Transit Committee Comité du transport en commun MINUTES 44 / PROCÈS-VERBAL 44 Wednesday, 21 April 2010, 9:30 a.m. le mercredi 21 avril 2010, 9 h 30 Andrew S. Haydon Hall, 110 Laurier Avenue West Salle Andrew S. Haydon, 110, avenue Laurier ouest Present / Présents : A. Cullen (Chair/Président), M. Wilkinson (Vice-Chair/Vice-présidente ), G. Bédard, R. Bloess, C. Doucet, C. Leadman, J. Legendre, D. Thompson DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST DÉCLARATIONS D’INTÉRÊT No declarations of interest were filed. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES RATIFICATION DU PROCÈS-VERBAL Joint Minutes 12 from the Joint Transportation and Transit Committee Meeting of 8 February 2010 and Minutes 43 from the Transit Committee Meeting of 1 March 2010 were confirmed. COMMUNICATIONS COMMUNICATIONS Responses to Inquiries: / Réponses aux demandes de renseignements: TTC 03-10 Life-time Transit Pass for Veterans / Laissez-passer de transport en commun à vie pour les anciens combattants RECEIVED INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES AND COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY SERVICES DES INFRASTRUCTURES ET LES SERVICES DE VIABILITÉ DES COLLECTIVITÉS TRANSIT SERVICES SERVICE DU TRANSPORT EN COMMUN 1. IMPROVED TRANSIT SERVICES FOR SENIORS AND PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES IN RURAL AREAS AMÉLIORATION DES SERVICES DE TRANSPORT EN COMMUN POUR LES AÎNÉS ET LES PERSONNES HANDICAPÉES DES SECTEURS RURAUX ACS2010-ICS-TRA-0001 CITY WIDE / À L'ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE Mr. Alain Mercier, General Manager of Transit Services, introduced Mr. Pat Scrimgeour, Manager of Transit Service Design. Mr. Scrimgeour then spoke to a PowerPoint presentation, which served to provide Committee with a detailed overview of the report. A copy of this presentation is held on file with the City Clerk. Chair Cullen asked if it would be fair to characterize the report as some modest changes to the current system as opposed to a radical overhaul of how Para Transpo services were delivered in rural areas. Mr. Scrimgeour responded affirmatively. Ms. Adele Muldoon spoke on behalf of Lori Pulsifer, a gentleman who had been scheduled to address Committee but had been unable to attend the meeting because he had taken a fall and been hospitalized. She indicated Mr. Pulsifer believed he was the longest living patient on dialysis in Canada and that he had been waiting more than two years for the opportunity to address this matter with Committee. She advised that Mr. Pulsifer found the price of Para Transpo to be unfair, noting that he lived in Zone 2 and had to pay $9.50 for a trip in to dialysis at the Civic Hospital whereas someone living just a little way down the road, in Morgan’s Grant, could take Para Transpo from her home to Orléans for $3. She reported that Mr. Pulsifer had resorted to Para Transpo when the cost of his transportation through the community resource centre was raised to $40 per trip, which he could not afford three time weekly. As a result, he had switched to Para Transpo and was glad it was available, though it had been difficult for him. She informed Committee that after his dialysis, Mr. Pulsifer was very tired and needed to get home right away, whereas Para Transpo sometimes took him on a long winding road. Sometimes they didn’t appear and he sat there waiting and then had to start calling around to find someone else to pick him up and take him home. She submitted Para Transpo was not a convenient service, but it was good to have it for people who really needed it. She explained that Mr. Pulsifer was picked up by Para Transpo, through a taxi, at 9:00 a.m. and had to be at dialysis by 10:30 a.m. However, if the driver had another passenger to pick up at 9:30, he would go to the next passenger’s house and sit there with the meter running until 9:30. Further, if the driver had a third passenger to pick up at 10:00 a.m., this would be repeated at the third passenger’s house, leaving Mr. Pulsifer sitting in frustration wondering whether he would make it on time for his dialysis appointment because if he did not get on dialysis on time, then he would not got off on time for his ride home. Ms. Dianne Breton, Chair of the Seniors’ Advisory Committee, recalled that in October 2007, the Seniors’ Advisory Committee (SAC) had approved a motion requesting that the issue of parity for rural seniors and people with disabilities be reviewed prior to the City taking over Para Transpo in January of 2008 to ensure that they would not be paying more for trips than urban users. She noted the Transit Committee had responded to these concerns promptly and in November 2007, had approved the following motions: that Transit Committee direct staff to review the issue of parity for rural seniors and people with disabilities using Para Transpo, to ensure that they are receiving a service that is affordable for all, especially those of low, fixed incomes and report back to Committee by May 2008; and that this report include a review of the pre-amalgamation practice of purchasing service from a local community resource centre as a means of providing Para-like services. She noted the first motion had been moved by Councillor Wilkinson whereas the second had been moved by Councillor Legendre. She also noted that the second motion was not addressed in the current report. She remarked that despite these directions and the SAC’s efforts, there had been no response until the previous month, when the SAC had the Para Transpo recommendations. In this regard, she offered the following comments: * The issue of Transit Parity is more than dollars and cents. It is instead an issue of providing equally accessible transportation for eligible Para Transpo riders living within the boundaries of the City of Ottawa. * Para Transpo is a public service and must focus on providing access as a first priority. * The Seniors’ Advisory Committee and the Ottawa Seniors’ Transportation Committee believe that all Ottawa seniors, those who are disabled, and the most vulnerable should have access to affordable transportation in their city. * The report states that if fares are reduced across the rural area, there would be an increase in demand, with an equivalent increase in funding. These recommendations suggest some reduced fares, in some selected areas. They suggest simplifying an impossibly complicated fare structure by removing some subzones. The conclusion is that some parts of Ottawa will continue to receive more accessible transit service than others at an unbalanced rate. * Staff is recommending including a few areas, such as Winding Way, Honey Gables and the Carleton Raceway, into the urban area, benefiting a few and making it cheaper for urban residents to gamble at the Raceway. * Another suggestion is to have disabled rural residents book trips as a group. This is a step in the right direction, but maybe impractical for many disabled users who will find it difficult to coordinate hospital and medical appointments for the same day and time. * Still another proposal is to run weekly trips for shopping from selected villages such as Carp, Richmond and Osgoode. Again, this is a good idea and would benefit a few but does little to address the overall problem. * Staff is proposing reducing the 16 zones and subzones to 8. While this might make the rate chart easier to read, it does not reduce the inequity in the zone-based system. * The acceptance of an aging in-place model for Ontario seniors means that there will be an increasing demand on transportation systems to maintain healthy lifestyles of our aging population, in both urban and rural areas. * The Para Transpo recommendations avoid recognition of the health and social issues attached to this special service provided by Para Transpo. * The proposed model changes remain based on Council’s direction from 2004, which proposed cost recovery from 90 percent rural taxes and 10 percent from fares. This is the same formula as urban Para Transpo. However, zone-based fares are not based solely on distance but on the closest zone location to a client’s home, costing up to $37.50 per return trip. * The recommendations continue to base fares on distance and cost rather than on service and accessibility related to fairness and equity. Current Para Transpo fares in the urban areas are almost the same as regular OC Transpo fares, while the rural fares are 3 to 5 times as much. * What is needed is for Committee and Council to enunciate a clear policy direction on the availability of Para Transpo service for all Ottawa residents. A formula will need to be devised that is fair and does not unduly burden Ottawa’s rural residents of all ages. In closing, Ms. Breton suggested that Para Transpo work with Ottawa’s rural and disabled communities to find workable solutions and that the City establish an age-friendly transit parity goal, where zones and subzones could disappear and ticket prices could be understandable and fair. Councillor Bloess felt the speaker had raised some valid points about trying to achieve some level of equity in terms of how Para services were provided. However, he referenced the way Transit was funded, noting that urban residents paid considerably more on their tax bill per household than rural residents. He also noted that the further out a resident lived, the more it would cost to provide the service. He wondered if the SAC would, at some point, be recommending that the City charge the same transit levy across the whole City. Ms. Breton stated she could not answer the question because she did not have the numbers. However, she noted that there were currently 300 eligible riders in the rural areas. Therefore, although the discussion was about increased demand, she was unsure as to all the variables. She maintained the SAC was suggesting that, as a long term goal in an amalgamated Ottawa, the City should be trying to achieve parity. Councillor Bloess submitted there was a flip side to this and he believed Mr. Scrimgeour had done a good job of describing the issues of supply, demand and costs. He maintained there was no doubt that unless there was a certain density of population or critical mass to provide a service, then providing that service cost more. He wondered if the City was prepared to pay that higher cost and he felt this would be the debate. Ms. Breton indicated she understood this, noting that Ottawa had a very large rural area. However, she maintained that Ottawa was an amalgamated City and its rural residents should be able to expect the same services. Councillor Jellett remarked that the real issue came down to $1M and whether this additional cost should be paid exclusively by rural residents or whether it should be spread across the entire City. Ms. Breton stated that she did not have an answer to this. She maintained that the SAC was talking about a goal; about what it should be. Councillor Thompson noted this was a complicated issue. He felt there were some areas where the city could help, though not necessarily through Para Transpo. He referenced home support groups and volunteers who provided cost-effective transportation for people needing to get to and from appointments. He wondered if this was something