Report to/Rapport au:

Transit Committee/Comité du transport en commun

15 November 2007/15 novembre 2007

Submitted by/Soumis par: Nancy Schepers/Deputy City Manager/Directrice municipale adjointe

Planning, Transit and the Environment/Urbanisme, Transport en commun et Environnement

Contact/Personne-ressource: A. Mercier, Director/Directeur, Transit Services/Services du transport en commun

613-842-3636 ext. 2271, alain.mercier@ottawa.ca

City Wide

Ref N°: ACS2007-PTE-TRA-0012

SUBJECT:	achieving a 50 per cent revenue-cost ratio by 2010: strategies and action plan

OBJET :	atteinte d’un ratio recettes/coûts de 50 % d’ici 2010 : stratégies et plan d’action

REPORT RECOMMENDATION

That the Transit Committee receive this report for information.

RECOMMANDATION DU RAPPORT

Que le Comité du transport en commun prenne connaissance du présent rapport à titre d’information.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Assumptions and Analysis

Since 1997, the revenue-cost ratio has fallen consistently from over 55 per cent to 48 per cent in 2007. If no action were taken, the revenue-cost ratio would further reduce to 46 per cent by 2010, as costs of labour, fuel and maintenance would outpace revenue growth if fares were held to inflation. As part of the Long Range Financial Plan deliberations, direction by Council was given to proceed with target of reaching 50 per cent by 2010 based on revenue increases of five per cent annually. This report addresses the direction and describes the strategies to be implemented to reverse the previous 10-year decline.

Plans to increase productivity and reduce services would be required to reach a 50 per cent revenue-cost ratio, if fare increases do not exceed five per cent per year in the next three years. Productivity targets have been established for Transit Services in the order of four per cent of total costs by 2010 that are attainable. However, significant program reductions would also be needed to reach the 50 per cent revenue-cost ratio target and are outlined in the 2008 Budget document. Proposals for a five per cent fare increase are provided in the report, and other revenue sources are also explored. In addition, the 2008 Transit Service Plan which is consistent with Council objectives to increase transit ridership, and which makes full use of the high-capacity fleet already on order and due for delivery this summer is provided.

If it is the will of Council to reduce net costs below the level that would result from the recommended fares and service plan, several options are outlined in the 2008 Budget. If these options were all approved by Council, the revenue-cost ratio would increase to 49.6 per cent by 2010. However, ridership, instead of rising to 103 million by 2010, would reach only 97 million.

Financial Implications

The 2008 Draft Budget contains program reductions (i.e. service reductions), which are outlined in this report. Any reductions in service will have repercussions on ridership, financial performance. Approval of the program reductions will result in achieving by 2010 the 49.6 per cent revenue-cost ratio including other productivity measures. Should the program reductions not be sustained, the revised target for the revenue cost ratio would be 48 per cent.

Productivity targets have been established for Transit Services in the order of four per cent of total costs by 2010 that have an impact on achieving the increase in financial performance. Although detailed strategies are yet to be developed, sources of savings have been identified and are expected to deliver over $12 million in sustainable cost reductions for the future. The benefits of the productivity savings alone will not result in achieving a 50 per cent revenue-cost ratio, as the necessary increase in productivity is of the order of eight per cent or approximately $24 million in savings. Should Council decide not to proceed with the program reduction, the resultant revenue cost ratio would be 48 per cent in 2010.

Public Consultation/Input

The idea of zone fares was raised in a series of focus group sessions, held in August, to assist in the development of direction for OC Transpo. The reaction of participants was mixed. The majority thought it would be fairer but were concerned about the complexity it would introduce. There were also concerns expressed about its potential adverse impact on ridership from the suburbs, if higher fares were charged.

Fares were discussed by the Pedestrian and Transit Advisory Committee (PTAC) on September 20, 2007. PTAC was consulted on possible fare options for 2008. The Committee did not support the concept of zone fares. It was felt zone fares would be complex for customers to understand and, more importantly, the increased fare for longer trips would discourage some people from using transit. Concerning the options for fare increases, there was general support to apply a higher fare increase to express passes than regular passes. As for the possible reduction of the Ecopass discount from 15 per cent to 12 per cent, there was no strong objection to it. However, some members expressed concern over reducing the discount offered on annual student passes from 20 per cent to 15 per cent, stating it would be an added hardship for students and families who have limited resources. The Committee unanimously approved the following motion:

“That PTAC support an increase in fares so long as it not exceed the increase in the cost of living.”

At it’s meeting of 15 November 2007, PTAC discussed the proposed 2005 service plan as presented in Document 3 and supported the approach and the proposed expansion of services.

RÉSUMÉ

Hypothèses et analyse :

Depuis 1997, le ratio recettes/coûts n’a pas cessé de diminuer, passant de plus de 55 % à 48 % en 2007. Si aucune mesure n’est prise, ce ratio tombera à 46 % d’ici 2010 puisque les coûts de la main-d’œuvre, du carburant et de la maintenance dépasseraient la croissance des recettes si les tarifs étaient maintenus au taux de l’inflation. Dans le cadre des délibérations entourant le Plan financier à long terme, le Conseil a donné ordre d’atteindre un ratio de 50 % d’ici 2010 grâce à des augmentations annuelles de recettes de 5 %. Le présent rapport traite de l’orientation à suivre et décrit les stratégies à mettre en œuvre afin d’inverser le déclin des 10 années précédentes.

Les plans visant à accroître la productivité et à réduire les services seront nécessaires afin d’obtenir un ratio recettes-coûts de 50 % si les augmentations de tarif ne dépassent pas 5 % par année au cours des trois prochaines années. Nous avons établi pour les services de transport en commun des cibles de productivité de l’ordre de 4 % des coûts totaux d’ici 2010, ce qui est réalisable. Cependant, des réductions des programmes importantes seraient également nécessaires afin d’atteindre le ratio recettes/coûts de 50 %; lesquelles sont exposées dans le document budgétaire de 2008. Des propositions en vue d’une augmentation de 5 % des tarifs sont fournies dans le rapport et d’autres sources de recettes sont également explorées. De plus, le Plan sur les services de transport en commun de 2008, qui est conforme aux objectifs du Conseil d’augmenter le nombre d’usagers du transport en commun et qui vise à utiliser pleinement le parc de véhicules de grande capacité déjà commandé et devant être livré cet été, est fourni.

Si le Conseil veut réduire les coûts nets en-dessous du niveau qui résulterait des tarifs et du plan de service recommandés, plusieurs options sont décrites dans le budget de 2008. Si le «conseil approuvait toutes ces options, le ratio recettes-coûts augmenterait à 49,6 % d’ici 2010. Toutefois, le nombre d’usagers n’atteindrait que 97 millions d’ici 2010, au lieu de 103 millions.

Répercussions financières

Le budget pour 2008 prévoit des réductions de programme (c.‑à‑d. des réductions de service) qui sont exposées dans ce rapport. Toute réduction de service se répercutera sur le nombre d’usagers et sur la performance financière. L’approbation des réductions de programme permettra d’atteindre un ratio recettes/coûts de 49,6 % comprenant d’autres mesures de productivité. Si les réductions de programmes ne sont pas maintenues, la cible modifiée pour le ratio recettes/coûts serait de 48 %.

Des cibles de productivité de l’ordre de 4 % des coûts totaux d’ici 2010 ont été établies pour les services de transport en commun, qui ont une répercussion sur notre capacité d’accroître la performance financière. Même si nous n’avons pas encore élaboré de stratégies détaillées, nous avons dégagé des sources d’économie qui devraient nous permettre d’obtenir des réductions de coûts durables de plus de 12 millions de dollars dans l’avenir. L’économie de productivité à elle seule ne permettra pas d’atteindre un ratio recettes/coûts de 50 % puisque l’accroissement de productivité nécessaire est de l’ordre de 8 %, c’est‑à‑dire des économies d’environ 24 millions de dollars. Si le Conseil décide de ne pas procéder aux réductions de programmes, le ratio recettes/coûts qui s’ensuivrait serait alors de 48 %.

Consultation/commentaires

L’idée de tarifs de zone a été soulevée dans des groupes de discussion qui avaient pour but d’aider à préciser l’orientation d’OC Transpo. Les participants ont eu une réaction mitigée. La majorité ont jugé que le concept serait plus équitable, mais étaient préoccupés par la complexité qu’il entraînerait. Ils craignaient également qu’une augmentation des tarifs n’ait un effet défavorable sur le nombre d’usagers des banlieues.

Le Comité consultatif sur les piétons et le transport en commun (CCPT) a discuté des tarifs à sa réunion du 20 septembre 2007. On a aussi consulté le CCPT sur des tarifs possibles pour 2008. Le Comité n’a pas appuyé l’idée de tarifs de zone puisque, selon lui, les clients trouveraient le système difficile à comprendre et, plus important encore, l’augmentation des tarifs pour les itinéraires plus longs dissuaderait les gens d’utiliser les transports en commun. Pour ce qui est d’augmenter les tarifs, les membres ont en général été d’accord pour que l’augmentation des tarifs soit plus élevée à l’égard des laissez-passer express que des laissez-passer réguliers. Quant à diminuer le rabais Ecopass de 15 % à 12 %, personne ne s’y est vraiment opposé. Toutefois, quelques membres ont indiqué que si le rabais offert sur les laissez-passer annuels aux étudiants passait de 20 % à 15 %, cela augmenterait le fardeau des étudiants et des familles qui disposent de ressources limitées. Le Comité a approuvé à l’unanimité la motion suivante :

« Que le CCPT appuie une augmentation des tarifs en autant qu’elle ne dépasse pas la hausse du coût de la vie. »

À sa réunion du 15 novembre 2007, le CCPT a discuté du plan de service 2005 proposé, tel que présenté dans le Document 3, et en a appuyé l’approche ainsi que l’expansion des services proposée.

