|
Transit Committee –
Special Meeting Comité
du transport en commun – Réunion Extraordinaire Minutes
15/ Procès-verbal 15
Monday, 26 November 2007, 9:30 a.m. le lundi 26 novembre 2007, 9
h 30 Champlain Room,
110 Laurier Avenue West
Salle Champlain, 110, avenue Laurier ouest |
Present / Présents : A. Cullen
(Chair / Président), M. Wilkinson (Vice-Chair / Vice-présidente ), G.
Bédard, R. Bloess, C. Doucet, J. Legendre, M. McRae,
D. Thompson
Absent / Absente : Councillor / Conseillère
C. Leadman (Regrets / excuses)
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
DÉCLARATIONS D’INTÉRÊT
No declarations of interest were filed.
CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES
Ratification dU PROCÈS-VERBAL
Minutes 14 of the Transit Committee meeting,
Wednesday, November 7, 2007 were confirmed.
planning,
TRANSIT and THE ENVIRONMENT
URBANISME,
TRANSPORT EN COMMUN ET L’ENVIRONnEMENT
TRANSIT SERVICES
SERVICES DU
TRANSPORT EN COMMUN
1. A FOCUS ON CUSTOMER SERVICE EXCELLENCE: FINDINGS AND ACTION PLAN
EXCELLENCE DU SERVICE À LA CLIENTÈLE : CONSTATATIONS ET PLAN
D’ACTION
ACS2007-PTE-TRA-0014 CITY-WIDE/A
L’ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE
Appearing before the Committee to give a PowerPoint presentation on this matter was Alain Mercier, Director of Transit Services, Planning, Transit and the Environment (PTE) and Dan Baril, Core Strategies Inc. Mr. Mercier explained this report is the result of a previous request from Committee to staff to look at the current transit policies and as a result of earlier discussions regarding service delivery. Core Strategies Inc. was part of a customer and employee focus group process when staff conducted the necessary research. Nancy Schepers, Deputy City Manager, PTE was also present to answer questions from Committee. A copy of the presentation is held on file with the City Clerk.
Following the presentation, staff
entertained questions from Committee.
Chair Cullen noted two elements of
importance. One being that when people
make a complaint it is important that it be tracked and analyzed and that
corrective actions be taken, and also that it be more transparent to the public
that this is the case. The other
element being that having received this action plan for information, it is
important to do something with it. He
commented there is a problem with the growth of the system outpacing the
capacity, specifically where passengers complain about buses not being on
schedule. He noted there is an 18 per
cent incidence of buses not being on schedule, half of which are cases of buses
being early, and he wondered how staff would be responding to these issues.
Mr. Mercier responded that from a
quality management perspective, an investment was made in the GPS system so
that a bus location can be taken every ten seconds, amounting to the production
of a tremendous amount of data. The
system is used in a real time environment, but unfortunately, Mr. Mercier
noted, the data is not decomposed to see what is happening. In other words, the data is not analyzed to
determine how an operator is performing in a mode to make his/her schedule, and
how that variability arrives during the time of day. Even though there is an 82 per cent compliance rate in terms of
schedule, the same route at different times of day can have different
performances. Staff has not yet been
able to analyze the data as desired because they do not have the proper
management software, but they will be putting that in place. Once they have that tool, they will have the
precision to be able to take appropriate corrective action where problems
persist with scheduling.
Before proceeding with further
questions from members, the Committee heard from the following delegation.
Catherine Gardner provided a PowerPoint presentation
about some of the barriers faced by persons with disabilities with respect to
incorrect information provided by the OC Transpo online Travel Planner, and
with respect to transitway elevators that are often out of order. A copy of her presentation is held on file
with the City Clerk.
She acknowledged that OC Transpo is
trying to make improvements, but she commented that from her perspective as a
rider, there is a long way to go. The
main points of her presentation were as follows:
§ She is aware of ten different
transitway stations at which elevators have been out of order at some point or
other in the past month (some more than one time), two of which are still out
of order (Tunney’s Pasture – eastbound, and Westboro – westbound).
§ She is pleased that OC Transpo is
now listing out of order elevators on the front page of its website, rather
than under the accessible transit link (as was the practice in the past)
because people using strollers and bicycles, and persons with mobility
challenges might not have thought to click on the accessible link.
§ She was upset that the Travel
Planner does not indicate where elevators are out of order, and that it often
provides misinformation with respect to time and route, which leads to longer
rides than necessary and earlier or later arrivals than necessary.