the SAC had considered. Ms. Breton believed the City should examine all possibilities in order to move people around and meet their needs. Mr. Nathan Hauch, Champlain Spinal Cord Injury Solutions Alliance, talked about a working group on the issue of transportation, with participation from social service agencies and the Ottawa Community Support Coalition, which included seniors and persons living with disabilities. With respect to the report, he welcomed the extension of some rural zones to urban ones. However, he referenced some challenges, noting that the report did not offer a strategy for addressing alternative transit needs for people in rural areas over the long term. He felt this was crucial in the context of an impending demographic shift of an aging population and the fact that people would like to be able to live in their communities. He also noted that the report talked about pre- and post-amalgamation challenges and, while he appreciated that amalgamation had presented challenges, he maintained that with amalgamation came an expectation of fair service levels regardless of residency. Given that many people Para Transpo users could not readily access other transportation options because of costs, he submitted that the added costs associated with the rural zone fares did not meet this expectation. He suggested the City shift to a paradigm of viewing public transportation for the function it served; a social service to aid with quality of life issues such as employment, education, health and reducing social isolation. He also challenged the view put forward in the report, that Rideau Carleton Raceway was the single most important location in the rural areas to which Para Transpo customers travelled. He suggested this may be true in terms of the number of calls put forward, however many people had needs that were not being met and in this context, it could be argued that the focus should be on providing transportation as a social service aid in terms of quality of life. He referenced a statement in the report with respect to the current zone fare system serving as a form of demand management. He maintained that while this may be true, it did not address the challenges faced by financially vulnerable populations in these areas. He submitted that if residents’ needs were not being met, it was incumbent upon Council to find ways to meet those needs. He felt the report provided some way forward but did not go far enough. He suggested investigating other transportation options. Ms. Judy Little stated that as someone who was wheelchair dependant, she felt blessed and happy to have Para Transpo. She advised that she lived one kilometre past the Trim Road boundary and that her fare was $9.50. Therefore, because she regularly went to church, one meeting and three functions, her monthly cost was $102 in Para Transpo fares. She noted that there had been a lot of talk about people needing Para Transpo to get to medical appointments. However, she maintained that quality of life was also important. She submitted that although she was a senior, she still wanted to have a life and be able to go out when occasions arose. She felt it was unfair that someone else could go from Kanata to the Casino in Hull on just regular fare whereas she had to pay $141.75 for her monthly bus pass plus $102 in Para fares just so she could have a life. Further, she did believe the casino qualified as an “appointment”. Therefore, if the City was opening it up and getting less revenue for people going to the casino, she suggested the City should give this more thought. In closing, she remarked that if people had to use Para Transpo to get to regular appointments for critical medical treatments, she did not know how they could afford it, particularly if they were on fixed incomes. Responding to a question from Councillor Legendre, Ms. Little confirmed that she was in favour of the simpler fare structure being proposed by staff. However, she referenced the number of people who pay taxes and indicated she had always been told the reason for the higher fares in rural areas was due to the fact that rural residents did not pay the extra taxes for Para. She submitted that a lot of taxpayers across the City were subsidizing the service and not using it. Therefore, she suggested rural Para Transpo users should also be subsidized, not just urban users. In response to a follow-up question from the Councillor, Mr. Scrimgeour confirmed that rural Para Transpo users were subsidized at the same rate as urban Para Transpo users; about 92% of the cost from taxes and 8% of the cost from direct fares. Ms. Catherine Gardner spoke from a written submission. In her presentation, she expressed disappointment with the fact that the Accessibility Advisory Committee and Para Transpo users had not been consulted in this report’s preparation. She then listed six reasons why she believed the proposed changes would not help to improve transit services for seniors and persons with disabilities: reducing some fares while increasing others would discourage any new users; the Rideau Carleton fare change would only assist those travelling from urban areas and not those travelling from rural areas; low floor buses limited those using wheelchairs and/or scooters so the proposal to use these to increase shopping trips would be of little help; encouraging people to get together with non-registered users to share trip costs could result in a higher refusal rate of registered users; and users were often not informed of fare adjustments until they actually got on the Para Transpo bus or taxi. A copy of Ms. Gardner’s presentation is held on file with the City Clerk. Chair Cullen noted that the delegation had raised a valid point about the consultation on this report. He recognized that the report responded to an issue raised by the Seniors’ Advisory Committee. However, he wondered why the Accessibility Advisory Committee had not been consulted. Mr. Scrimgeour noted that a number of Advisory Committees could have had an interest; Accessibility, Rural Issues, Pedestrian and Transit. He submitted that consulting all of them would have taking longer and staff felt the report represented the views heard from these different groups without having specifically gone to the various Advisory Committees’ meetings. As a follow-up, Councillor Wilkinson asked for a commitment from staff that in the future, when bringing forward a report, they would consult all of the Advisory Committees having a potential interest in the item before presenting it to Standing Committee. Chair Cullen believed staff would take this as direction. Mr. Klaus Beltzner indicated he had a problem with the report title as he saw very little benefit for rural users. In fact, he submitted the benefits were all for urban users. He did not believe the City should be reducing the rate to go to a casino under the rubric of improving rural service. He stated that the need for a rural resident to access dialysis versus the desire of an urban resident to go to a rural casino posed a mental problem I his mind. He referenced the notion that reducing the fares for roughly 25 percent would result in increased demand in those populations and therefore reduced availability of Para Transpo for all other users. He submitted that the recommendation was in effect reducing the availability of Para Transpo to the rural areas by roughly 25%. He felt this was wrong. He expressed a desire to have his piece of the tax bill pay for actual services to rural Para Transpo users. He remarked the only thing being given to rural users through this report was the likelihood of a study. He suggested this was nice but there was no actual implementation plan or budget associated with it. Therefore, he re-iterated his feeling that the current report did nothing for rural Para Transpo users. Ms. Adele Muldoon remarked that the current report had been a long time coming. She told Committee about someone who had contacted her the previous year for assistance with transportation to get to medical appointments. She indicated she had told him that staff was working on a report on this subject. In response, he had expressed a desire to state his case at City Hall. She reported that the individual in question had passed away the previous month and had spend his last months in pain and suffering, but also in great anxiety over arranging for drives to his appointments. She submitted that the changes being recommended by staff in the current report would do nothing to help someone in such circumstances. She believed Para Transpo staff viewed their service solely as a transportation service. However, she maintained that in rural areas, transportation to medical appointments was the most significant social service required to ensure the health and well being of the most vulnerable citizens. She believed staff had been restricted by Council’s directive to charge users 10% of the cost of their trip. In the urban areas, staff simply established a fare and tax dollars covered the balance, regardless of trip length. However, in the rural areas, staff chose to divide the territory into three zones and came up with a very complicated system to determine fare rates. She submitted it was neither user, driver or administration-friendly and she asked that Transit Committee recommend Council change their directive to staff and to charge all users the same fare. If this recommendation was accepted, she felt the City should make it clear that urban taxpayers would be paying the tax portion of all urban residents’ Para Transpo trips and rural taxpayers would be paying the tax portion of all rural residents’ Para Transpo trips. She believed that if rural taxpayers were not charged 90% of the cost for urban residents to go to the Rideau-Carleton Raceway or anywhere else in the rural area, there would be more than enough money to cover the cost of a fare reduction and any resulting service increase. She referenced staff’s assumption that reducing fares and granting parity would result in increased demand. She believed this was unfounded because of the sparse population and the limited number of people who qualified for Para Transpo service. She remarked that Para Transpo was not a service of choice for rural users, but of necessity. She advised that rural users had found Para difficult to book, not always dependable and that they were sometimes taken on inexplicably long drives. She suggested that, as a City, Ottawa had to stop punishing some people for living where they did. She recalled that prior to amalgamation, the Township of West Carleton had purchased the service of a community resource centre and provided free drives to medical appointments for all seniors. She indicated that users continued to rely on the community resource centre’s service, but that the costs had gone up to $45 per trip, which meant $90 for a return trip. She talked about a draft report presented by Yolande Cremer to the Seniors’ Advisory Committee, which showed that on a per capita basis, a great deal more money was spent on urban seniors than on rural seniors. She also noted that several years ago, Council had passed a motion to deliver social service in each area of the city, urban, suburban and