BACKGROUND

During the Long Range Financial Plan, significant debate surrounded the financial sustainability of the transit system as service levels and ridership increase in line with Council’s objective to increase the modal share. In recent years, the relative share of user revenue-to-cost has been moving away from the 55 per cent ratio target as previously approved. As the revenue-cost ratio projected into 2010 was below 50 per cent, this new objective was recommended.

This report provides context to assist Council’s deliberation of the 2008 Budget and longer-term directions for OC Transpo.

In the context of the 2008 Budget, plans must be implemented to reach this new target, with 2008 as a transition year to a more financially sustainable growth model for transit in Ottawa.

The 2008 Budget contains service adjustments that include increases to meet demand expectations (contained herein) as well as options for program reductions (which includes service reductions), the latter being described in the Budget Report to Council. The additional services described in this report allow maintaining continued growth in ridership based on demand patterns within an affordable performance goal. The reductions described in the 2008 Budget will have repercussions on ridership, however, are designed around setting new standards for performance within the context of the budget. If assumptions of financial performance of routes are amended, these will have a definitive impact on the revenue-cost ratio, given the relatively low contribution of fares in those services. Approval of the optional program reductions will result in a 49.6 per cent revenue-cost ratio including other productivity measures as described in the budget.

DISCUSSION

Perspective on Revenue-Cost Ratio

Since 1997, the revenue-cost ratio has deteriorated consistently from over 55 per cent to 48 per cent in 2007. With the onset of an additional bus garage, higher mileage service growth, and resource cost increases above inflation, the revenue-cost ratio, if no action is taken, would further erode to 46 per cent by 2010. As part of the LRFP deliberations, direction by Council was given to proceed with targets of reaching 50 per cent by 2010 (Document 1). This report confirms this direction and describes the strategies to be implemented to reverse the previous 10-year decline.

1997-2010 Revenue Cost Trends

Forecast Base Case for 2008-10

The history of this most basic performance indicator can be described simply as the inability to balance the price increases of our key inputs (labour, fuel and energy and material) with the prices charged for the service delivered. This is especially true for the period 2003-2006 where real fares, adjusted for inflation, were relatively constant while costs increased at several times the rate of inflation.

In the pre-amalgamation period, Transit Services faced significant challenges in the renewal of the bus fleet while also mandated to reduce costs. This objective was inconsistent with the change towards higher cost, less efficient bus technology that arose in the 1990s to meet accessibility and comfort goals. The 1997-2003 era indicates steadily rising real costs, adjusted for inflation, however, rising at the same rate as our service productivity, as measured by passenger carrying per hour. As a result, cost pressures were balanced by productivity improvements. As fare increases were kept below inflation, the revenue-cost ratio declined and taxpayers financed the gap.

Price-Productivity Indices

Adjusted for Inflation: Base = 1997

In the period since 2003, the gap between real cost increases and fares continued to widen but without additional productivity gain as new services were added to serve the growing communities of Kanata, Barrhaven, Orleans and Riverside South/Leitrim. With a changing fleet mix to less efficient low-floor buses (fewer seats per bus) and less productive articulated buses (lower availability), capacity (service hours) had to be increased to provide adequate seating to accommodate growth. The relatively higher cost service expansion without average fare increases created natural erosion in the revenue-cost ratio. Since 2003, our average cost to provide an hour of service in real terms has grown by 18 per cent above accumulated inflation due to:

1. Average mileage operated (to service new communities) continues to grow driving, operations and maintenance costs higher per year;

2. O-Train costs were transferred from capital to operating expense as the pilot was converted to permanent – resulting in a structural reduction in revenue-cost ratio;

3. Despite a bus renewal strategy and the beneficial ridership impact, the new fleet has lower energy efficiency (higher weight), additional systems and complexity (parts) and has not performed to expectations (low availability of the articulated fleet);

4. Prices of fuel for buses and energy for stations and garages have increased by 56 per cent in real terms and now accounts for over 25 per cent of revenue collected; and,

5. Negotiated wage settlements have consistently exceeded inflation by approximately one per cent annually and productivity has fallen four per cent over this period.

In terms of meeting the strategic direction of a revenue-cost ratio of 55 per cent, the above realities make this goal unachievable without a structural shift in efficiency – that is, to increase the speed of operation (more people per hour), higher carrying capacity or fewer resources per passenger-kilometre to operate the system. These changes can only be brought about in changing the design of the transportation model that is beyond the scope of this report.

As a result, our long-term goal of increasing modal share or, as a proxy, the passenger trips per resident will require that a new standard of financial performance be set unless fares can be aligned with the relative prices of fuel, energy and bus maintenance. This new standard is set at 50 per cent revenue-cost recovery that will require difficult choices be made to be successful by 2010.

Comparisons with Other Transit Agencies in Canada

In Canada, there are consistent measures of fiscal performance of transit agencies when considering fares, average cost of delivery throughout Canada. The latest data from the Canadian Urban Transit Association (2006) has been reviewed for cities larger than 400,000 inhabitants. Basic comparisons of the larger cities of Toronto and Montreal, excluding commuter rail operations, indicate a higher financial performance based on higher fares and ridership per capital than Ottawa due to rapid transit infrastructure. In the case of Montreal, lower average fares contribute to a lower revenue-cost ratio over Toronto.

Data for major systems and a comparison with Winnipeg who also has a bus-based system provides some basic comparisons.

Comparisons of Major Canadian Transit Systems

	Ottawa	Winnipeg	Calgary	Toronto	Montreal	Edmonton
Service Type	Bus/BRT	Bus	Bus/LRT	Bus/LRT/Rail	Bus/Rail	Bus/LRT

Average Fare	$1.31	$1.40	$1.25	$1.66	$1.08	$1.20
Cost per Hour	$101.75	$70.63	$92.88	$113.09	$119.03	$88.62
Municipal Operating Contribution/Capita	$181.53	$47.48	$79.28	$68.23	$119.06	$119.29
Revenue-Cost Ratio	51%	60%	59%	75%	59%	46%
Average Trips/Capita	119.26	65.7	88.6	177.61	193.91	78.66
Number of Vehicles	963	535	960	2,496	2,354	885
Average Speed	26.8	18.9	24.5	22.0	24.4	21.5
Average Age of Bus Fleet	7.2	10.9	11.3	9.4	8.3	12.4

In the context of Ottawa, there is a clear relationship between low fare structure, high operating costs and the corresponding strain on the tax base despite a successfully high level of ridership per capital and average speed normally associated with investments in rapid transit systems. This latter point is based on the Bus Rapid Transit design and the extensive reach of the system where stop distances are more infrequent. In the case of municipal contributions, Winnipeg received almost one-third of its operating subsidy in the form of Provincial Operating Contribution, Toronto almost 35 per cent of the net operating cost, while Calgary received less than three per cent through the Province. Montreal receives about one third of funding for operations from other than municipal sources. Adjusting for these differences on a per capita basis does not account for the marked difference in the tax contribution.

In Calgary where urban growth and cost pressures are high, Calgary Transit has achieved a 59 per cent revenue-cost ratio in 2006 and captured efficiency associated with growth. The Light Rail Transit system by nature has a lower marginal cost for each additional passenger (paying a fixed fare) while bus marginal costs are closer to the average cost of the system. Alternatively, Ottawa’s decline to 48 per cent in 2007 from 50 per cent occurred during increase in service levels and rising fuel prices. A study of relative marginal costs of service growth will be conducted in 2008 to provide direction on efficiency options.

On the basis of the data above, efforts to increase productivity and reduce cost appear more important than significant fare increases, as Ottawa’s fares are not out of range to comparable cities – Toronto excepted whereby the cost of congestion is significantly higher creating a value for transit fares.

Managing Fiscal Risk

The challenge Transit Services must manage is to increase the perceived value of transit while improving the productivity of the resources used in delivery of the service. Customer research indicates that the growing commuter base undervalues our service due to inconsistent delivery therefore are more apt to complain about fare increases. As new riders generally have choices of transportation and have invested in vehicles for local use, they are especially sensitive to relative cost changes (parking costs and availability) and to service delivery variations as opposed to the capital cost of a vehicle, licensing and even fuel.

It is important to communicate to transit users that the increases in transit revenue is required to not only support inflationary cost increases but to service the growth of the transit network for all users as new capacity needs to be financed by existing and eventually by prospective users. The cost of more comfortable and accessible buses must also be borne by users due to the greater value they provide.

Productivity targets have been established for Transit Services in the order of four per cent of total costs by 2010 that will yield an increase in financial performance to 48.1 per cent from a base case of 46.6 per cent if no action is taken. Although detailed strategies are yet to be developed, sources of savings have been identified and are expected to deliver over $12 million in sustainable cost reductions for the future. The benefits of the productivity saving alone will not result in achieving a 50 per cent revenue- cost ratio, as the required increase in productivity is of the order of eight per cent or approximately $24 million in savings. A structural shift in productivity through reorganization of labour contracts and indirect resources would be required to achieve this higher level of productivity.

Transit Services is expecting to increase service levels in 2008 in accordance with higher ridership per capita (proxy for modal share). These increases are demand driven and generally contribute to improvement in revenue recovery. Document 3 describes these increases and their contribution to the network, service level and impact on the bus fleet.

Even with maintaining a consistent three per cent growth in service capacity and revenue increases in the order of five per cent annually, there are real risks that lower than expected ridership will erode improvements in revenue-cost ratio projections. Changing the value perceived by customers in the service is the most critical factor to offset the traditional elasticity of demand found in public transit.

