Report to / Rapport au:
Comité des transports
And Council / et au conseil
1 February 2010 / le 1 février 2010
580-2424, Ext. / poste : 21624, Rosemary.Nelson@ottawa.ca
City Wide / À l'échelle de la Ville
Ref N°: ACS2010-CCS-TRC-0006
SUBJECT: COSTS FOR DIFFERENT TRANSPORTATION MODES
OBJET: COÛTS DE DIVERS MOYENS DE TRANSPORT
That Transportation Committee consider the following motion, for recommendation to Council:
That the 2011 Budget include capital and operating information for single vehicle use, express bus, rural/suburban route, inner greenbelt transit services, pedestrian and cycling; and that this information be used to calculate the differential impact on the tax rate of the provision of these services.
Que le Comité des transports examine la motion suivante et formule des recommandations au Conseil :
Que le budget de 2011 comprenne des renseignements concernant l’immobilisation et l’exploitation d’un seul véhicule, des autobus express, des circuits ruraux et suburbains, des services de transport en commun à l’intérieur de la ceinture de verdure, des déplacements à pied et en vélo et que ces renseignements soient utilisés pour calculer et comparer les répercussions de la prestation de ces divers services sur le taux d’imposition.
This Motion was referred to the Transportation Committee by City Council on 28 January 2010, during consideration of the 2010 budget.
During the Special Ottawa City Council meeting of 25-28 January 2010, Councillor Doucet expressed concern that there is presently no way of calculating the hierarchy of costs or the depth of the subsidies of providing the City’s various forms of transportation and transit services. He subsequently proposed the Motion contained in Document 1.
By referral Motion 82/34, Council recommended that the Motion be referred to the Transportation Committee for consideration.
No public consultation was conducted in the preparation of this report.
Comments from Transit Services
Currently, the information on the difference in funding by route type is available in the Tactical Plan, presented to Transit Committee and Council each year as a companion piece to the budget. Although the definitions outlined in the motion (express bus, rural/suburban route, inner greenbelt transit services) do not exactly reflect the route definitions used by Transit Services, the information within the Tactical Plan can be analysed to account for the figures requested by the motion.
Transit Services can discuss and provide Financial Services with further information on specific route types during the budget process, if requested.
The costs of providing infrastructure for the various modes of transportation are already available in one of the Transportation Master Plan background studies (Total Cost of Travel Study, 2003). The Study used 2002 City of Ottawa actual expenditures and trip data supported by the best practices in estimating societal costs (health, air quality, quality of life, etc.).
Given that commercial vehicles, buses, cyclists and pedestrians use the same roadway as cars, identifying the capital and operating cost for single vehicle, transit, pedestrian and cycling was a very complex exercise that required substantial resources to undertake.
The total public (government and societal) cost per passenger trip, including construction, maintenance, land value, enforcement, unaccounted accidents, air, noise and water pollution are:
Car driver: $2.50
Transit user: $1.76
As suggested in this report, if staff only considered the capital and operating costs in calculating the differential impact on the tax rate for the provision of these services, the cost would be $0.5 for a car trip and $1.50 for a transit trip. This would clearly favour road investments over transit since the actual public subsidy to transit is higher than that to cars. Staff disagree with this approach since societal costs need to be factored in as well as the other indirect costs (large parking lots, width and number of roads, sprawl, etc.). When considering all of the automobile impacts on the way we live and the design of our cities, transit would be clearly a better, more sustainable choice.
Since 2003, the City, through its current plans, policies, guidelines and implementation programs, has ensured that pedestrian and cycling facilities are included in all new and reconstructed roads. Furthermore, additional budget was approved in 2010 budget to close the gap between planned and built pedestrian and cycling infrastructure and provide for off-road multi-use pathways.
LEGAL/RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS
There are no legal/risk management impediments to the implementation of this Report’s recommendation.
Although the report recommendations do not have any immediate funding implications, staff will need to review the information requirements as proposed in the motion with the Councillor. Depending on the complexity involved in providing the information for the 2011 budget, a combination of internal along with external resources may be required. Staff would propose to discuss and review the intent of the motion with the Councillor to clarify the information expectations and to then proceed with an analysis to determine the workload requirements. Should additional external resources be required to compile with the motion, staff would report back to Committee.
Document 1 Extract of Special Ottawa City Council Minute, 25-28 January 2010
The recommendation of the Transportation Committee will be forwarded to Council.
25, 26, 27 and 28 january 2010
MOTION NO. 82/33
Moved by Councillor C. Doucet
Seconded by Councillor C. Leadman
WHEREAS there is presently no way of calculating the hierarchy of costs or the depth of the subsidies of providing the City’s various forms of transportation and transit services;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the 2011 Budget include capital and operating information for single vehicle use, express bus, rural/suburban route, inner greenbelt transit services, pedestrian and cycling; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT this information be used to calculate the differential impact on the tax rate of the provision of these services.
MOTION NO. 82/34
Moved by Councillor A. Cullen
Seconded by Councillor R. Chiarelli
That Motion No. 82/33 be referred to the Transportation Committee.