rural, according to the needs of the residents in each area, and that this had been ignored. In closing, she suggested this was Council’s opportunity to see that rural seniors received the service they needed the most using tax dollars already collected from rural residents. Responding to a question from Councillor Cullen with respect to the notion of equivalency of service in urban and rural areas, the way the Transit levy was charged and the fact that it contributed funds to Para Transpo, Ms. Muldoon indicated she did not think the transit levy would be fair City-wide because OC Transpo did not service rural areas as it served urban and suburban areas. However, she maintained that the tax portion of the Para trips of urban residents should be paid by urban dwellers and the tax portion of the Para trips of rural residents should be paid by rural dwellers. She remarked that up to now, rural residents had been paying 90% of the fares of all urban Para users going out to the Rideau-Carleton Raceway or elsewhere. Following-up on the delegation’s position with respect to parity for rural residents and rural taxpayers subsidizing the costs for rural users, Councillor Wilkinson assumed that if a flat rate was charged in rural areas, as was done in urban areas, this would result in a higher taxation for rural dwellers to subsidize the service in the rural areas. Mr. Scrimgeour confirmed that reducing rural Para fares to $3.25 across the entire rural area would result in approximately $90,000 less per year being collected through fares, which could be put onto the rural Para Transit tax portion, costing all rural rate payers more. He estimated this would result in rural Para services being subsidized at a rate of approximately 98% instead of the current 92%. Councillor Legendre referenced the speaker’s comment about Council punishing certain people for living where they did. He noted that there were advantages and disadvantages of living in a rural area just as there were advantages and disadvantages of living in an urban area and that when one made the choice to live in one setting versus the other, it was with this knowledge. Therefore, he asked for clarification on the issue of taxation, noting that it cost more to provide the service in rural areas. Ms. Muldoon argued that although trips were longer in rural areas, there was less demand. Therefore, she believed that on a per capita basis, the cost was not greater in rural areas than in the urban area. Responding to a follow-up question from the Councillor with respect to the cost of providing Para services in urban versus rural areas, Mr. Scrimgeour acknowledged that the cost per mile of moving the vehicle was the same regardless of the location. However, he indicated the cost to move the passenger was higher for two reasons: the longer distance of the trip, on average; and the lower population density in the area, which meant there was less ability for the vehicle to carry more than one passenger at the same time. The result was that these trips cost between $100 and $200 each compared to an average of $35 per trip in the urban area. At this juncture, Ms. Muldoon asked if she could pose a question of staff with respect to the overall costs of providing Para Transpo in the rural area versus the overall costs of providing Para Transpo in the urban area. Chair Cullen advised that this was not permitted. However, he believed a member of Committee may be willing to ask the question. Councillor Thompson then asked staff to speak to the overall costs of providing Para Transpo in the rural area versus the overall costs of providing Para Transpo in the urban area. Mr. Scrimgeour advised that the total amount of money spent on providing Para Transpo services across the entire City was approximately $27 million per year and within that, just over $1.7M was to provide Para Transpo service to and from the rural parts of the city. Chair Cullen referenced the notion of providing equivalent service, bearing in mind the differences in terms of population density and travel distance. He noted that the report suggested there would be additional costs of about $1M and he wondered if this would come from the rural tax contribution to Para Transpo. Mr. Scrimgeour confirmed that this would be consistent with Council’s previous decisions; that additional costs would be entirely collected from rural property taxes. Responding to questions from Councillor Leadman, Mr. Scrimgeour re-iterated that if the fare were reduced to be $3.25 across the entire rural area, there would be an increase in demand by 6,400 trips per year and the fare revenue would be reduced by approximately $90,000 per year. With respect to trips to the Rideau-Carleton Raceway, he indicated these were being made primarily by people who live in the urban area. He explained that the cost of these trips was slightly more than the cost to provide a trip to Riverside South because the distance was a little further. Therefore, on the same interest of equity that lead staff to recommend the urban fare zone include the properties along Prince of Wales and River Road, this would be another economical way of bringing down the cost to the customer of a commonly made trip to and from the rural area. Speaking to the Service’s mandate, he stated Para Transpo’s purpose was to provide a public transit service for those who were physically unable to use the conventional transit service. He explained there was a certain standard of disability that one had to meet to qualify. He indicated the difference in the way the department provided Para Transpo versus OC Transpo was that Para Transpo services were provided across the entire expanse of the City whereas OC Transpo service was only provided in locations where there was enough population density to support its operation. He advised that it was rare for a Para service to be provided over such a large geographic area but that OC Transpo had been able to do it because Para trips did not run every half hour or every hour but rather on demand. Councillor Leadman advised that she would be putting forward a motion to refer this report to the Accessibility Advisory Committee and the Rural Issues Advisory Committee for a report back to the Transit Committee in July. Councillor Legendre referenced the second motion contained in the Background section of the report, noting that it had not been actioned. Mr. Scrimgeour indicated Transit Services staff had discussed it with their colleagues in Social Services and he advised that there were no records or corporate memory left of what each individual municipality did before amalgamation on social subsidies for medical trips. However, staff had reported on what was done strictly with Para Transpo service and certain of the rural municipalities before amalgamation. Responding to a follow-up question from the Councillor, Mr. Scrimgeour submitted staff had read the motion simply as a direction to review the pre-amalgamation practices and re-iterated that, although there was anecdotal information, there were no records. Councillor Legendre expressed frustration and wondered why staff would have interpreted the motion so narrowly rather than examining the notion of alternate means of providing “para-like” service, particularly as the motions referenced in the Background section dated back to November 2007. Therefore, he wondered if anything would be done about this, noting that the current report did not provide any insight as to whether or not something of this nature could be done and if not, why not. He urged staff to do this, noting that in his view, the motion, which had been a direction from Council, was not fulfilled. Councillor Legendre referenced the first delegation, who had talked about Para Transpo drivers waiting for their next passenger with the “meter running”. He asked for clarification on this. Ms. Laurie Blackstone, Manager of Transit Operations, explained that Para Transpo contracted with the taxi industry for some of its services. She believed the delegation’s comment related to this and she confirmed that Para Transpo paid for the trip based on the meter. Councillor Wilkinson referenced the original motion with respect to pre-amalgamation practices and she wondered if staff had contacted the community resource centres, as they were the agencies that had provided these services. Ms. Yolande Cremer, Program Manager of Customer Relations and Development, responded affirmatively. In reply to a follow-up question from the Councillor, she confirmed that in one municipality, they had a wheelchair accessible van, which they used to transport people. She advised that this vehicle was no longer in use because the costs had become too high in terms of insurance, maintenance and so on. She added that staff had checked 13 centres to ask what they did. She reported that some did not respond and some indicated they had used different means at different times. Councillor Wilkinson noted that some community resource centres were still providing the service, though they now charged because they had to pay the drivers. She wondered how the City’s costs compared to those of the community resource centres, particularly in terms of using taxis for Para services, and whether it would be worthwhile to assist the resource centres on some of those trips. Ms. Cremer confirmed that the City did provide some trips to the rural areas by taxis and she advised this was a lesser burden for the City because of not having to pay for the cab to go out to the rural area as opposed to paying for a Para van to travel empty to the rural area and then return with a passenger. Councillor Wilkinson indicated she would be asking that staff report back on the feasibility of working with the community resource centres in order to provide some of these trips and same money, either as an alternative or as a supplementary service. She noted that this may or may not work, but members of Council did not have the information because staff had not provided it in response to the second motion referenced in the Background section of the report. Based on Councillors Legendre’s and Wilkinson’s comments, Chair Cullen submitted that the work needed to be done to response to the second motion from November 2007. He suggested staff do the work and inform the Committee of the results so that members would then be able to bring forward any action if there was action to bring forward. Councillor Wilkinson then referenced an e-mail received from Klaus Beltzner in which he questioned the assumption that if fares were reduced, demand would increase. She inquired as to the source of this information. Mr. Scrimgeour explained that the calculation was based on some very extensive research done in the United States, through the Transit Cooperative Research Program, which found very clear trends in how one could predict the demand for Para Transit service as fares were either increased or lowered. He reported that staff had applied this finding to the Ottawa case. Therefore, he was quite certain that it pointed to the right scale and the right direction. He noted that since the availability of Para service across the entire rural area in 2002, the demand had quadrupled without any significant changes in fare rates. Councillor Wilkinson referenced the requirements in terms of residents qualifying for Para Transpo and she maintained that demand could increase because people were getting older and becoming more infirm. She submitted part of the problem was that this was being looked at as a financial issue instead of a human issue. In closing, she expressed agreement with Councillor Leadman’s motion to refer this matter to the Rural Affairs Committee. However, she asked for confirmation that when bringing the matter to them, staff would be able to provide information with respect to potential cost to rural rate payers if the fare was adjusted to be the same for all users. Mr. Scrimgeour responded affirmatively. Councillor Bloess believed the right steps were taken in the past in terms of using taxis for this instead of big vans because it provided a more efficient and less costly service. However, he indicated he had also been confused by some of the comments heard with respect to meters running, taxis not picking people up or hanging around. Therefore, he asked staff to clarify this and then talk about how they could further integrate the service. Mr. Scrimgeour explained there were three ways the taxi industry entered into this issue: 1. He confirmed that the Service used taxis rather than Para Transpo vans and this had brought costs down. However, he noted this was limited by individual passengers’ mobility limitations. This being said, he advised that most of the rural trips were already operated with taxis. 