Various initiatives are planned to ensure the fiscal projections are attained including:

1. Our most important challenge will be to concentrate on supporting over 1800 front-line employees on service delivery and their engagement to ensure OC Transpo is perceived to be a high quality provider. Training will be re-established on a cyclical basis, concentrating on reducing service delivery variations and eliminating customer irritants.

2. Implementation of a quality system to ensure variations in service delivery are properly controlled – e.g. connections, Operator conduct, accurate passenger information, bus availability, bus cleanliness. Traditional street monitoring and customer feedback are not sufficiently precise to sustain long-term reliability. Use of real-time data, internal audits, and new customer metrics will be implemented as part of this initiative. Resource savings should arise as costs of monitoring performance declines.

3. Pursuing proportionately higher fare increases on the longest distance routes through increased use of Express service versus zone-based fares. Customer feedback on the complexity of zone fares without a more robust technology to control complex fare structures is a restraining factor on this initiative. Concentration towards higher value commuter service will be the strategy to compensate for the longer distance express service while improving the revenue-cost ratio. A refreshed Express product will be implemented with the arrival of the first double-decker buses as well as aggressive marketing of Gold Permit services. A full review of the 2008 Budget revenue recommendations are contained in Document 2.

4. Increasing sources of income from charter, special events and advertising, etc. Additional marketing and product design will be necessary to achieve this important goal. Surpassing planned revenue targets will mitigate future fare increases.

5. Use higher capacity buses (double-deckers, articulated) to increase efficiency. This initiative has limited potential in the horizon of the plan with only 51 higher capacity buses being added to the fleet by 2010.

6. Targeted fare enforcement to ensure high value passes are used according to fare policies, improve fare evasion statistics, and increase enforcement officers to control all service hours.

7. Promote value of Transit through marketing and partnering initiatives. Market research is signalling a strong desire from customers to benefit from some sort of loyalty program based on their increasing percentage of income going to transit as a choice versus a necessity.

8. Building incentives into frontline employee compensation and increasing engagement in solutions to improve service and reduce waste. Transit Services has not benefited from the potential talent and engagement of its own employees. Improved communications, suggestion management and team building with frontline employees will provide financial value for the organization which requires more innovative compensation schemes to maintain long-term benefits. Extensive literature and experience exists to support the value of positive engagement by employees to the value of an organization. These concepts will be explored in 2008 for deployment.

9. Control losses due to accidents and claims through on-board monitoring and introduce remedial training of Operators. Financial cost of losses will be directly charged to Transit Services in 2008 to ensure accountability for reduction of risk and losses are attributed to Operations. Focus will be on smart driving techniques and continuous feedback to Operators throughout their careers to ensure highest success in safe driving. It is expected that fewer complaints will arise from improved driving habits and security will be enhanced with on-board video capacity.

10. A sustained effort to curb fare evasion will be a key objective to meet through generation of additional revenue as well as increasing the general level of security and control on the system.

11. Reduce Operator lost time for non-value activities and control absences/overtime cycle. Efforts will be made to improve platform hours (revenue generating) through more effective allocation of Operator hours and restructuring of resources to improve management leadership with frontline staff.

12. Change in Centres of Expertise (COE) agreements with Fleet, RPAM, Finance, Corporate Security related to building fiscal incentives for quality standards and continuous improvement in areas of bus availability, maintenance, condition and attractiveness of assets, fuel management and efficiency, property protection, etc. Service level agreements between operating departments are neither performance-based nor oriented for multi-year commitments. Risk is not accounted for within the COE and all cost over-runs or service deficiencies are passed to Transit Services as they occur. This creates uncertainty in managing trade-offs between internal service providers to achieve budget targets. This initiative will be conditional on Council direction arising from the upcoming governance review.

These initiatives will require modest investment but will be funded within the base budget levels of 2008 – that is, they will be self-financing through pre-emptive cost reductions, revenue improvements, and existing capital. Specific investments will include:

1. Incident-initiated video monitoring of driver or passenger generated events (accident, violence, fare fraud, etc.) to improve Operator skills and pursue unacceptable behaviours of customers for correction. This will be a self-financed initiative using outsourced services of a proven system supplier. A pilot program will be presented to Transit committee as a separate report and is already committed through the 2007 budget authority.

2. Focus on training and development of Standard Operating Procedures to ensure service standards are communicated properly and understood by all employees. These costs are contained in the 2008 draft Capital Budget with an estimate of $250,000 to develop the procedures.

3. Creating a business improvement initiative which will include three additional positions related to Marketing, Quality Management, Service Metrics Management and internal control for service level agreements and investments with operational COEs. These positions will be financed through organizational changes and new revenue initiatives.

4. Additional Fare Enforcement Officers and Special Constables are proposed until the smartcard program is fully operational in 2011. We will plan to add a total of six FTEs that will be financed through overtime savings and additional revenue. With smartcard technology, we believe significant fare evasion reduction will be realized based on other transit property experiences. FTE counts will be monitored over time to ensure marginal revenue and cost of enforcement is balanced. We have conducted a peer review to identify changes necessary to ensure confidence in our protection of revenue.

Alternatives to Bridging Gap in Revenue-Cost Ratio

The recommended service plan for 2008 is provided in Document 3. This shows clearly where it is proposed to use the available resources, including the new high-capacity buses that will be arriving in the summer, to increase ridership and accommodate growth in new areas. This plan is consistent with an increase of three per cent in transit ridership.

However, this plan does not result in an improvement to the transit revenue-cost ratio, nor does it reduce the net taxation requirement. For this reason, some service reduction options have been provided in the 2008 Budget. These range from terminating the biodiesel program to increasing the minimum financial standards for service provision. Those associated with on-street service are summarized below, and a further option to increase fares by 10 per cent is added.

The value of ‘customers lost per net dollar saved’ associated with these potential changes provides a good measure of the damage each would have on ridership. The lower the value, the less damaging. However, it should be noted that eliminating service on the base route network would undermine one of the key pillars of the transit system design (to provide service within 800m of 95 per cent of residences during all service hours) and result in significant impact on residents who depend on transit. The specific service reductions associated with Options 3 and 5 and also the new option of increasing the minimum financial standard to 0.3 are summarized in Document 4.

As part of the Long-Range Financial Plan review, a fare structure, which would grow beyond five per cent annually, was the most effective approach to improve the revenue-cost ratio after consideration of internal productivity improvements. The 10 per cent fare increase shown as a new option in the table below would reduce the property tax requirement by $6.48 million per year and should be considered before some of the other options. Increases in the order of 10 per cent annually would be necessary to offset option of service reductions and would generate the necessary $16 million reduction in tax increases incorporated in the 2008 Budget.

Option	Net Impact on Taxation per Year ($ Million)	Customers Lost (Million)	Customers Lost/Net Dollar Saved
3. Reduce evening and weekend service on base route network	- 2.94	0.69	0.24
4. Eliminate planned service increases for 2008	- 3.81	2.70	0.71
5. Increase minimum financial standard from 0.2 to 0.7 customers lost/net dollar saved	- 7.80	3.40	0.44
New – Increase minimum financial standard to 0.3 customers lost/net dollar saved	- 2.26	0.57	0.25
New – Raise fares by 10%, rather than 5%	- 6.48	1.47	0.23

The proposed service reductions described in the 2008 Budget serve to increase the average financial performance of the system by removing the services that have the lowest ridership to cost. These reductions generate the financial leverage to attain the 50 per cent target in revenue cost. These changes are oriented towards reducing service levels for those persons that generally have no access to a car (demand is inelastic) to favour those that are attempting to make a modal shift away from the car (commuters with choices over transit). From a social preference standpoint, this rationalization must be considered carefully as the peak user is the primary contributor to emissions and congestion (highest environmental/economical/economic benefit) over the needs of the off-peak user that will not be served or served poorly (limiting travel options).

Another alternative is to further increase standing limits by limiting seats (service hour reduction), which is a significant source of complaint and seeks to limit the commuting user who is contributing sufficient revenue to the system. This option could be self defeating in addressing financial performance if users view the inconvenience of standing as a barrier to choosing transit.

CONSULTATION

“That PTAC support an increase in fares so long as it not exceed the increase in the cost of living.”

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The 2008 Budget will contain program reductions (i.e. service reductions), which are not debated in this report. Any reductions in service will have repercussions on ridership, financial performance and will be treated as a separate item in the budget debate. If assumptions of financial performance of routes are amended, these will have a modest impact on the revenue-cost ratio if the service impact is a small percentage of the overall service capacity. Approval of the program reductions will result in achieving by 2010 the 49.6 per cent revenue-cost ratio including other productivity measures.

Productivity targets have been established for Transit Services in the order of four per cent of total costs by 2010 that have an impact on achieving the increase in financial performance. Although detailed strategies are yet to be developed, sources of savings have been identified and are expected to deliver over $12 million in sustainable cost reductions for the future. The benefits of the productivity saving will not result in achieving a 50 per cent revenue-cost ratio, as the necessary increase in productivity is of the order of eight per cent or approximately $24 million in savings. Should the program reductions not be sustained, the revised target for the revenue cost ratio would be 48 per cent.