§ Some of the associated hardships for
persons with disabilities include:
-
Longer travel times
- Not
all persons have access to Internet
-
Drivers not informing passengers
-
Missed connections
-
Persons forced back onto Para
-
Higher expenses for persons using Para
-
Decreased independence
§ The band-aid solutions would be:
- Free
access to OC buses for all Permanent Para users
-
Persons could use Para Photo ID as proof
-
Persons using Para to pay full fare
- Free
access would only be until the elevator situation is rectified
§ She suggested the Accessibility
Advisory Committee could put forth a motion asking for free bus passes for
permanent Para users, and could lobby for ramps and curb cuts and for Travel
Planner improvements.
Councillor McRae noted that some of
Ms. Gardner’s ‘band-aid’ suggestions had previously been suggested to staff and
she asked Mr. Mercier for his thoughts on their feasibility. Mr. Mercier replied that photo
identification is something that staff would like to integrate into the
proposed Smartcard and could include Para users. He acknowledged there are currently some abuses of photo
identification in the system and it is being worked on. He requested clarification of Ms. Gardner’s
comments about persons using Para to pay full fare.
Ms. Gardner explained she meant that
if permanent Para Transpo users were given free OC Transpo passes, they would
still have to pay full fare to use Para Transpo until the problems with the
elevator service is rectified.
When asked by Councillor McRae what
her policy reasoning is for wanting free access to OC buses for all permanent
Para users, Ms. Gardner explained it would be compensation for those permanent
Para users who currently use the bus but are inconvenienced by out of order
elevators at transit stations when doing so.
Councillor McRae pointed out that other people, not just Para users, are
inconvenienced by the elevator problems and she could not see the rationale for
providing the free pass to just that one group. Ms. Gardner noted that although persons using strollers would be
inconvenienced, they could get help to carry a stroller up or down stairs,
whereas a person using a wheelchair or scooter cannot. Councillor McRae noted there are Para users
who do not rely on such devices and she felt that Committee could not entertain
the suggestion. She added that the
recurring elevator problems are inexcusable because accessibility must be the
number one priority at these stations, and she asked for staff comment.
Mr. Mercier responded that with
respect to the pricing policy for Para and bus use, there is no intent to
change the policy from where it stands today.
The issue of compensation for failure to provide accessibility is
something that needs to be addressed, he said.
He acknowledged there have been problems with some elevators, but he pointed
out that a complete review of the entire elevator system has been conducted and
the elevators that were deemed to require immediate upgrades are currently
being fixed. Those elevators that do
not require immediate upgrades but do go down from time to time are often the
result of vandalism. Staff are trying
to make sure the information is put out there to let users know when an
elevator problem is occurring and will continue to work on that. New procedures have been put in place in the
last six weeks to ensure that users do not get caught unaware, but staff is
aware they need to do a lot more work in getting operators the information so
they can pass along the appropriate notice to passengers who may not have been
able to access the information on the website prior to the trip. The current policy is that as soon as an
elevator is identified as a problem, a notice is sent out to all operators, but
there are staff changes throughout the day that may result in late
notifications. Text messaging to operators
will begin within the next month or so, and that will alleviate some of the
problem, but it will then be up to the operators to make those announcements at
the appropriate times and assist passengers in making alternative arrangements
if required.
Councillor McRae asked what OC
Transpo is doing to deal with the problem of vandalism to elevators. Mr. Mercier answered that there are security
cameras on the system monitored by Special Constables. Some of the elevators, however, are not
connected to the alarm system so OC Transpo may be unaware that an elevator is
damaged or is not working unless someone calls. That problem is slowly being rectified. He noted that OC Transpo has on-call contractors to respond to
these problems, but since it is a busy time of year, turn-around times are not
always as prompt as desired.
Councillor McRae expressed her
dissatisfaction with the current state of the system and hoped that problems
could be promptly solved, especially given that resources are in place to deal
with problems.
Chair Cullen commented that where
there are persistent elevator problems, such as have been identified at the
Westboro Station a contingency plan should be put in place to ensure
accessibility. Mr. Mercier explained
that staff has created a plan as part of the longer-term solution to upgrade
some of the elevators in immediate need, the Westboro and Tunney’s Pasture
locations being two of those. Even
though the budget is not yet approved for that, staff is going out to tender
and getting the specifications done and launching the process, so that
hopefully the two worst elevators in the system can be upgraded by the first
quarter of 2008. In the interim, there
is sometimes difficulty with turn-around repair times due to parts availability
and old design. Staff is doing constant
maintenance on those two elevators, and when an elevator is down for more than
a short period, staff has no choice other than to reroute passengers or give
them assistance when they are identified as requiring such. There are not a lot of opportunities for a
person using a wheelchair other than through an elevator at another
location. If a person’s destination
involves a transit station with an out-of-service elevator, such as Tunney’s
Pasture, the only option at present is to reroute that person to another
station and then back to the desired station in the opposite direction. Mr. Mercier was of the understanding that
the appropriate signage is put in place to notify people of elevators that are
out-of-service at a station and to notify that they can be assisted at the next
station if required.