2. Secondly, he reported that those people who had a Para Transpo registration were able to receive tax chits, which reduced their price for any taxi trip, regardless of whether or not it was booked through Para Transpo. 3. Finally, he noted that when someone booked their own trip with a cab, it was a cheaper total cost to provide than for the City to provide the service using a Para Transpo van, though they would have to pay 100% of it instead of being subsidized by the City. Councillor Bloess noted that, regardless of whether it was because of an aging population or more people with disabilities, demand was increasing but that the City had limited capacity and limited resources to provide this service. Therefore, he asked whether the Department was looking at further adapting the taxi services to Para Transpo. Mr. Mercier referenced actions taken in the last two to three years, noting that staff’s goal had been to produce more available transportation in the context of limited financial resources. He acknowledged that the taxi industry had contributed significantly to the Service’s ability to reach this goal. He noted that the ability to provide accessible plates in the industry had been a major boon. He believed the message received from Committee members during the current discussion was to go out and be more creative. He reported that staff had successfully renegotiated contracts with the taxi industry to reduce administrative costs and these benefits were being put into more service on the road. Therefore, he submitted inroads had been made in the last couple of years through internal improvements and he acknowledged that taxi industry had played a part in this. Responding to questions from Councillor Thompson with respect to the fare reduction to the Rideau-Carleton Raceway, Mr. Scrimgeour re-iterated that any time fares were reduced dramatically for the same transportation service, demand would increase. He indicated the Service was currently carrying about 960 trips per year to and from the Raceway and expected this number to go up substantially as a result of the proposed fare adjustment. Speaking to whether this increased demand would translate into less availability of the service in rural areas, he explained that there would be more trips to and from the Raceway, that some of these trips might be brand new trips on the system and if so, they might be displacing other trips currently being made to other locations where passengers might decide that they prefer to go to the Raceway. Councillor Thompson maintained that by helping out in one way, this recommendation could end up causing some downturn in service availability. Mr. Scrimgeour submitted that any time demand increased, the Service could either meet it by increasing service, which would cost more, or not increase service, which would increase disappointment. In reply to a question from the Councillor with respect to the $90,000 costs referenced earlier in the discussion, Mr. Scrimgeour explained that right now, it cost $1.75M to provide Para Transpo trips to and from rural destinations and $134,000 of this came from fares while the remaining $1.6M came from property taxes. He advised that if fares were reduced and the same trips were made, there would be $44,000 coming in from fare revenues and the other $90,000 would have to be replaced by increased property taxes. Councillor Thompson then requested clarification on the use of taxis and the costs associated with this. Mr. Scrimgeour explained that generally speaking, it was cheaper for Transit Services to use a taxi rather than one of their own vans. However, in the urban area, where there was more opportunity to accommodate multiple passengers per trip, they could get more productive use out of a van than a taxi. Therefore, he submitted that it depended on the circumstances and the particular physical requirements of the customer booking the trip. If someone was using a wheelchair, the vehicle had to be able to accommodate the wheelchairs, which sometimes prevented the use of a taxi. This being said, he maintained that in general, the cost was lower if using a taxi rather than the Service’s own vans. The Councillor referenced some of the other transportation services available in outlying areas, either in terms of retirement home buses, home support program’s vans or taxi services in outlying areas. He wondered if this was something the City could enhance, with some in-depth study to see what was available, in order to perhaps reduce the need for Para Transpo in the rural areas. Mr. Scrimgeour suggested that it was very difficult to integrate such resources into the Para public transit services, which was a public transit service. However, he acknowledged that it may be possible. He agreed that this was a good angle to explore further. To this end, Councillor Thompson suggested the rural Councillors would likely be willing to work with staff by sharing their knowledge of facilities and services available in their areas with which Para could potential partner. In closing, the Councillor asked whether Para Transpo transported passengers to areas outside of the City, such as the Winchester or the Arnprior hospitals. Mr. Scrimgeour responded in the negative, explaining that the only destinations outside of the City of Ottawa limits were in Gatineau, because this was an area also served by OC Transpo. Councillor El-Chantiry asked whether Councillor Leadman would amend her motion in order to have the follow-up report rise to both Transit Committee and the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee as he believed rural Councillors should have the opportunity to discuss this matter with their community. He also expressed concern over the timetable and the referenced in the motion of a report back in July. On procedure, Chair Cullen believed the intent of the motion was to make sure the Advisory Committees were informed and had an opportunity to have input. In terms of the follow-up report that would result from this, he advised that he would be proposing a joint meeting of the Transit and Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committees, at a time to be agreed upon by himself, as Chair of Transit Committee, and Councillor Thompson, as Chair of the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee. Councillor El-Chantiry maintained the importance of allowing Councillors representing rural wards to go back to their communities and have a frank discussion on the topic before making any decisions that could increase rural residents’ taxes. Responding to a question from Councillor El-Chantiry with respect to timelines for consulting with rural Councillors and their constituents further to recommendation 2 of the report, Mr. Scrimgeour indicated this would be done in time for staff to be able to develop any recommendations for Council’s consideration in time to be included in the 2011 budget. In terms of timelines and process, he envisioned starting as soon as practical and doing it through the Councillors’ offices. Chair Cullen referenced the motion put forward by Councillor Leadman and asked staff about the timelines for consulting the Advisory Committees and reporting back to Standing Committee. Mr. Mercier submitted that if staff could schedule the consultations with the Advisory Committees expeditiously, the timelines should not be a problem. However, he requested clarification on the report back; whether the intent was for the report to come back as is. Chair Cullen assumed that if the Advisory Committees offered recommendations, staff would need to provide some kind of comment or context in response to these recommendations, therefore it would not simply be a matter of bringing back the same report. He re-iterated his intention to work with Councillor Thompson to set-up a joint meeting of the Transit and the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committees once staff was ready to report back. Councillor Legendre noted that if the referral motion was approved, staff would have some additional time. He referenced the second motion found in the report’s Background section and suggested staff investigate possible partnerships with community resource centres and include this in the follow-up report. Moved by Councillor C. Leadman Therefore be it resolved that the report titled “Improved Transit Services for Seniors and People with Disabilities in Rural Areas” (ACS2010-ICS-TRA-0001) be referred to the Accessibility Advisory Committee and the Rural Issues Advisory Committee for a report back to Standing Committee(s). CARRIED The following written submissions were received by Committee and are held on file with the City Clerk: * E-mail from Ken Holmes dated 20 April 2010; and * E-mail from Klaus Beltzner dated 16 April 2010. That the Transit Committee recommend Council approve: 1. Urban Para Transpo service and fares be expanded to cover the entire Urban Policy Area plus the Rideau-Carleton Raceway, as detailed in this report; 2. A consultation process be carried out with residents of rural villages to plan up to four new once-a-week bus trips from rural villages to shopping destinations in the urban part of the City; and 3. The Para Transpo rural fare zone boundaries be revised, as detailed in this report, to simplify fares by removing specialized sub-zones that are little-used. REFERRED 2. UPDATE: ACCESSIBILITY AUDIT OF TRANSIT SERVICES FACILITIES MISE À JOUR: VÉRIFICATION DE L’ACCESSIBILITÉ DANS LES INSTALLATIONS DE TRANSPORT EN COMMUN ACS2010-ICS-TRA-0002 CITY WIDE / À L'ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE Mr. Alain Mercier, General Manager of Transit Services, introduced Ms. Ann Marie Foley, Program Manager of Business Services, Transit