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

Document 1 Transit Services Revenue-cost Ratios

Document 2 Revenue Options for 2008

Document 3 2008 Transit Service Plan

Document 4 Reduce evening and weekend service on base route network

TRANSIT SERVICES REVENUE-COST RATIO DOCUMENT 1

Transit Services RC Ratios (per CUTA definition) ($000)


		Forecast
	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010
Service Hours (000)	2,351	2,436	2,407	2,357	2,433
Passengers (000)	91,839	94,973	94,231	94,083	97,073

Expense:
Transportation Operations	108,864	119,554	126,865	134,328	142,345
Fuel & Energy	32,340	32,640	37,548	42,518	46,237
Vehicle Maintenance & Stores	53,983	62,742	70,189	79,625	89,061
Premises & Plant Mtce	23,459	25,674	28,328	32,783	34,422
2008 Targets: Productivity @ 4%	-	-	(3,436)	(7,451)	(12,529)
Program Review		-	(12,990)	(25,335)	(25,335)
General & Admin	22,590	23,208	24,436	24,338	24,752
Total Direct Operating Expense	241,236	263,818	270,939	280,806	298,952


Revenue:
Passenger Revenues	(120,175)	(123,547)	(131,702)	(141,395)	(152,341)
Other Operating Revenue	(3,241)	(3,462)	(3,462)	(3,531)	(3,601)
Program Review Reductions			3,838	7,676	7,676
Total Operating Revenue	(123,416)	(127,009)	(131,325)	(137,249)	(148,267)


Funding:
Gas Tax Subsidy	(7,150)	(16,150)	(16,150)	(16,150)	(16,150)
Special Provincial Subsidy	(10,000)	-	-	-	-
Total Funding	(17,150)	(16,150)	(16,150)	(16,150)	(16,150)

Net Taxation Requirement	100,670	120,659	123,464	127,406	134,535


R/C Ratio	51.2	48.1	48.5	48.9	49.6

REVENUE OPTIONS FOR 2008 DOCUMENT 2

Passenger Revenue

The objective of raising fare revenues by five per cent, over and above volume increases, has been adopted for this report. Three options have been developed that achieve this objective as a basis for discussion.

The idea of implementing a simple zone fare system was raised during the summer as a way to reflect the high cost of long distance suburban commuter trips, a large number of which are added each year. The zone fare concept was discussed informally by Councillors, in focus group sessions attended by transit users and non users, with OC Transpo’s Fare Committee and also by the Pedestrian and Transit Advisory Committee. Concerns were expressed about the potential problems of a zone system in terms of complexity from the customers’ standpoint and operational issues of administration and enforcement. In particular, the challenges associated with complexity for customers and enforcement were noted, were the zone system to be implemented with the current paper-based fare system. Other concerns were about fairness: while most users understand distance-based fees as the most equitable, the flat-fare approach is viewed as a least damaging solution to maintain fairness for users. Overall, it was recognized that a type of zone system is already in place with the express route network.

In view of these considerations and the expectation that a smartcard fare system will be developed in the next few years, some scenarios were developed for fare increases around the idea of increasing the differential between express and regular fares.

In addition, the possibility of reducing discounts for longer-term passes was also explored to increase transit revenues.

Scenarios Explored

The three scenarios developed are summarized in Table 1. All three contain the common elements of:

a) cash fares maintained at $3, $4 and $5

b) tickets increased from $0.95 to $1 (+5.6 per cent)

The revenue increase in 2008 that would result from July 1, 2008 implementation is provided for each scenario, as is the annual ridership. These projections were developed based on 2007 year-to-date revenue and ridership statistics and incorporating price elasticity assumptions consistent with past experience in Ottawa.

It is recommended that Scenario A be approved for implementation on July 1, 2008 and is incorporated in the 2008 Budget. This scenario would see regular pass prices increased to $77 from $73, (5.5 per cent) and express passes increased to $97 from $90, (7.8 per cent). This scenario increases the differential between the regular and express passes to $20 from $17, going some way towards addressing the high cost of long suburban commuter trips without adding complexity to the fare system. This scenario would result in $3.028 million additional revenue in 2008 and $6.056 million in the full year from July 1, 2008 to July 1, 2009.

Discounted Fares (Ecopass and Student Annual Pass)

ECOPASS

OC Transpo has a successful ECOPASS program. With 20,678 subscribers as at September 2007, it generates $17.9 million in revenue each year.

ECOPASS is a payroll deduction program that requires subscribers to commit to at least a year of membership. Subscribers are given the equivalent of 15 per cent discount on the price of 12 monthly passes.

The program provides subscribers with convenience, since they have no need to purchase a new pass each month, as well as a discount. The Federal Government ECOPASS program was developed as a partnership with OC Transpo/STO and the Federal Government. The STO has a smartcard system and is able to offer what amounts to a personal ECOPASS – with payments being deducted directly from employees’ bank accounts. This program provides a 10 per cent discount and has no requirement for subscribers to sign on for a period of at least a year.

The 15 per cent discount for OC Transpo’s program was based on an early BC Transit program in Victoria. It is arguable that the discount is too high and that it could be reduced to 12 per cent without damaging the subscriber base. A 12 per cent discount on ECOPASSES would increase revenues by $537,000 annually. It should be noted that the Annual Adult Pass offered to individuals who do not prefer or cannot participate in the ECOPASS Program, currently receive a 10 per cent fare discount on their Annual Pass which should be increased to 12 per cent in harmonization with the recommended 12 per cent ECOPASS Discount Program.

Annual Student Pass

The other fare instrument on which a very large discount is provided is the Annual Student Pass, with a 20 per cent discount over the cost of 12 monthly student passes which in themselves have been heavily discounted in comparison to Adult monthly transit passes. It is proposed to reduce this discount to 15 per cent, which would increase revenues by $170,000 annually.

Other Revenues

OC Transpo receives revenue from other sources as well as customer fares.

Table 2 shows the additional revenues projected for 2007 and those budgeted in 2008. It can be seen from this that the major contributors are the shelter, on-bus and bus bench advertising contracts, which are in place until 2010.

While some revenue sources are increasing, revenue from charter services is decreasing, due to the difficulty of providing additional vehicles for charter services in contention with regular scheduled service and requirements for special events. However, in 2008 Fleet Services will be required to provide sufficient buses to increase revenue.

In addition, staff has reviewed the options to increase non-fare revenues in the short‑term and propose to develop the ideas outlined below. There is the potential to achieve up to $200,000 annually in additional revenue annually from these sources and $100,000 has been assumed in the 2008 budget.

Advertising on Fare Media

There is evolving interest by advertisers to place names, logos or trademarks on fare media and derivatives such as pass vouchers (1.6 million produced annually), tickets (four million sheets or 40 million individual tickets) or 300,000 plastic holders for pass vouchers and photo IDs. This interest recognizes the volume of impressions that can be made over many calendar days and months throughout the City of Ottawa, in addition to specifically targeting transit users.

Electronic Advertising at Transitway Stations

In recent years, and especially in major cities throughout the world, there has been a trend towards exhibiting large electronic digital screens to provide transit information, news and weather as well as the advertising of products and services. Those service providers participating in this new wave genre of advertising will be invited to express interest in setting up electronic screens at various Transitway stations that offer the volume of traffic and demographic that would make this venture viable.

Vending Machines at Transitway Stations

There has always been expressions of interest to place various vending machines at Transitway stations, albeit there has also been expressions of concern about the potential for vandalism, clean up and the effects of cannibalization such vending machine placement may have on existing concession businesses (re: Gateway and Quickie). Consequently, any response to the issuance of a Request for Proposal for the placement of vending machines at Transitway stations or Park and Ride facilities should address the various concerns.

Sponsorships of Special Transit Service/Events

Transit service participation for events such as Winterlude, the Tulip Festival and New Year’s has been successful from time to time, in securing a sponsor for special transit services made available for the public. Such participation by advertising sponsors either replace fares normally collected (i.e. New Year’s transit service after 10 p.m.) or sponsor special transit service routes with fares also being collected. In addition, there have been instances where certain event organizers are interested in making transit service a price paid for in their ticket price offering.

Park and Ride Fees

Staff examined possible revenues to be derived from charging a fee for all cars at the major park and ride lots, and do not recommend taking this approach because of the inconvenience and additional costs to users, the significant capital costs to set-up the program and the operating costs for administration and enforcement.

Table 3 shows the park and rides lots considered for charge, the current average usage and number of Gold permits sold for each lot.

If parking fees were introduced, customers would have two ways of paying. Regular transit users would be able to purchase a monthly pass while occasional customers would be able to pay a daily rate. Monthly permits could be purchased at one of the OC Transpo sales offices or customers could opt for an automatic renewal program to receive their monthly transit pass and parking permit through the mail.

The idea of installing automatic gates was explored but was found to be impractical for two reasons:

the lot layouts would, in some cases, require two or more access points to avoid conflicts with bus operations; and,
the rapid arrival rates in the morning peak hours at some lots would require arrangements for queuing at the gates thus reducing parking spaces.

For the assessment, it was assumed that the monthly regular parking permit fee would be $17.50, which is currently charged at Baseline and Jeanne d’Arc. Ticket-dispensing machines (pay and display) would be installed at each lot for those customers not using a monthly parking permit and the daily fee would be $2. Park and ride users would still be able to purchase the existing Gold Permit for $40.25.

The additional operating costs to administer and enforce the lots would be about $250,000. Taking this into account, it is estimated that the total amount of net new revenue that the parking system would generate would be between $350,000 and $400,000, depending on the impact of charges on the use of the lots.

There would also be capital costs to set up the pay-for-parking program. These are estimated at $600,000 to cover the purchase and installation of ticket spitters and signage, and for the initial promotion of the program.

A better approach to generating additional parking revenues is to increase the number of Gold Permits sold each month. Currently, sales are approaching 200 per month and with several of the larger lots running at, or near capacity, the demand for Gold Permits will only increase. The major lots inside the UTA have a total parking capacity of about 5,000 spaces. The Gold Permit program is limited to using a maximum of 20 per cent of the spaces. Staff feel that with aggressive marketing of the benefits of Gold Permits, coupled with the capacity limitations at these lots, sales of Gold Permits could be increased to 1,000 over the next three to five years. At the current price of $40.25 per month and with customers buying permits for 10 months of the year, this would raise $400,000 annually.