Councillor Wilkinson inquired as to
how many of the 50 locations that have elevators also have ramps. Mr. Mercier did not have that information at
hand. Councillor Wilkinson felt that as
new stops are put in, such as is proposed at Algonquin College, a ramp system
should be put in so there is an alternative when elevators break down. She also felt that when existing stations
come due for renovations, staff should be looking at putting in alternative
ramps there as well.
Mr. Mercier explained that the basic
design principles for this type of system is always redundancy, and
unfortunately in certain stations there is no redundant system. In other words, there is either no second
elevator to use or there is no ramp system available. Councillor Wilkinson pointed out that a second elevator is not
the answer because it would be of no use in the event of a power outage. She asked that staff report back on the
feasibility of installing ramps and of measures such as curb cuts (at Westboro,
for example) so that when an elevator is not working, wheelchair users could be
let off at the curb and directed across the road to the other elevator or
desired location. Mr. Mercier responded
that the curb cut is a feature at many stations but he did not have the
specific list of those stations at hand.
He offered to follow up with that information.
Having heard the only delegation
wishing to speak to this item, the Committee continued with questions to staff.
In response to questions from
Councillor Bloess, Mr. Mercier provided the following clarifications:
·
The
column entitled ‘politicians’ in the first chart in Document 1 of the report
pertains to correspondence and inquiries received by OC Transpo from members of
Council.
·
Many
of the buses that arrive and depart earlier than scheduled are related to
express service. Correcting this
problem requires a level a precision that staff currently do not control at
that level, but standards are set at the control centre where each supervisor
manages about 200 buses at any given time.
The connection process has to be managed at a very precise level as
opposed to individual buses just running early or running late. Unfortunately, mitigation only occurs now
when individual operators call in and request that a connecting bus be held up
for a customer. With respect to local
routes arriving and departing earlier, some of it could be due to the fact that
some buses still don’t have the terminals and the operators don’t see the time,
but that level of precision has to be carried out from the control centre and
it will have to be tightened up.
·
In
terms of service delivery, high capacity buses must be put in at the most
appropriate moment. Transit staff,
together with Fleet staff, has made some changes with respect to the planning
of articulated buses so that certain buses do not end up on the wrong route or
at the wrong time and the assignments are being monitored daily.
·
With
respect to complaints received by OC Transpo, there are fewer and fewer
received each year. The use of email
has expanded tremendously and staff is monitoring to make sure that contacts
are not dropped off accidentally.
Almost every request is investigated and this can sometimes lead to
delays in responding to others or the feedback drops off, so one of staff’s
goals is to make sure a contact is never dropped off.
Responding to questions from
Councillor McRae, Mr. Mercier offered the following comments:
·
OC
Transpo’s goal is to ensure 90 per cent of all contacts are responded to within
ten days. Some of the calls that come
in require a more lengthy investigation and/or follow-up process.
·
All
complaints should be acknowledged as received within the first 24 hours, and an
estimate will then be given on when a response can be expected if it is not
immediate.
·
There
is a relationship between OC Transpo and the City’s 3-1-1 Line where 3‑1‑1
Operators will transfer bus service related calls to OC Transpo, whether to the
information line or to the complaints line, and the calls are handled live.
·
OC
Transpo policy with respect to cell phone usage by bus operators is that an
operator is not permitted to have his/her cell phone on during service. Supervision is an issue, and if a complaint
is received that an operator is using a cell phone while driving, corrective
steps will be taken.
·
This
report deals with the quality aspect of customer service provided by the
company and OC Transpo’s efforts to ensure customer satisfaction with the human
services provided. There are about 22%
fewer complaints this year in the last two months than there were last year,
with the new service changes that have been implemented. So there is increased ridership, increased
service, and fewer complaints but there is still the issue of how to create
value within the system when there are financial issues in terms of how to
expand the business. When looking at
how to promote transit use over personal automobiles, the nature of the
discussion has to consider affordability of transit and how to keep doing
things like adding service without having to fall within a cycle that cannot be
afforded. The trade-offs yield to
congestion and other things, so the productivity of the system has to be
improved. For whatever capacity can be
afforded and provided, it has to provide value, which means it has to be more
precise and it has to give customers what they want.
·
When
the customer surveys were conducted and the O-Train was discussed, staff found
that most customers believe the O-Train is an automated system with no human
intervention because it is such a highly reliable system. The bus system is a very low-cost capital
asset that provides a tremendous amount of flexibility and capacity but it is
subject to everything else that occurs on the city streets – congestion,
timing, pedestrians, and etcetera. It
is a highly variable system and it is highly dependent upon people, so
management has to be focused on behaviour management techniques.