Services. Ms. Foley spoke to a PowerPoint presentation, which served to provide Committee with a detailed presentation of the report. A copy of this presentation is held on file with the City Clerk. Chair Cullen requested confirmation that this was a progress report on the Accessibility Audit and that staff would be coming back with a plan, including specifics and budget elements. Ms. Foley explained the audit had been completed and the divisions had been identified. She advised that in the next couple of months, staff would be developing the actual road map and determining how the budget would be spent. She indicated the roadmap would be rolled out through the actual initiatives identified in the City of Ottawa’s Municipal Accessibility Plan (COMAP). Responding to a follow-up question from the Chair, Ms. Foley anticipated staff would be able to bring the roadmap forward in September. Ms. Catherine Gardner spoke from a written submission. In her presentation, she expressed concern that this audit was not comprehensive of the Transit system, as requested by the Accessibility Advisory Committee (AAC) in February of 2008. She submitted that a facilities audit only addressed one element of the Transit system and therefore missed other systemic barriers that existed in terms of fare policies, communication policies, training and so on. Further, she felt that as a built environment audit, it was also lacking because it failed to include buses, bus stops and bus shelters. She talked about the fact that staff reviewed any new facilities at various stages of the planning and design but indicated staff had refused to allow members of the AAC be part of this process. She pointed to the Bayshore Transitway station and the temporary station at Baseline and submitted that major flaws at these facilities could have been avoided had members of the disabled community been involved in the planning process. She remarked that the audit failed to address issues such as posting information relative to elevators being out of order and it failed to include Para Transpo. She then talked about the fact that the Transit Accessibility Specialist used to attend monthly AAC meetings so members could be updated on OC Transpo and Para Transpo issues but that this no longer occurred. This meant that updates were no longer provided and AAC members often found out about issues by viewing other committees’ agendas. A copy of Ms. Gardner’s presentation is held on file with the City Clerk. Responding to a question from Chair Cullen, Mr. Mercier confirmed that staff intended to consult the Accessibility Advisory Committee during the development of the policies and procedures that would flow from the current report. Councillor Leadman asked why Para Transpo had not been included in this audit. Ms. Foley explained that Para Transpo was included in the review of the Policy and Procedures section. However, because Para Transpo provides door-to-door service, there was no physical part of the audit conducted for Para. Responding to follow-up questions from the Councillor with respect to bus shelters, Ms. Foley explained there currently was nothing in legislation that said how large a bus shelter should be. Therefore, in lieu of this, staff did some best-practice research and was presented with information as to what a perfect bus shelter would look like, which would be taken into consideration. She confirmed that there would be further consultation with the AAC with respect to those parameters. Councillor Leadman then posted questions with respect to the elevators to be updated in 2011. Ms. Foley indicated the elevators that were on the life cycle program for 2010 were those at the Blair Road Station, those at the Queensway Transit Station and those at Lincoln Fields. She advised that work had been completed on the elevators at Westboro. Following these exchanges, Committee voted to receive the report. That the Transit Committee receive this report for information. RECEIVED 3. CANADIAN URBAN TRANSIT ASSOCIATION (CUTA) ANNUAL CONFERENCE ATTENDENCE PARTICIPATION AU CONGRÈS ANNUEL DE L'ASSOCIATION CANADIENNE DU TRANSPORT URBAIN ACS2010-ICS-TRA-0004 CITY WIDE / À L'ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE That the Transit Committee approve the attendance of Councillors Alex Cullen and Marianne Wilkinson, as the City of Ottawa representatives at the Canadian Urban Transit Association’s Annual Conference in Ottawa, May 15 to 19, 2010. CARRIED 4. FLEET ACQUISITION STRATEGY STRATÉGIE D’ACQUISITION DU PARC DE VÉHICULES ACS2010-ICS-TRA-0005 CITY WIDE / À L'ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE Moved by Councillor G. Bédard That the Transit Committee approve the addition of Item 4, Fleet Acquisition Strategy (ACS2020-1CS-TRA-0005) for consideration by the Committee at this meeting pursuant to section 84(3) of the Procedure By-law, as there is an immediate and finite time period available for Council to consider this issue and staff were unable to complete the report earlier. CARRIED Ms. Nancy Schepers, Deputy City Manager of Infrastructure and Community Sustainability, introduced the item, after which Mr. Alain Mercier, General Manager of Transit Services, Mr. Larry Atkinson, Chief of Transit Maintenance, and Ms. Marian Simulik, City Treasurer, spoke to a PowerPoint presentation which service to provide Committee with a detailed overview of the proposal. A copy of the presentation is held on file with the City Clerk. Mr. Brian Tobin, Chairman of the Board of New Flyer Industries, introduced Mr. Paul Soubry, President and CEO of New Flyer Industries. He explained that New Flyer traced its roots back to 1930 and contended it was the only true Canadian bus champion, headquartered in Winnipeg and publicly traded on the TSX. He expressed the unequivocal support of the New Flyer Board of Directors for the proposal currently before Committee, which he viewed as revolutionary as it contained many firsts for the transit industry. He noted that New Flyer had been doing business with OC Transpo for over 20 years and had come into the media spotlight the previous year when the maintenance and reliability of the 60-foot articulated bus fleet had issues resulting in poor performance and reliability. He advised that this had been a major concern for New Flyer’s board and its management. He expressed pleasure over New Flyer staff’s response to the problem because Mr. Soubry and his team had come to Ottawa, met with Mr. Mercier and his team and had negotiated a settlement agreement. This had resulted in New Flyer establishing a local service centre in Arnprior to support the maintenance and retrofit of the applicable fleets. He submitted that New Flyer took seriously its need to perform as promised and its reputation across Canada and the United States, but particularly in the national capital. He reported that since last year, New Flyer had continuously met with OC Transpo staff to develop a number of creative programs in support of parts, maintenance and reliability improvements. Speaking to the proposal currently before Committee, he explained that in 2009, a significant U.S. based customer had deferred a substantial order due to a lack of funding. As a result, New Flyer had significant capacity sitting in its line. The company was faced with the choice of ratcheting down or finding another customer. Because the company did not want to ratchet down, it came forward with what he believed was a win-win proposal for the City of Ottawa. With the current OC Transpo 60-foot fleet capacity approaching its midlife, the City of Ottawa faced a 2 or 3 year window of very expensive and disruptive mid-life upgrades and a continually increasing maintenance cost due to the aging fleet. In addition, while OC Transpo was progressing towards its stated goal of a 90% fleet dispatch availability, he believed further improvements would require a fundamental change in approach, from reactive maintenance to cooperative partnership with the OEM, where state-of-the-art technology and tools would be deployed to monitor the fleet health and performance. He added that a further opportunity existed to standardize to all Cummins engine fleet, which would substantially improve fuel economy and enhance the environmental footprint. He then reviewed the details of the proposal and in closing, he re-iterated his belief that this was a win-win partnership and assured members of Council that the New Flyer team was dedicated to it. Responding to questions from Councillor Doucet, Mr. Rick O’Connor, City Clerk and Solicitor, confirmed that this was not a sole-source proposal because the City currently had a contract with New Flyer, which would expire on December 31, 2010. Therefore, it was the continuation of a contract that was entered into following a competitive process. Councillor Doucet suggested part of the reason this proposal looked so great for the City of Ottawa was that the previous buses had caused such problems. He indicated that he liked the bumper-to-bumper warranty but he wondered how New Flyer could promise that the City of Ottawa would not be getting bus with problems, like the last ones. Mr. Tobin replied that the agreement had New Flyer taking on an obligation relative to the operation of the vehicle for a warranty period. Therefore, he submitted that he behoved them to make sure the warranty provision was not drawn down by producing the best possible product. Mr. Soubry added that the company had invested over $10M in the redesign and optimization of its facilities in the past year and that the bus model that was the subject of the current proposal, though it was a descendent of the previous model, had many upgrades, including an articulated joint and engines with guaranteed fuel performance. Therefore, while it was based on the same platform, it was a different bus. He also referenced the five-year warranty, noting that industry standards were one or two years. Councillor Doucet stated that in spite of his first remarks, he was pleased with the proposal, noting there was a lot to like about it; it would save money and provide better fuel economy. That being said, he requested a staff comment on the operating claims being put forward in the proposal. Mr. Mercier indicated there had been a lot of discussion about what had caused the problems with the original articulated buses and he remarked that New Flyer had done extensive work to redesign this bus. He advised that over the past two years, OC Transpo had taken 53 of the redesigned articulated buses into its fleet and these had performed exceptionally well. He noted that the data on fuel had come directly from measuring OC Transpo’s own engines; that staff knew what the differences were between the fuel consumption in the first generation buses versus the second generation buses. He indicated the Cummins engine was becoming an industry standard and OC Transpo staff had almost six years of experience with it and it was working as expected. Councillor Bloess wondered how this proposal compared to the current market, in terms of purchase price. Mr. Atkinson indicated staff had checked with other cities in terms of their recent purchased and he reported that the proposal was significantly below anything staff had seen