An alternative to fees at park and ride facilities would be to incorporate tax levies outside of the Urban Transit Area (UTA) to account for the benefits to non UTA users who use the facilities. There is a perception that rural ticket premiums account for park and ride facilities, however, the recovery of cost by the user is limited to the bus service. An advantage to user fees is that they do not discriminate between users who are outside of the UTA and non-Ottawa citizens. This method would allow the user who benefits from the service to pay versus citizens outside the UTA.

Table 1

Table 2

Other Revenue - 2007 Projected and 2008 Budget

	2007 Projected $	2008 Budget $
Bus/Shelter/Bench Advertising	2,548,000	2,685,800

Photo IDs (Adult/Senior/ Student)	555,000	580,000

Park and Ride (Baseline, Blair & Jeanne d’Arc)	43,000	47,000
Gold Parking at Park and Ride	77,200	90,000
Total Park and Ride	120,200	137,000
City Charters (not involving school routes)	210,000	250,000
Sundry
Newspaper Boxes	190,000	220,000
Visitor/Convention & Special Day Passes	80,000	60,000
ATMs	21,582	22,000
Rent (re Quickie, Gateway - concessions)	105,316	110,000
Pass Protection	85,000	90,000
Sponsorship of Publications/ Routes/Events	20,000	20,000
Other (re: Greyhound, Wallets, Transport Canada)	18,000	20,000
Sundry Total	519,898	542,000
Additional Initiatives	0	100,000
Total/Other Revenue	3,953,098	4,294,800

COMPARISON OF 2007 AND 2008 BUDGETS

Buses

Hours

2007 Budget

832

2,436,515

Increases to accommodate ridership and city growth

- Capacity increases for ridership growth

- Extensions into new areas

- Resources to deal with increased congestion

7,700

3,100

6,500

Improvements to increase transit modal share

- Strategic network improvements

4,700

Annualization of 2007 changes

- Service growth

- Strategic network improvements

- Cost reductions

40,400

27,800

-4,600

Non-recurring costs particular to 2008

- Leap year – One more day

- Calendar – One more weekday

8,650

5,000

2008 Budget

844

2,535,765

3. SERVICE INCREASES TO ACCOMMODATE RIDERSHIP AND CITY GROWTH

The continuing growth of the City affects the transit system in three ways, and requires additional resources to maintain the current service standards:

· Growth of ridership on the current route network, which requires more trips to address crowding and to ensure that travellers are not left behind;

· Growth of the urban part of the city into new areas, which requires extensions of transit routes; and

· Growth of traffic congestion on busy streets, which slows the operation of some bus routes and which thus requires more buses to provide the same level of service.

3.1 Continuing ridership growth on the existing route network requires more trips to be operated every year. Increases to service levels are made in accordance with the service capacity standards, approved by Council in 2005, which define the number of customers that will be carried on each bus (for example, during peak periods, an average over the busiest hour of 45 customers on board each 40‑foot bus).

In 2008, service increases are expected to be needed on routes in many areas of the City. Increases to the major cross-town rapid transit services will be needed on Routes 95, 96, 97, and 101. In the central part of the City, increases will be needed on Routes 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 14, 18, 85, 111, and 118. In the west, increases will be needed on Routes 60, 61, and 66. In the southwest, increases will be needed on Routes 70, 71, 73, 76, 77, 117, 172, and 176. In the southeast, increases will be needed on Routes 40, 45, 84, and 87. In the east, increases will be needed on Routes 27, 30, and 94. All of these increases will be confirmed with the newest available ridership data before the schedules are prepared.

Most of the service increases on routes serving downtown in peak periods will be made by replacing 40-foot buses with new 60-foot articulated buses, which will be arriving before September 2008. These increases are listed in Table 1. Other service increases require additional buses to be scheduled in service, and these are listed in Table 2. The tables show a comparison of ridership to available capacity before and after the recommended service change.

The service increases to accommodate growing ridership on the existing route network will use all of the new articulated buses and will use eight of the increase of 12 buses in the total fleet size. These increases will require 7,700 hours of service in 2008.

3.2 Extensions into new and growing areas will be required this year in parts of Stittsville, Kanata, South Nepean, and Orleans. Expansion into new areas occurs according to the number of new transit customers expected, to conform with the service standards approved by Council in 2005. The extensions of service expected to be required in 2008 are listed in Table 3.

Extensions of Route 261 into the new Jackson Trails area in Stittsville and Route 171 into the expanding Stonebridge area of South Nepean were approved through the Transplan 2007 process and will be introduced in 2008.

Proposals for an extension of Route 32 into the expanding Avalon area in Orléans and a new route for the new Brookside area in Kanata North will be developed for approval through the Transplan 2008 process, so that they can be introduced in 2008.

Service to the new Half Moon Bay area in South Nepean and new midday service on Route 163 to the Fairwinds area in Kanata West will be funded by the developer for those areas, and their timing in 2008 will depend on the pace of development and on the details of agreements between the City and the developer.

The extensions of service will require 3,100 hours of service in 2008 and will use three of the increase of 12 buses in the total fleet size.

3.3 Additional operating resources – buses and hours of service – are required each year to maintain the current standards of service reliability in the face of increasing traffic congestion.

Increased use of the road network by motorists results from city-wide growth. It increases the number of points of congestion and reduces the overall speed of busy roads. Buses take more time to travel through these parts of the road network, and additional time must be scheduled to ensure that buses continue to have enough time to complete their trips. Increases in scheduled trip time and in the number of extra buses assigned are made to ensure that there is no reduction resulting from increasing traffic congestion in the proportion of trips that are operated and that are on time.

In some locations, transit priority measures such as queue-jump lanes and transit-priority traffic signals are being added to reduce delay and to increase the reliability of service, but these cannot relieve all of the congestion through which the transit system operates.

The service increases to compensate for congestion will require 6,500 hours of service in 2008 and will use one of the increase of 12 buses in the total fleet size. These increases are summarized in Table 4.

4. SERVICE IMPROVEMENTS TO INCREASE TRANSIT MODAL SHARE

Two types of service quality improvements are recommended in 2008:

· Restructured routes to improve the reliability of service on busy routes; and

· Strategic network improvements to provide more convenient connections.

4.1 Routes 2, 3, 85, and 111 are long cross-town routes that serve many customers and operate in mixed traffic through many busy areas. As the services are subject to delay at many points along the route, their reliability is lower than staff consider acceptable. Most customers on these routes travel on only a short part of their entire length, and there are opportunities to divide the routes into separate pieces or to combine parts of the routes with other nearby or parallel routes without causing excessive inconvenience. Staff are developing proposals for the restructuring of these four routes for approval through the Transplan 2008 process, so that they can be introduced in June or September 2008.

One of the current difficulties in planning bus operations through downtown is that there are very few places where buses can stop, turn around, and wait for their next scheduled departure. Staff have developed an option for modifications to Nicholas Street and the connecting roadway between Waller Street and Nicholas to allow buses to turn around and to make room for them to wait for their next trip. The engineering for this work is underway, and construction is planned for early 2008. This work will provide valuable options for restructuring Routes 3 and 85, for other possible future changes, and for day-to-day operations on all routes which operate through downtown.

In some locations, transit priority measures such as short bus lanes and transit-priority traffic signals are being added to reduce delay and to increase the reliability of service. The transit priority projects that have been implemented recently or that are in preparation for Carling Avenue are particularly valuable for customers on the western part of Route 85.

These routes would be restructured at no cost, by using the same resources as are now scheduled on the four routes. As there would be no net cost, none of the budgeted resources would be allocated to these improvements.

4.2 Staff are recommending for 2007 that a small number of targeted service improvements be made to the transit route network, above those required to accommodate growth. The service changes are described generally here and are listed in Table 5.

Route 84 connects the Greenboro residential area with the Transitway at South Keys and Greenboro Stations. It is recommended that this very busy route be extended to downtown at all times of the week, so that many fewer customers will need to transfer to and from other routes at South Keys or Greenboro stations. To allow this route change to be made, a new off-street bus turning loop is required at Hawthorne and Hunt Club. The engineering for this new facility is underway, and construction is planned for early 2008. This route change is also connected to possible other route changes in the area, which will be part of the Transplan 2008 process.

Route 94 operates between Millennium Park in Orléans and Tunney’s Pasture Station via Innes Road, and serves as a precursor service to the rapid transit service on the future Cumberland Transitway. Route 94 currently operates only from Monday to Friday during peak periods, the midday, and early evening. For 2008, staff are recommending the addition of weekday evening service and service on Saturdays and Sundays, as well as limited service eastbound to Orléans in the morning peak period. This would provide consistent transit service seven days a week to southern Orléans, including the growing shopping district there, and would strengthen the identity of Route 94 as a principal element of the transit network.

Route 95 operates between Orléans Station and Fallowfield Station seven days a week, and extends south to Strandherd Station and Barrhaven Town Centre only Monday to Friday. For 2008, staff are recommending the addition of Saturday and Sunday service to Barrhaven Town Centre. This would provide consistent transit service seven days a week to the commercial centre of South Nepean and would allow consistent connections there with local routes serving all of South Nepean.

Three increases in frequency from 60 minutes to 30 minutes are recommended to important parts of the base route network. Route 129 serves the area north of Blair Station, including la Cité collégiale and the Aviation Museum, and the service would be increased from 60 minutes to 30 minutes during the daytime on Sundays. Route 170 is the main local route connecting residential areas and community facilities in Barrhaven to Route 95 at Fallowfield Station and at Barrhaven Town Centre and the service would be increased from 60 minutes to 30 minutes during the daytime on Sundays. Route 176 is the main north-south route on Merivale Road, and the service would be increased from 60 minutes to 30 minutes during the late evening on Saturdays. These three increases would improve the ability of the transit network to accommodate residents’ varying travel needs. Other experiences have shown that where demand is sufficient, an increase from 60 minute to 30 minute service can more than double transit ridership.

