budget deliberations.

 

                                                                                                            CARRIED

 

Moved by Commissioner M. Wilkinson

 

WHEREAS the City of Ottawa supports setting affordable fares to encourage more seniors to get out, be more mobile, and participate in volunteer and social activities to have a more active and healthy lifestyle; and

 

WHEREAS as seniors get older many no longer drive and access to a friendly and reasonably priced public transit is essential for them; and

 

WHEREAS the 2011 Draft Budget includes the expansion of free service to all seniors on Mondays and Fridays from noon onward in addition to the free service seniors receive on Wednesdays;

 

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the expansion of free service to all seniors on Mondays and Fridays from noon onward be introduced as a pilot only for 2011 and that OC Transpo be directed to monitor the resulting travel patterns by seniors and consult seniors across the city as part of a review of the full fare structure offered to seniors and report back to the Transit Commission as part of the 2012 Marketing Plan, prior to 2012 Budget deliberations.

 

                                                                                                            CARRIED

 

That the Interim Transit Commission approve, as amended, the fare schedule (Document 2), as part of the Interim Transit Commission’s budget.

 

                                                                                                            CARRIED, as amended

 


            2011 BUSINESS PLAN – (2.1 FLEET PLAN; 2.5 ELIMINATION OF DUPLICATION AND DELAY IN THE EXISTING NETWORK; 2.7 INCREASE CAPACITY OF O-TRAIN SERVICE)

PLAN D’ACTIVITÉS DE 2011 – (2.1 PLAN RELATIF AU PARC DE VÉHICULES; 2.5 ÉLIMINATION DES CHEVAUCHEMENTS ET DES RETARDS DANS LE RÉSEAU ACTUEL; 2.7 AUGMENTATION DE LA CAPACITÉ DE L’O-TRAIN)

ACS2011-ICS-TRA-0007                                         City Wide / À l’échelle de la ville

 

            The Chair advised that there was a Motion brought forward to replace the staff recommendations in the report.  She read out the operative portion of the Motion.

 

            Commissioner Bloess had some questions related to GPS and understood that if that system failed on the new double-decker buses, the buses would not be able to run.  The Manager of Transit Services confirmed that with the current system that would happen.  They would work with the Ministry of Transportation to work out a solution.  Discussion then ensued on the times not being the same on the APP currently being used and the system and Larry Atkinson, Chief, Transit Maintenance stated that he had not heard about this issue but agreed to look into it for the Commissioner.

 

            In response to concerns expressed by some members, the Chair reminded Commission members that what is before them today is approval for the authority but it will not approve the acquisition of those buses until they have received a business case that is supportable.  When asked what the savings would be realized in 2011 with the acquisition of the double-decker buses and what the gap would be if, in March, the Commission decides against the acquisition, the General Manager indicated that an immediate impact on the 2011 budget would not be felt because staff is asking for authority and the savings would come in 2012.  What it would do however, is change the planning aspects of what they would consider service cuts so in January 2012 they are able to balance the budget.  He offered that the current budget principles would require OC Transpo to go deeper into service reductions as a result to meet this year’s commitment.

 

            Moved by Commissioner S. Desroches

 

WHEREAS OC Transpo has developed a 10-year Business Plan and the commission has received the recommendations of APTA regarding the creation of a financially sustainable transit service for Ottawa; and

 

WHEREAS the OC Transpo 2011 Business Plan identifies strategies to achieve the envelope of savings identified in the draft 2011 budget and the annualized savings from 2012 onward; and

 

WHEREAS a component of achieving these savings includes the advancement of the capital authority for the purchase of 75 double-decker buses, and that that advancement presents no net tax increase for 2011, and that OC Transpo has already identified a future savings from this purchase; and

 

WHEREAS double-decker buses on express routes operate at a lesser cost while providing additional seating for commuters, and a 98% reduction in regulated emissions over the retiring fleet of buses;

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the report recommendations be replaced by the following:

 

1.         That the Interim Transit Commission approve the approach to achieve the 2011 Budget savings target as outlined in Document 2 of the Business Plan; and

 

2.         That the Interim Transit Commission recommend Council consider the approval of $81.8 million in additional capital authority for the purchase of 75 double-decker buses and supporting infrastructure, subject to the approval of the Interim Transit Commission of a business case that will be presented to the Interim Transit Commission on March 23, 2011 such that the funding for this purchase not impact the 2011 tax levy and that it include a maximum of $40M in transit tax-supported debt with the remaining balance to be funded from either gas, tax or transit capital funding sources.

 

CARRIED, as amended, with Commissioner R. Bloess dissenting