on articulated buses in Canada. Councillor Bloess referenced slide 12 of the staff presentation and the last bullet, noting that it talked about the reduced need for new bus purchases in 2011, which was not included in the net present value (NPV) analysis. He wondered why this had not been factored into the NPV. Ms. Simulik explained there were two reasons for not including it. Staff wanted to be conservative in the analysis and not assume that everything was going to change and the refurbishment had already been built into the capital program. She acknowledged that it would make a big difference. However, she noted it was a short term benefit because, although the City would not be buying buses in 2011, it would start buying some again in 2012. Secondly, staff ran out of time in terms of building every possible savings into the analysis. The Councillor talked about the financial aspects of getting the older buses out of the City’s hands and submitted this was not spelled out as clearly as he would have liked. Ms. Simulik maintained the financial advantage was the new present value overall and she submitted that as a minimum, the City had a positive financial impact of $1.2M. She advised that the consultant hired to review the proposal had come up with a significantly higher NPV; closer to $20M. Councillor Bloess then referenced the service and reliability issues relative to the older articulated buses and he wondered if staff could quantify what this proposal would mean in this regard. Mr. Atkinson indicated staff had not had time to go into that level of analysis. He indicated this level of analysis would be very time consuming. He advised that when staff got to the point, in developing the business case, where they realized that there would be a positive NPV, they decided to not spend a lot of effort in trying to nail it down to that level of detail as there was already so much good in the proposal. However, he submitted that overall, new buses would give the Service better reliability than nine year-old buses. Responding to a final question from the Councillor, Mr. Atkinson advised that the City would be receiving the new buses with all of the Smart Bus features wired in and ready to hit the road. Councillor Leadman expressed concerns with the timing of this in terms of how much time members of Council had to consider the report. She noted this was not a small matter, it was a detailed report and there were a lot of elements to consider. Further, Committee was hearing that there was a compressed timeframe. She asked staff to provide details with respect to how long it took to put the proposal together. Mr. Mercier re-iterated that, as part of OC Transpo’s capital budget, the Service already had a plan to procure buses and was planning to buy high capacity buses. He indicated the department wanted as many high capacity buses delivered as early this year as possible. On March 4th, staff was approached by New Flyer to prompt execution of an early order in the year. This was the first indication that there was a need, from New Flyer’s perspective, to confirm the order booked for this year. Councillor Leadman asked whether this meant New Flyer was asking the City to move its order up or earlier than anticipated. Mr. Mercier responded in the negative, advising that it was quite normal in the industry that when a buyer had a contract to procure buses, they worked with the manufacturer to confirm production slots and the City had indicated the delivery schedule it wanted for 2010. He re-iterated that staff was approached by New Flyer with a letter asking of OC Transpo would be willing to take delivery this year. He explained that from this point on, staff started the internal process of looking at their own numbers in terms of the capital requirements for refurbishing. Staff also understood that there was an opportunity and asked New Flyer whether there was an opportunity some of the greater problems in terms of the older buses with obsolete engines, which were a source of risk and a financial preoccupation for the department. From that point in time until April 16, staff was in draft discussions with New Flyer in terms of how OC Transpo could make a financial investment that would make sense to the taxpayers. He reported that staff had done a lot of research on some of the new 2010 engines and on fuel in order to confirm the savings with other transit systems. Further, Transit Services staff had relied on Financial Services staff to ensure that there was a positive return. He submitted all of this had taken time and at any moment, staff could have determined that it would not be financially viable, in which case the report would not have come forward for Committee’s consideration. Councillor Leadman inquired as to the reasons for the April 30 deadline. Mr. Tobin believed it came down to the fact that New Flyer had capacity in its plant for a supply of buses because the City of Chicago had deferred its order. He referenced the size of the New Flyer operation and indicated that they could not simply turn the tap off. They had to run a schedule. He submitted it was a convergence of, on the one hand New Flyer having a capacity problem because of the cancelled order and on the other hand, OC Transpo having a desire to upgrade its fleet and get to more than 90% capability in terms of the accessibility of buses. He noted this had encouraged New Flyer to put together a record-breaking series of proposals. He re-iterated that the company either had to use its extra capacity or defer it, but that it could not turn the shop on and off. This was the only reason for the timeline constraint. Councillor Leadman asked whether staff had considered building into the timelines or this proposal a two-week period so that the report could be tabled, knowing the usual Committee and Council process and the optics of this. Ms. Schepers apologized for not giving members of Council the time they would normally have to consider such an important decision. In terms of the time frame, she re-iterated that up until April 16, staff was in discussions and at any time, could have decided that the proposal was not going to work. She indicated Transit Services needed Finance and Legal at the table to ensure this would work and a number of staff had been working evenings and weekends so the proposal could be before Committee and supported by credible information. She agreed with the Councillor in terms of the importance of the decision and she indicated that she would have liked to provide the two weeks. However, she understood the time commitments and the urgency from New Flyer and therefore staff had agreed to bring it forward as they had. In closing, she stated that she felt it was a great opportunity and that it needed to be in front of Committee today. Responding to follow-up questions from Councillor Leadman with respect to the fleet, Mr. Mercier advised that as part of their tactical fleet plan, Transit Services would continue to replace its older buses. He explained the average life span of a bus in the OC Transpo fleet was 18 years, which was significantly longer than the industry standard, noting the buses were designed for 12 years. Further, he advised that OC Transpo’s experience was only with refurbishing 40-foot buses. They had never refurbished articulated buses because their design was relatively new in the industry. As a result, this opportunity had forced staff to spend a lot of time understanding the risks and the costs associated with refurbishing articulated buses. In terms of the composition of the fleet, he noted staff had given Council a detailed fleet plan that would see the last of the high-floor buses disappearing and 90% of the fleet being low floor buses by the end of this year and 100% by 2014. He indicated this opportunity dealt with a segment of the fleet that had been giving the Service some grief over the years in terms of its design performance; some of which was due to OC Transpo’s own specifications back in 2000. He confirmed that New Flyer was the manufacturer of the 226 articulated buses that were not performing, re-iterating that at the time, articulated buses were new, design problems had been resolved and today, articulated buses were the work horse of OC Transpo’s fleet as well as many other transit services’ fleets across North America. He explained that the engines in the original 2001 series buses did not have enough horse power to climb certain hills in the City so OC Transpo had asked the manufacturer to modify them. As a result, the City of Ottawa was unique in owning a turbo-charged Detroit diesel engine. Because the manufacturer was no longer making this model of engine, Transit Services staff was dependent on finding after market solutions for many of their parts, which would be risky going forward in the next 10 years. Councillor Leadman posed a series of questions with respect to the existing contract. In reply, Mr. O’Connor advised that the contract did not specify the number of buses to be purchased in 2010 but was worded to say that the number was “to be determined”. He added that for 2010, the number would be based on whatever Mr. Mercier got through his capital budget and Council’s approval. Mr. Mercier confirmed that the contract did not state a number of buses, rather it related to those buses that were approved through Transit Services’ funding capacity to buy. He confirmed that the funding capacity approved as part of the budget was for 80 buses. He also confirmed that pursuant to the contract, whatever articulated buses OC Transpo purchased in 2010 had to be purchased from New Flyer. Councillor Leadman referenced the litigation matter that was the subject of a 2009 report and she wondered how this positioned the City of Ottawa in terms of the current agreement. Mr. O’Connor felt it positioned the City well because the City had been able to resolve that litigation with New Flyer and come up with a warranty support agreement. Responding to questions from the Councillor with respect to the debenture, Ms. Simulik indicated it would be a 15 year debenture. She explained that the City currently ran its buses for 18 years, though they were built to run a minimum of 12 years. Based on these timelines, staff had placed the debenture to be somewhere in between. She advised that this was the industry standard. She reported that the cost of the debenture would be $14M per year over 15 years, based on a 5.5% interest rate. However, she noted that interest rates were currently lower than 5.5% but staff had built in a higher number, just for security. Councillor Wilkinson noted that gas tax money would be used towards this purchase. She referenced other expenditures for which gas tax money was proposed to be used and she asked for assurances that gas tax money was not being double-counted. Ms. Simulik responding affirmatively, explaining that for this purchase, staff would be using the gas tax money that would have been used to buy more buses in 2011 and 2012, which would no longer be needed because of no longer needing to refurbish the old fleet. Councillor Wilkinson talked about the 5.5% interest rate built into the proposal, noting that interest rates were on the rise. She wondered if this would