These strategic service improvements will require 4,700 hours of service in 2008 and, because the changes are outside peak periods, will use none of the increased fleet size.

5. TRANSIT FLEET ACQUISITION STRATEGY

The recommendations in this plan are consistent with the transit fleet plan that was approved by Council in August 2007, with one important change. Fleet Services Branch staff plan to increase the availability of the fleet from the current 84 per cent to 85 per cent in 2008, and this leads to the requirement for fewer bus purchases. This has already led to fewer high-capacity buses being ordered for 2008 delivery, with a saving in capital costs of approximately $5-million.

The table below shows the current fleet acquisition strategy.

TRANSIT FLEET ACQUISITION 2007-2012
	GROWTH	REPLACEMENT ⁽¹⁾	ACQUISITION
Delivery Year	Standard-Equivalent Buses Required	Standard-Equivalent Buses Required	Bus Type and Quantity
2007	49	38	87 40-foot buses ⁽²⁾
2008	39	36	48 articulated buses ⁽³⁾ and 3 double-decker buses
2009	40	57	97 40-foot buses ⁽⁴⁾
2010	42	63	105 40-foot buses ⁽⁵⁾
2011	43	18	40 high-capacity buses ⁽⁶⁾
2012	44	11	37 high-capacity buses ⁽⁶⁾
Total 2007-2012	257	223	423 buses ⁽⁷⁾

Notes:

(1) Bus replacements are based on the manufacturer’s life expectancy of 12 years followed by a structural refurbishment to extend the average bus life to 18 years. Variations and exceptions occur with actual condition assessments of the buses and best value for money re-invested.

(2) Received and in service.

(3) This bus order, approved in the 2008 budget, was adjusted from 54 to 48 articulated buses, reflecting improvement in fleet availability.

(4) Diesel-electric hybrid buses. Two of the 97 will be pilot buses, to arrive in 2008. The quantity to be ordered may be reduced, depending on further increases in fleet availability.

(5) Diesel-electric hybrid buses. The quantity to be ordered may be reduced, depending on further increases in fleet availability. Also, detailed planning studies may determine that up to 10 of these may be ordered as smaller buses.

(6) To be determined whether double-decker or articulated buses based on assessment of pilot double-decker buses during 2009.

(7) Equivalent capacity to 480 standard buses.

Staff are investigating the availability of small low-floor buses suitable for use in low-density and new areas. A request for information has been issued to the bus manufacturing companies, and a procurement process for six to ten buses for delivery in 2009 or 2010 will be carried out based on the information received. The number of 40-foot buses to be acquired in 2010 would be reduced by the number of small buses ordered.

Fleet acquisitions beyond 2010 will be the subject of separate reports in the future. If the trial of the first three double-decker buses is successful, staff expect to recommend the purchase of a larger number of them to enter service in 2011 and beyond, to continue to increase the capacity of the service while maintaining smooth and reliable operations in downtown.

6. FUTURE YEARS’ SERVICE CHANGES

Some of the current issues in planning changes to the transit system are not included in this report as they are not ready for implementation in 2008 or not required in 2008. Work on these issues continues, and further reports will be prepared as appropriate.

Four new park and ride lots and transit stations are being designed and constructed in 2008-2009 – Millennium Station, at Trim and Innes, in eastern Orléans; Chapel Hill Station, at Orléans Boulevard and Navan Road, in Orléans; Leitrim Station, on Leitrim Road west of Albion, in Leitrim; and Riverview Station, at Earl Armstrong Road and River Road, in Riverside South. Plans for good-quality service to these new lots will be developed as part of the Transplan 2008 process, and resource requirements will be part of the 2009 budget.

Staff continue to pursue the downtown transit operating strategies that were described in the report presented to Transit Committee on May 16, 2007. Improvements to platforms on Slater at Metcalfe and at Mackenzie King and Laurier Stations are being constructed in 2007 and early 2008, to reduce passenger service time and increase reliability. As noted earlier in this report, most of the expansion in capacity of downtown service in peak periods will be achieved by replacing 40-foot buses with high-capacity 60-foot articulated buses. Three pilot double-decker buses have been ordered for delivery in 2008, and these will allow more customers to have a seated ride on busy express routes. If the trial of the first three double-decker buses is successful, staff expect to recommend the purchase of a larger number of them to enter service in 2011 and beyond, to continue to increase the capacity of the service downtown while maintaining smooth and reliable operations.

7. SERVICE FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES

With the continuing acquisition of low-floor buses for both service expansion and fleet replacement, the OC Transpo system is rapidly becoming accessible to transit customers with disabilities. Currently, 72 per cent of the fleet is made up of low-floor buses. That level will climb to 77 per cent in 2008, 83 per cent in 2009, 89 per cent in 2010, and 91 per cent in 2011, leaving less than 100 high-floor buses to be replaced in the years from 2012 to 2015.

In 2008, the services that run in the midday from Monday to Friday and all day on Saturdays and Sundays will be covered 100 per cent by low-floor buses. Service in peak periods will operate with low-floor buses at approximately the proportions of the total fleet, as above. A few trips in the evening from Monday to Friday will continue to run with high-floor buses, but the number of those trips will decline as the fleet conversion continues.

8. CONSULTATION/PUBLIC NOTIFICATION

No specific consultation was carried out in preparing this report.

Further consultation or notification about conventional transit service changes would be carried out as follows:

- Ridership growth on existing routes and strategic network improvements – No consultation required; customers would be notified of the increases in the September 2007 transit schedules.

- Route extensions into new areas and route restructurings to improve reliability – Consultation would be carried out or has already been carried out through the Transplan planning and consultation process, approved by Committee and Council in 2005 as part of the Transit System Management Policies. Notification once details are firm would be carried out through the normal information process for the introduction of the September 2007 transit service changes.

Table 1

USE OF ARTICULATED BUSES TO ACCOMMODATE EXPECTED RIDERSHIP GROWTH

Route	Day	Time Period	Description of Increase	Expected Occupancy Before Change	Expected Occupancy With Change	Articulated Buses
3	Mon-Fri	Morning	Increase capacity southbound in the peak hour	102%	90%	1
4	Mon-Fri	Morning	Increase capacity northbound in the peak hour	106%	96%	2
7	Mon-Fri	Morning	Increase capacity westbound in the peak hour	110%	99%	2
8/88	Mon-Fri	Morning	Increase capacity northbound in the peak hour	121%	95%	3
8	Mon-Fri	Midday	Increase capacity northbound 09:00-10:00	110%	100%	–
8/88	Mon-Fri	Afternoon	Increase capacity southbound in the peak hour	115%	94%	–
8	Mon-Fri	Evening	Increase capacity southbound 18:00-19:00	118%	95%	–
27	Mon-Fri	Afternoon	Increase capacity eastbound in the peak hour	102%	96%	–
30	Mon-Fri	Afternoon	Increase capacity eastbound in the peak hour	110%	100%	–
40	Mon-Fri	Afternoon	Increase capacity southbound in the peak hour	103%	97%	–
45	Mon-Fri	Morning	Increase capacity northbound on the busier trip	104%	67%	1
60	Mon-Fri	Afternoon	Increase capacity westbound in the peak hour	106%	95%	–
61	Mon-Fri	Afternoon	Increase capacity westbound in the peak hour	104%	97%	–
66	Mon-Fri	Morning	Increase capacity eastbound in the peak hour	103%	93%	1
70	Mon-Fri	Afternoon	Increase capacity westbound in the peak hour	105%	97%	–
71	Mon-Fri	Afternoon	Increase capacity westbound in the peak hour	103%	92%	–
73	Mon-Fri	Afternoon	Increase capacity westbound in the peak hour	108%	97%	–
76	Mon-Fri	Afternoon	Increase capacity westbound in the peak hour	109%	96%	–
77	Mon-Fri	Afternoon	Increase capacity westbound in the peak hour	102%	95%	–
84	Mon-Fri	Morning	Increase capacity toward downtown in the peak hour	127%	99%	7
84	Mon-Fri	Afternoon	Increase capacity from downtown in the peak hour	117%	99%	–
85	Sunday	Afternoon	Increase capacity westbound 17:00-18:00	103%	88%	–
87	Mon-Fri	Afternoon	Increase capacity toward Carlingwood in the peak hour	113%	100%	–
94	Mon-Fri	Morning	Increase capacity westbound in the peak hour	121%	92%	5
94	Mon-Fri	Afternoon	Increase capacity eastbound in the peak hour	119%	96%	–
95	Mon-Fri	Morning	Increase capacity westbound in the peak hour (along with service increase, listed in Table 1)	114%	100%	1
96	Mon-Fri	Morning	Increase capacity eastbound in the peak hour	121%	96%	8
96	Mon-Fri	Afternoon	Increase capacity eastbound in the peak hour	103%	80%	–
96	Mon-Fri	Afternoon	Increase capacity westbound in the peak hour	109%	85%	–
96	Saturday	Midday	Increase capacity westbound 16:30-17:30	118%	94%	–
97	Mon-Fri	Afternoon	Increase capacity eastbound-southbound in the peak hour	110%	100%	–
101	Mon-Fri	Morning	Increase capacity westbound in the peak hour	112%	95%	2
101	Mon-Fri	Afternoon	Increase capacity eastbound in the peak hour	103%	93%	–
111	Mon-Fri	Afternoon	Increase capacity on one westbound trip	104%	88%	–
117	Mon-Fri	Morning	Increase capacity eastbound in the peak hour	105%	92%	1
117	Mon-Fri	Afternoon	Increase capacity westbound in the peak hour	108%	92%	–
117	Mon-Fri	Evening	Increase capacity westbound 18:00-19:30	123%	98%	–
118	Mon-Fri	Midday	Increase capacity eastbound 10:00-11:00	109%	98%	1
118	Mon-Fri	Midday	Increase capacity westbound 13:15-14:15	112%	100%	1
118	Mon-Fri	Afternoon	Increase capacity eastbound in the peak hour	109%	95%	1
176	Mon-Fri	Midday	Increase capacity southbound 14:00-15:30	104%	83%	–
Total						37

Notes:

- Occupancy is calculated as: expected ridership levels divided by available capacity in the busiest hour.