be enough of a cushion. Ms. Simulik explained that short-term interest rates had been rising (1, 2 and 5 year) but longer-term rates had remained stable (10, 15 and 30 years). She remarked that the City typically did not debenture for anything under 10 years. Responding to questions from the Councillor with respect to the warranty and past warranty issues, Mr. Atkinson talked about the challenge OC Transpo had in administering the warranty internally. He advised a big part of this proposal related to changing the relationship with New Flyer and putting a joint team on the ground to manage the warranties on a daily basis, which would eliminate past problems the Service has had with managing warranties. The Councillor posed questions with respect to fuel consumption and the ability to install the stop call-out system. Mr. Atkinson explained that the projected fuel savings would be driven by the type of engine in the new buses as well as the fact of getting rid of the turbo engines found in the old buses. He indicated the stop call-out system that had been ordered for the old buses would simply be installed directly into the new buses instead and they would be delivered ready to go into service. Councillor Wilkinson inquired as to the relationship with the Arnprior facility. Mr. Atkinson explained that for the purposes of this proposal, it would provide a point of exchange for the buses, which would be very efficient because OC Transpo would drive the old buses in, transfer any OC dedicated parts across to the new bus, and drive the new bus out and directly into service. Responding to a final question from the Councillor, Mr. Atkinson confirmed that with the new garage, the Service would have room for all of these buses. Councillor Legendre posed questions with respect to the plant capacity to produce the number of buses and whether it would push the company’s limits. Mr. Tobin explained this related to a combination of plant capacity, supplies, equipment and materials on hand. Mr. Soubry explained that normally, there was a 6-month window between receiving customer specifications and producing a final product. In this situation, he indicated there was a 2-month window. He advised that he variable capacity in their facility was somewhere between 35 to 40 units per week all the way up to 60 units per week and that they had multiple facilities. He noted part of the juggling act was to make sure they balanced the load level of those facilities and capability. He reported that 70% of what went on a bus came from sub-contractors and suppliers so it was not just a matter of managing capacity, it was managing the network. Councillor Legendre wondered if the manufacturer could produce all of the buses in this calendar year. Mr. Soubry confirmed that, in theory, they could. However, he maintained that they had other customers and other parts of their capacity had been spoken for. The other reality was that the last thing they wanted to do was spike up their facility to ram an order through in 2010 and then drop down, which would cause tremendous labour disruptions. Councillor Legendre inquired as to the 2-month window. Mr Soubry explained that the company had to get ready to start building these buses and the scheduled on which New Flyer had been working with staff had a line entry date in late July. If approval was given to proceed, they would need to finish the non-recurrent engineering, have it approved by OC Transpo, then start building those buses for the August delivery. Responding to follow-up questions from Councillor Legendre, Mr. O’Connor confirmed that although the current contract with New Flyer stated all articulated buses bought in 2010 had to be purchased from New Flyer, what mattered, in terms of abiding by that contract, was the date on which the buses were ordered, which would be in 2010 under the current proposal. However, he re-iterated that Legal Services staff would continue to review this matter. Councillor Legendre noted that these buses would all be diesel fuelled. He noted there was some referenced in the presentation about adding urea to diminish the particulates. However, he believed there was some health information on the emanation from diesel engines; that they were actually toxic. He wondered if anyone could address this issue. Mr. Mercier advised that if the Councillor was looking for medical support on emissions, staff was not prepared with experts in this field. However, he referenced the availability of excellent presentations on the urea technology and the emissions output with use of urea, which had become the standard for diesel engines, and he offered to make these available to members of Council. Councillor Legendre expressed appreciation for this. However, he maintained that he would like staff to ask Dr. Levy for his input on this prior to the item rising to Council. Mr. David Jeanes noted the report indicated there was no impact on taxpayers. He wondered if it was true that there would be no impact on transit users. He indicated he was not necessarily opposed to the proposal, having heard some excellent reasons why there would be benefits to the City and why it was important to move quickly. However, he had some questions. He wondered about the average age of the fleet and whether this major purchase would be setting the City up for major problems 10 to 12 years out when a huge portion of the fleet would come up to reaching end of life. He referenced the three bullets found in the report under the heading “City Strategic Plan” and indicated he did not quite understand how this proposal would achieve these objectives. In terms of the 30% modal split by 2021, since this was a fleet replacement, he did not see how there would be more capacity to help the City meet this objective. With respect to a 100% accessible transit fleet by 2017, he indicated he had not heard anything to suggest these buses were any more handicap accessible than the buses they were replacing one for one. About achieving a state-of-the-art fuel and environmental efficiency by 2012, he noted this proposal offered 26% improvement, which had been well explained. He noted this was in the same range as what was expected from the hybrid buses but a report had yet to come forward on their performance. He reported having asked the Toronto Transit Commission Chair about their experience and his response was that they had been hoping for 30% but only got 12%. Finally, he asked how these articulated buses would be used. He referenced a 2005 report that suggested moving to using articulated buses in the downtown transitway in order to increase capacity per bus moving through downtown. However, he believed the Service was seeing that the best fuel efficiency from the hybrid fleet was when they were used on those stop/start downtown routes. Mr. John E. Martin spoke to a PowerPoint presentation, which served to introduce Committee to new technologies in public transit: ultracapacitor technology with battery use. In terms of fuel efficiency, he indicated this would move the City to 100% solar-based renewable energy. A copy of his presentation is held on file. At the conclusion of his presentation, he submitted the point was that there may be room to explore other technologies, which would be prevented in subsequent years by the excess replacement under the current proposal. He asked for an opportunity to put a comprehensive proposal before Committee. With respect to a proposal, Chair Cullen suggested Mr. Martin speak to staff. Mr. David Gladstone indicated he was seriously concerned with what seemed to be a single-sourcing of a major acquisition. He was also concerned with the presumption that the future of the City’s transit was based on buses. He referenced the miles of unused railway line, suggested the roadway and transitway systems were completely at capacity with these articulated buses, and maintained the need to start seriously using the railway lines. Councillor Leadman indicated she had more questions on the proposal but that she would submit them to staff. She re-iterated her concern that Committee had not been given the opportunity to really have time to review the report, digest the information and formulate questions. Chair Cullen acknowledged that it was unfortunate the current circumstances precluded the usual process. However, he advised that when staff brought to his attention that there may be this opportunity and the tight timelines, he felt he would be doing the City and the community a disservice had he refused to bring the matter forward because of process constraints. He remarked that staff had done considerable work in terms of due diligence and ensuring this was a viable proposal. Councillor Bédard agreed that this was an unusual situation, brought forward by the current market situation. He indicated having read the report and discussed the proposal with staff and he was confident that this proposal was a good deal for the City of Ottawa. Although he agreed with the concerns expressed relative to the time constraints to review and digest the information, he maintained that sometimes members of Council had to make these kinds of decisions. He was confident that staff had really looked at this, that the questions posed during the course of the meeting had flushed out the issues and items that were important, and that this was a positive return. He noted that the City would be getting rid of old buses that had been causing no end of trouble for years. He reviewed some of the information provided in the staff presentation and in response to members’ questions following the presentation in terms of the benefits to the City and he submitted that if the City was not going to take advantage of this opportunity, he did not know why not. He did not see any disadvantages, other than the fact that the usual process and timelines were not followed. He encouraged members of Committee to move ahead on this one and take advantage of the market, take advantage of the savings and take advantage of the reduction in problems at OC Transpo. Councillor Doucet indicated he had terrific sympathy for those who felt there was not enough time to review and digest the information presented as part of this proposal. However, he submitted this contract was not anything new. He maintained it was not a new contract, it was a recall of buses that had been problematic. He also reviewed some of the information provided as part of the staff presentation and in response to questions in terms of the details of the proposal. He praised New Flyer for taking advantage of their cancelled contract to make such an offer and restore the relationship with Ottawa and he praised staff for taking advantage of the offer and bringing it forward. He submitted this Committee was about delivering services to residents and that this contract would deliver better service for the next 10 to 20 years. In closing, he introduced a motion calling on staff to provide an annual report describing the costs and savings of the New Flyer articulated bus purchase. Responding to a question from Chair Cullen, Mr. Mercier confirmed that producing such an annual report would not be a problem. Councillor Wilkinson felt the timing of such reports was important and she