- No additional budgeted hours are required for these capacity increases.

- This table shows a requirement for 37 articulated buses; with the four from Table 2, there will be a total of 41 more articulated buses in service each day.

Table 2

SERVICE INCREASES REQUIRED IN 2008 TO ACCOMMODATE EXPECTED RIDERSHIP GROWTH

Route	Day	Time Period	Description of Increase	Expected Occupancy Before Increase	Expected Occupancy With Increase	Buses	Hours in
2	Mon-Fri	Afternoon	Increase westbound service in the peak hour from 15 min to 12 min	112%	88%	–	243
3	Mon-Fri	Morning	Increase northbound service in the peak 30 min from 7-8 min to 6 min	126%	94%	1	405
7	Saturday	Midday	Increase eastbound service 15:00-16:00 from 15 min to 12 min	115%	92%	–	43
7	Saturday	Midday	Increase westbound service 16:40-17:40 from 15 min to 12 min	108%	86%	–	43
7	Sunday	Midday	Increase westbound service 16:20-17:20 from 20 min to 15 min	112%	84%	–	53
14	Mon-Fri	Morning	Increase eastbound service in the peak hour from 12 min to 10 min	113%	94%	1	203
14	Mon-Fri	Midday	Increase eastbound service 13:00-14:30 from 15 min to 12 min	119%	85%	–	405
14	Mon-Fri	Afternoon	Increase service in the peak hour from 15 min to 12 min (eastbound) and from 10 min to 7-8 min (westbound)	112%	86%	–	729
18	Mon-Fri	Morning	Increase westbound service in the peak hour from 12 min to 10 min	111%	93%	1	203
85	Mon-Fri	Morning	Increase eastbound service in the peak 30 min from 10 min to 7-8 min	103%	88%	1	203
85	Mon-Fri	Midday	Increase westbound service 14:00-15:00 by adding one trip	104%	91%	–	203
87	Mon-Fri	Morning	Increase northbound service in the peak hour from 7-8 min to 6 min	118%	94%	1	405
87	Mon-Fri	Evening	Increase service toward Greenboro 18:00-19:00 from 30 min to 20 min	114%	76%	–	203
94	Mon-Fri	Morning	Increase westbound service 08:00-09:00 from 20 min to 15 min	119%	89%	–	203
94	Mon-Fri	Midday	Increase westbound service 09:00-10:00 from 30 min to 20 min	116%	78%	–	203
94	Mon-Fri	Midday	Increase eastbound service 14:50-15:50 from 30 min to 20 min	119%	89%	–	243
95	Mon-Fri	Morning	Increase westbound service in the peak hour from 2 min 30 s to 2 min 15 s (along with vehicle type change, listed in Table 2)	114%	100%	2^A	608
95	Mon-Fri	Morning	Increase eastbound service in the peak hour from 2 min 30 s to 2 min 20 s	108%	99%	2^A	405
95	Mon-Fri	Afternoon	Increase westbound service in the peak hour from 3 min 30 s to 3 min	107%	100%	–	405
95	Mon-Fri	Afternoon	Increase eastbound service in the peak hour from 3 min to 2 min 40 s	118%	100%	–	608
95	Mon-Fri	Evening	Increase eastbound service 18:00-19:00 by adding two trips	106%	95%	–	405
95	Sunday	Midday	Increase eastbound service 14:30-15:30 from 7-8 min to 6 min	111%	88%	–	105
95	Sunday	Afternoon	Increase service in both directions 17:00-18:00 from 7-8 min to 6 min	115%	89%	–	210
96	Mon-Fri	Midday	Increase eastbound service 08:30-09:00 from 10 min to 7-8 min	110%	94%	–	203
96	Mon-Fri	Evening	Increase westbound service 17:40-19:00 from 15 min to 10 min	147%	90%	–	486
97	Saturday	Midday	Increase eastbound service 16:00-17:00 from 7-8 min to 6 min	105%	84%	–	85
111	Mon-Fri	Morning	Increase westbound service in the peak hour by adding one trip	107%	100%	–	203
111	Mon-Fri	Afternoon	Increase westbound service 15:00-16:00 from 20 min to 15 min	116%	93%		243
172	Mon-Fri	Afternoon	Increase westbound service in the peak hour by adding one trip from downtown	113%	84%	–	243
TBD	Mon-Fri	Morning	Re-allocation from peak routes with lower ridership	–	–	-1	-609
Totals	–	–	–			8	7,700

Notes:

A – The buses added to Route 95 will be articulated buses.

- Occupancy is calculated as: expected ridership levels divided by available capacity in the busiest hour.

- This table shows a requirement for four articulated buses; with the 37 from Table 1, there will be a total of 41 more articulated buses in service each day.

Table 3

SERVICE EXTENSIONS REQUIRED IN 2008 TO SERVE NEW AREAS

Route	Day	Time Period	Description of Increase	Customers per Year with Benefit	Buses	Hours in 2008
32	Mon-Fri	Morning & Afternoon	Extension to serve new part of Avalon area in Orléans Route to be developed and approved through Transplan 2008 process	35,800	1	150
163	Mon-Fri	Midday	New midday service to Fairwinds area in Kanata West	10,600	–	500
171	Mon-Sat	All day	Extension to serve Stonebridge area west of Jockvale in South Nepean Route already approved through Transplan 2007 process	41,400	1	1,500
261	Mon-Fri	Morning & Afternoon	Extension to serve new Jackson Trails area in Stittsville Route already approved through Transplan 2007 process	8,600	–	60
Kanata North	Mon-Fri	Morning & Afternoon	New service to Brookside area in Kanata North Route to be developed and approved through Transplan 2008 process	7,700	1	650
South Nepean	Mon-Fri	Morning & Afternoon	New service to Half Moon Bay area in South Nepean (developer funded) Route to be developed and approved through Transplan 2008 process	1,000	–	240
Totals	–	–	–	105,100	3	3,100

Note:

- Service extensions are planned to start in September 2008 or when feasible.

Table 4

RESOURCES TO DEAL WITH INCREASED CONGESTION

Start month	Day	Description of Increase	Buses	Hours in 2008
January	Mon-Fri	Additional scheduled time to maintain reliability in slower traffic conditions		4,200
January	Saturday	Additional scheduled time to maintain reliability in slower traffic conditions		300
January	Sunday	Additional scheduled time to maintain reliability in slower traffic conditions		200
September	Mon-Fri	Additional scheduled time to maintain reliability in slower traffic conditions	1	1,500
September	Saturday	Additional scheduled time to maintain reliability in slower traffic conditions		150
September	Sunday	Additional scheduled time to maintain reliability in slower traffic conditions		150
Totals			1	6,500

Table 5

RECOMMENDED 2008 STRATEGIC NETWORK IMPROVEMENTS

Route	Day	Time period	Description of Increase	Customers per Year with Benefit	Buses	Hours in
84	Mon-Fri	All day	Extension of service to downtown	169,000	–	420
84	Saturday	All day	Extension of service to downtown	27,000	–	190
84	Sunday	All day	Extension of service to downtown	19,000	–	504
94	Mon-Fri	Morning	New eastbound service every 60 min	10,000	–	140
94	Mon-Fri	Evening	Later service every 30 min	53,000	–	840
94	Saturday	Daytime	New service every 30 min	97,000	–	728
94	Sunday	Daytime	New service every 30 min	48,000	–	854
95	Saturday	All day	New service to Barrhaven Centre every 30 min	34,000	–	312
95	Sunday	Daytime	New service to Barrhaven Centre every 30 min	14,000	–	305
129	Sunday	Daytime	Increase service from 60 min to 30 min	8,000	–	104
170	Sunday	Daytime	Increase service from 60 min to 30 min	19,000	–	206
176	Saturday	Late eve	Increase service from 60 min to 30 min	7,000	–	51
Totals	–	–	–	505,000	0	4,700

REVISED Document 4

(Distributed separately to All Members of City Council)

3. Reduce evening and weekend service on base route network

The following are the services that would be removed if this option were selected:

Route	Day	Time Period	Service Change
4	Mon-Fri	Evening	Service removed downtown-Carleton Service would operate only Hurdman-Carleton
4	Saturday	All day	Service removed entirely
4	Sunday	All day	Service removed entirely
111	Mon-Fri	Evening	Service removed Elmvale-St Laurent Service removed Billings Bridge-Lincoln Fields Service would operate only Elmvale-Billings Bridge
111	Saturday	Daytime	Service removed Elmvale-St Laurent Service removed Billings Bridge-Lincoln Fields Service would operate only Elmvale-Billings Bridge
111	Saturday	Evening	Service removed entirely
111	Sunday	All day	Service removed entirely
116	Mon-Fri	Evening	Service removed entirely
116	Saturday	All day	Service removed entirely
116	Sunday	All day	Service removed entirely
125	Mon-Fri	Evening	Service removed entirely
125	Saturday	All day	Service removed entirely
125	Sunday	All day	Service removed entirely
135	Mon-Fri	Evening	Service removed entirely
135	Saturday	All day	Service removed entirely
135	Sunday	All day	Service removed entirely
144	Mon-Fri	Evening	Service removed entirely
144	Saturday	All day	Service removed entirely
144	Sunday	All day	Service removed entirely
145	Mon-Fri	Evening	Service removed entirely
145	Saturday	Evening	Service removed entirely
145	Sunday	All day	Service removed entirely
172	Mon-Fri	Evening	Service removed entirely
172	Saturday	All day	Service removed entirely
172	Sunday	All day	Service removed entirely

5. Increase minimum financial standard from 0.2 to 0.7 customers lost/net dollar saved

The following are the services that would be removed if this option were selected:

Route	Day	Time Period	Service Change
5	Saturday	Morning	Service removed entirely
5	Saturday	All day	Service removed Downtown-St Laurent
5	Sunday	All day	Service removed Downtown-St Laurent
5	Sunday	Evening	Service removed entirely
6	Mon-Fri	Midday	Service removed entirely
16	Mon-Fri	Midday	Service removed Downtown-Lincoln Fields
16	Mon-Fri	Evening	Service removed Downtown-Lincoln Fields
16	Saturday	All day	Service removed Downtown-Lincoln Fields
16	Sunday	All day	Service removed Downtown-Lincoln Fields
18	Mon-Fri	Evening	Service removed Downtown-Britannia
18	Saturday	Morning	Service removed Downtown-Britannia
18	Saturday	Evening	Service removed Downtown-Britannia
18	Sunday	All day	Service removed Downtown-Britannia
23	Mon-Fri	Peak periods	Service removed entirely
25	Mon-Fri	Peak periods	Service removed entirely
43	Mon-Fri	Peak periods	Service removed entirely
51	Mon-Fri	Peak periods	Service removed entirely
55	Mon-Fri	Peak periods	Service removed entirely
87	Mon-Fri	Evening	Service removed Hurdman-Carlingwood
87	Saturday	Early morning	Service removed Hurdman-Carlingwood
87	Saturday	Evening	Service removed Hurdman-Carlingwood
87	Sunday	All day	Service removed Hurdman-Carlingwood
97	Mon-Fri	Peak periods	Service removed north of Bayshore on Woodridge
101	Mon-Fri	Peak periods	Service removed Bayshore-Kanata North
101	Mon-Fri	Midday	Service removed entirely
101	Mon-Fri	Evening	Service removed entirely
101	Saturday	All day	Service removed entirely
102	Mon-Fri	Peak periods	Service removed entirely
105	Mon-Fri	Peak periods	Service removed entirely
116	Mon-Fri	Peak periods	Service removed Baseline-Nortel
117	Mon-Fri	All day	Service removed entirely
127	Mon-Fri	Midday	Service removed Blair-Place d’Orleans
127	Saturday	Morning	Service removed entirely
127	Saturday	All day	Service removed Blair-Place d’Orleans
127	Sunday	Morning	Service removed entirely
128	Mon-Fri	Evening	Service removed entirely
128	Saturday	All day	Service removed entirely
128	Sunday	All day	Service removed entirely
131	Mon-Fri	Evening	Service removed entirely
131	Saturday	All day	Service removed entirely
131	Sunday	All day	Service removed entirely
136	Mon-Fri	Evening	Service removed entirely
136	Saturday	All day	Service removed entirely
136	Sunday	All day	Service removed entirely
137	Mon-Fri	Evening	Service removed entirely
137	Saturday	Morning	Service removed entirely
137	Saturday	Evening	Service removed entirely
137	Sunday	All day	Service removed entirely
141	Mon-Fri	Midday	Service removed entirely
141	Saturday	All day	Service removed entirely
142	Mon-Fri	Evening	Service removed entirely
142	Saturday	All day	Service removed entirely
142	Saturday	All day	Service removed entirely
146	Saturday	Morning	Service removed entirely
146	Saturday	Evening	Service removed entirely
146	Sunday	All day	Service removed entirely
147	Mon-Fri	Evening	Service removed entirely
147	Sunday	Morning	Service removed entirely
149	Mon-Fri	Midday	Service removed entirely
149	Mon-Fri	Evening	Service removed entirely
149	Saturday	All day	Service removed entirely
149	Sunday	All day	Service removed entirely
151	Mon-Fri	Peak periods	Service removed on Carling, Lincoln Fields-Carlingwood
151	Mon-Fri	Midday	Service removed Westboro-Tunney’s Pasture Service removed on Carling, Lincoln Fields-Carlingwood
151	Mon-Fri	Evening	Service removed Westboro-Tunney’s Pasture Service removed on Carling, Lincoln Fields-Carlingwood
151	Saturday	All day	Service removed Westboro-Tunney’s Pasture Service removed on Carling, Lincoln Fields-Carlingwood
151	Sunday	Daytime	Service removed Westboro-Tunney’s Pasture Service removed on Carling, Lincoln Fields-Carlingwood
151	Sunday	Evening	Service removed entirely
152	Mon-Fri	Peak periods	Service removed Morrison-Bayshore
152	Mon-Fri	Midday	Service removed Morrison-Bayshore
152	Mon-Fri	Evening	Service removed entirely
152	Saturday	Daytime	Service removed Morrison-Bayshore
152	Saturday	Evening	Service removed entirely
152	Sunday	Morning	Service removed entirely
152	Sunday	Afternoon	Service removed Morrison-Bayshore
152	Sunday	Evening	Service removed entirely
154	Mon-Fri	Midday	Service removed entirely
154	Mon-Fri	Evening	Service removed entirely
154	Saturday	All day	Service removed entirely
154	Sunday	All day	Service removed entirely
156	Mon-Fri	Evening	Service removed entirely
156	Saturday	Morning	Service removed entirely
156	Saturday	Evening	Service removed entirely
156	Sunday	Evening	Service removed entirely
165	Mon-Fri	All day	Service removed entirely
166	Mon-Fri	Evening	Service removed entirely
166	Saturday	Evening	Service removed entirely
166	Sunday	All day	Service removed entirely
167	Mon-Fri	Peak periods	Service removed entirely
169	Mon-Fri	Peak periods	Service removed entirely
171	Mon-Fri	Evening	Service removed entirely
171	Saturday	All day	Service removed entirely
171	Sunday	All day	Service removed entirely
173	Mon-Fri	Evening	Service removed entirely
173	Saturday	All day	Service removed entirely
173	Sunday	All day	Service removed entirely
174	Mon-Fri	Evening	Service removed entirely
174	Saturday	Evening	Service removed entirely
174	Sunday	All day	Service removed entirely
178	Mon-Fri	Midday	Service removed entirely
178	Mon-Fri	Evening	Service removed entirely
178	Saturday	All day	Service removed entirely
181	Mon-Fri	All day	Service removed entirely
193	Mon-Fri	Peak periods	Service removed entirely
306	Mon-Fri	All day	Service removed entirely
316	Mon-Fri	All day	Service removed Rideau Centre-LeBreton
316	Saturday	All day	Service removed Rideau Centre-LeBreton

Park & Ride Lots Considered for Parking Fees
Park & Ride Lot	Capacity of Lot	Number of Cars Using Lot	Number of Gold Permit Pass Holders	Potential Gold Pass Spaces
Baseline	276	264	12	55
Fallowfield	1,002	1,002	3	200
Greenboro	678	678	106	136
Orléans	568	568	54	114
Terry Fox	515	102	-	103
Strandherd	336	58	-	67
Jeanne d'Arc	60	48	-	12
Trim	416	368	3	83
Eagleson (East & West)	1,217	1,217	20	243
TOTAL	5,068	4,305	198	1,014

RECOMMENDED 2008 SERVICE CHANGES
	Buses	Hours
Increases to accommodate ridership and city growth - Capacity increases for ridership growth - Extensions into new areas - Resources to deal with increased congestion	8 3 1	7,700 3,100 6,500
Improvements to increase transit modal share - Strategic network improvements	0	4,700
Total	12	22,000

Perspective on Revenue-Cost Ratio

Data for major systems and a comparison with Winnipeg who also has a bus-based system provides some basic comparisons.

Managing Fiscal Risk

Document 2 Revenue Options for 2008

REVENUE OPTIONS FOR 2008 DOCUMENT 2

Other Revenue - 2007 Projected and 2008 Budget

2007 Projected

2008 Budget

Total Park and Ride

Sundry

Sundry Total

Additional Initiatives

Total/Other Revenue

Table 3

TRANSIT FLEET ACQUISITION 2007-2012

GROWTH

Standard-Equivalent

Buses Required

Table 1

USE OF ARTICULATED BUSES TO ACCOMMODATE EXPECTED RIDERSHIP GROWTH

Total

Notes:

- Occupancy is calculated as: expected ridership levels divided by available capacity in the busiest hour.

- No additional budgeted hours are required for these capacity increases.

- This table shows a requirement for 37 articulated buses; with the four from Table 2, there will be a total of 41 more articulated buses in service each day.

Table 2

SERVICE INCREASES REQUIRED IN 2008 TO ACCOMMODATE EXPECTED RIDERSHIP GROWTH

- Occupancy is calculated as: expected ridership levels divided by available capacity in the busiest hour.

- This table shows a requirement for four articulated buses; with the 37 from Table 1, there will be a total of 41 more articulated buses in service each day.

Table 3

SERVICE EXTENSIONS REQUIRED IN 2008 TO SERVE NEW AREAS

- Service extensions are planned to start in September 2008 or when feasible.

Table 4

RESOURCES TO DEAL WITH INCREASED CONGESTION