pressed staff for a commitment with respect to when a report would come forward. A brief discussion ensued, at the conclusion of which Mr. Mercier suggested staff could come forward in the first quarter of 2011. At this juncture, Committee voted on the motion. Moved by Councillor C. Doucet That an annual report be provided to Transit Committee that will describe the operating costs and savings of the New Flyer articulated bus purchase. CARRIED In closing, Chair Cullen thanked staff for coming to him, as Chair of this Committee, and presenting this opportunity. He advised staff had been unsure whether or not Council would have the appetite to deal with such a large purchase under such time constraints. He indicated he and staff were sensitive to the fact of due process. Unfortunately, they were not in control of the circumstances to ensure such an opportunity would come forward in the proper course of doing business, with a report being published a week before a committee meeting and everything that would flow from that. However, he believed the opportunity was too valuable to let be lost because of procedural constraints, particularly as this was not new territory. It was a bus purchase and Committee and Council had done this before. It dealt with issues with which members of Council were familiar. He noted the difference was the quantum and some of the major improvements being presented. He reviewed some of the proposal’s benefits in terms of purchase price, fuel consumption and maintenance costs. He believed Committee would endorse the initiative because it had tremendous payback for the public and would provide much better service. He thanked staff for the due diligence they had provided and he thanked his colleagues for their questions because he believed something like this should not just fly through and be rubber stamped. Committee then voted on the item as amended. That Transit Committee recommend Council approve: 1. The purchase of 226 New Flyer buses (model D60LFR) from New Flyer under the existing agreement, as outlined in this report; 2. Delegate authority to the General Manager, Transit Services, to amend the current warranty support agreement with New Flyer to incorporate the new vendor support agreement; 3. Delegate Finance the authority to seek alternative funding sources and report back to Council with the results; and 4. That an annual report be provided to Transit Committee that will describe the operating costs and savings of the New Flyer articulated bus purchase. CARRIED as amended CITY MANAGER’S OFFICE BUREAU DU DIRECTEUR MUNICIPAL CITY CLERK’S AND LEGAL SERVICES DIRECTION DU GREFFIER MUNICIPAL ET DES CONTENTIEUX 5. STATUS UPDATE – TRANSIT COMMITTEE INQUIRIES AND MOTIONS FOR THE PERIOD ENDING APRIL 12, 2010 RAPPORT DE SITUATION - DEMANDES DE RENSEIGNEMENTS ET MOTIONS DU COMITE DU TRANSPORT EN COMMUN POUR LA PÉRIODE SE TERMINANT LE 12 AVRIL 2010 ACS2010-CMR-CCB-0038 CITY WIDE / A L’ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE That the Transit Committee receive this report for information. RECEIVED CITY OPERATIONS OPÉRATIONS MUNICIPALES 6. QUARTERLY PERFORMANCE REPORT TO COUNCIL, Q4: OCTOBER 1 – DECEMBER 31, 2009 RAPPORT TRIMESTRIEL SUR LE RENDEMENT PRÉSENTÉ AU CONSEIL POUR LE 4E TRIMESTRE, DU 1ER OCTOBRE AU 31 DÉCEMBRE 2009 ACS2010-CCS-TTC-0007 CITY WIDE/À L'ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE Mr. David Jeanes talked about the increased use of Park and Rides, which had raised 2 concerns for him. He noted the place where capacity was being added to Park and Rides was far outside the greenbelt, which encouraged driving to places where people could board express buses to go downtown. He submitted this was the most expensive form of transit offered by the City because of the rather low recovery costs of those very long trips. He remarked that the City was not doing anything to plan any Park and Ride capacity in conjunction with the stations associated with the light rail, the downtown transit tunnel. He also talked about there being no increase in Park and Ride capacity for users of the O-Train since 2001, which he believed was an area the City was neglecting. He suggesting worrying about improving the transit modal split for people living inside the greenbelt and of maintaining and improving service inside the greenbelt, including designing rapid transit and dealing with local routes. He thought the City had foregone some important opportunity that could have increased the capacity and usability of the O-train. He felt should have been extended to the Park and Ride location being built at Leitrim Road, which he believed would have solved the capacity constraint imposed by the full Park and Ride at Greenboro. He thought there were other ridership growth issues that were not being addressed for the O-train, which was essentially running at capacity. He referenced some money being spent on it this summer, which would not add any capacity. He felt this was a significant omission. Responding to questions from Councillor Wilkinson with respect to the Quarterly Performance Report, Mr. Vincent Patterson, Manager of Performance and Quality Management, indicated the report reflected increased ridership but decreased occupancy rates because occupancy rates for core routes were rounded. He advised that the figure was actually slightly up. In terms of actual passengers, he submitted it was substantial because these were core routes. He explained that the Service had increased a lot of the seats available on those routes throughout the day but the demand had not materialized yet in the fourth quarter of 2009. He pointed to this gradually increasing towards the tail end of the year, which was why December ridership had broken an all-time record. With respect to on-time performance and the need for express routes to keep going once they reached a point where passengers were descending rather than boarding the bus, he took the Councillor’s point and advised that the Service was increasingly making this clear to operators. He submitted that not running early mattered when being early hurt the customer but when it was an advantage to be early, such as once an express route had gotten to the transitway, there was no question to hold back. He explained that the way on-time performance was reported for express routes reflected this philosophy. In response to a question from the Councillor with respect to the rate of mechanical failures, Mr. Mercier confirmed that OC Transpo’s numbers did not compare well with other transit systems. He advised that this was an area on which Mr. Atkinson was focused, as was evidenced by the re-alignment of staff to the servicing organization. He reported that the Service had just finished introducing new work methods at the Merivale maintenance facility and was starting to see improvements. He advised that preventive maintenance was increasing and the Service was on the right track to start seeing improvements in terms of mechanical failures. Following these exchanges, Committee voted to receive the item. That the Transit Committee receive this report for further review and discussion of the service areas’ performance results, as outlined in Document 2. RECEIVED COUNCILLOR’S ITEM ARTICLE D’UN CONSEILLER COUNCILLOR’S ITEM ARTICLE D’UN CONSEILLER Councillor / Conseiller A. Cullen 7. ENDORSEMENT OF BILL C-466 APPUI AU PROJET DE LOI C-466 ACS2010-CCS-TTC-0008 CITY-WIDE / À L’ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE That the Transit Committee recommend Council send a letter to the Federal Minister of Finance and Federal Minister of Transport to support Bill C-466 “An Act to Amend the Income Tax Act: transportation benefits.” CARRIED INFORMATION PREVIOUSLY DISTRIBUTED INFORMATION DISTRIBUÉE AUPARAVANT A. BILL 118 UPDATE PROJET DE LOI 118 : MISE À JOUR ACS2010-ICS-TRA-0003-IPD CITY WIDE / À L'ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE RECEIVED IN CAMERA ITEMS* POINTS EN HUIT CLOS* CITY MANAGER’S OFFICE BUREAU DU DIRECTEUR MUNICIPAL CITY TREASURER AND FINANCE TRÉSORIE ET FINANCE DE LA VILLE 1. GENERAL ACCOUNTS – WRITE-OFFS 2009 - IN CAMERA – SETTLEMENT TO RESOLVE LITIGATION MATTER INCLUDING MATTERS BEFORE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AFFECTING THE CITY, – REPORTING OUT DATE:  30 DAYS AFTER FINAL SETTLEMENT IS REACHED COMPETES GÉNÉRAUX – RADIATIONS POUR 2009 - À HUIS CLOS – RÈGLEMENT EN VUE DE RÉSOUDRE DES QUESTIONS DE CONTENTIEUX Y COMPRIS DES QUESTIONS PORTÉES DEVANT UN TRIBUNAL ADMINISTRATIF ET TOUCHANT LA VILLE – DATE DE COMPTE RENDU : 30 JOURS APRÈS LE RÈGLEMENT FINAL ACS2010-CMR-FIN-0021 CITY WIDE / À L'ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE Moved by Councillor M. Wilkinson That the meeting of the Transit Committee move In Camera pursuant to Section 13(1)(e) and (f) of the Procedure By-law being Litigation or potential litigation affecting the City and the receiving of advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege with respect to: General Accounts – Write-Offs 2009. CARRIED Committee resolved In Camera at 3:40 p.m. Committee resumed in open session at 3:50 p.m. Upon resuming in open session, Chair Cullen indicated Committee had met In-Camera with respect to the above-noted matter to receive information from staff and that there were no motions considered during the In Camera session. NOTICES OF MOTION (FOR CONSIDERATION AT SUBSEQUENT MEETING) AVIS DE MOTION (POUR EXAMEN LORS D’UNE RÉUNION SUBSÉQUENTE) Councillor / Conseiller A. Cullen WHEREAS recently the last surviving veteran from World War I passed away; AND WHEREAS it is important to recognize and honour the contributions of our senior veterans from World War II and the Korean War to the preservation of freedom in Canada; AND WHEREAS the average age of such veterans in Ottawa is 87 years of age (WWII) and 82 years of age (Korean War): AND WHEREAS other municipalities (notably in Waterloo Region) have recognized the contributions of such veterans by providing a life-time transit pass free of charge to World War II and Korean War veterans aged 65 and older; AND WHEREAS it is estimated that the cost of providing such a free life-time transit pass for veterans resident in Ottawa is $250,000; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Transit Committee direct staff to prepare a budget submission for the 2011 City of Ottawa Budget for approval that would provide for such free life-time transit passes for World War II and Korean War veterans aged 65 and older. INQUIRIES DEMANDES DE RENSEIGNEMENTS Councillor Cullen submitted the following inquiry: Some months ago, Councillors were canvassed to recommend sites for bus shelters with garbage bins. What is the status of this? When will we see these bins in these shelters? ADJOURNMENT LEVÉE DE LA SÉANCE The meeting adjourned at 3:55 p.m. Committee Coordinator Chair TRANSIT COMMITTEE MINUTES 44 21 APRIL 2010 30 COMITÉ DU TRANSPORT EN COMMUN PROCÈS-VERBAL 44 LE 21 AVRIL 2010 Note: 1. Reports requiring Council consideration will normally be presented to Council on 24 March 2010 in Transit Committee Report 37. Nota : 1. Les rapports nécessitant l’examen du Conseil seraient normalement présentés au Conseil le 24 mars 2010 dans le rapport no 37 du Comité du transport en commun. 2.