Mr. Mercier provided the following answers to
questions from Councillor Bédard:
·
He
does not see a problem with dealing with the unions with respect to reprimand
and discipline of employees where necessary and does not view it as a union
management issue. For example, with
respect to achieving compliance for calling out stops, OC Transpo took the
approach of telling operators that if they do not want to call out stops for
passengers, they should not come to work.
As a management team, he feels that OC Transpo has the responsibility to
put out consistent, clear policies for its employees with the message that
those policies are not options or choices, and to enforce that.
·
When
an operator chooses to ignore policies, it is the responsibility of management
to enforce the progressive disciplinary measures that are in place, which is
formal reprimand, followed by suspensions and possible termination.
·
The
intent is to implement the incident-triggered
video monitoring on buses as a full program but it will first be done as a
pilot project to ensure that it is implemented in a cost-effective manner. Data from other transit agencies has shown a
reduction in risky driver behaviours by operators, and will allow for a
cost-effective means to provide feedback to the operators on their
performance. The financial
effectiveness will have to be evaluated.
·
OC Transpo
currently does not have a debriefing session or reliable means of communication
with operators to discuss their daily findings. Many operators start and finish their shifts on the road, and
operators have been lodging significant complaints that managers do not listen
to their concerns, but one of the reasons for this is that there is no
organized system in place to do so.
That is now one of OC Transpo’s core focuses.
·
There are 49
active committees of employees within OC Transpo to deal with things such as
health and safety, schedule review, fare review, and etcetera, but there is
nothing to deal with the day-to-day feedback of operators.
In answer
to questions from Councillor Wilkinson, Mr. Mercier made the following
statements:
·
Management would not be aware if an operator is
using a cell phone during service unless a customer calls in to complain or a
supervisor witnesses it. Those
situations are dealt with as they become known.
·
Each operator has two means to communicate to the
control centre, the primary being a radio, and in the event of malfunction or
other problems, they can receive messaging from the data terminals. A cell phone is not required for operational
purposes.
·
Staff has not been active in terms of any lobbying
efforts of the Province to ban the usage of cell phones (for drivers).
·
OC Transpo has a cyclical training program that is
geared towards returning operators, on a regular basis. Unfortunately, between budget pressures and
the hiring of numerous new operators in the last four or five years, training
has been totally focused on new operators.
Many operators that have been in service more than five years have only
been in for training one time.
·
With many
operators now retiring and with increases in service, there is a need to hire
approximately 150 new operators each year.
·
About 1200-1300
operators received some training recently in a two-hour session about calling
out the stops and sensitivity training (with a focus on service for persons
with disabilities).
·
Written
information will be provided to the Committee members with respect to the
training that is conducted, in case Councillors would like to pass it on to
their constituents.
Mr. Mercier and Mr. Baril provided the following
clarifications as a result of questions raised by Councillor Legendre:
·
Discussions did
come up in the focus groups about the lack of respect exhibited by some younger
persons towards elderly or physically challenged bus riders, and about the need
to better educate the public about the importance of giving up one’s seat to
someone who needs it more.
·
Staff will look
into improving the quality of information being provided on board the bus, over
and above calling out clearly the stops, and perhaps displaying visual map
showing all the stops of the specific route on the bus, as suggested by the
Councillor.
·
It is a
standard policy for drivers to wait for people to be seated before taking off,
and they are instructed to do so. It is
a matter of managing this policy with the drivers. One of the most prevalent complaints received is about drivers
not waiting.
Responding to questions from Councillor Doucet, Mr. Mercier offered the following clarifications:
·
The
research showed that customers are wary of transfers as an efficiency measure
because they fear for the reliability of the connections between routes.
·
Staff
will be taking some steps to deal with some of the aspects of the service on
routes that are too long, such as routes #2 and 3. One of the things being examined, for example, is how value would
be added if passengers know what the wait times are in real time.
·
Long
traditional routes within the city are part of the fabric of the city and will
not change because they are so heavily used but staff will try to reduce them
by de-linking some areas and trying to improve efficiency.
In response to Chair
Cullen’s questions, Mr. Mercier provided the following comments:
·
The
‘hardware’ (the system
structure, schedule, and design) and ‘software’ (customer service) are two different
issues. Both issues will be addressed
in a very specific manner. Routes that
are highly used but tend to fall behind schedule on a regular basis will be
examined with a view to improving the reliability of the service.
·
Performance
issues and capacity issues will be dealt with separately but both will have a
focus on making them more reliable.
Transit value, from a delivery perspective, is all about reliability and
the design of the system has to be organized around reliability. From a financial perspective, this may
require trade-offs in the route design so that the system becomes more cost
effective but also more reliable.
Chair Cullen thanked staff
for the report, noting that staff is intending to provide such updates on an annual
basis. He asked when staff would report
back on the transit elevators issue.
Mr. Mercier stated that staff would provide an update on the current
situation via memorandum to Committee members before the end of 2007 and would
then report on it more formally in the New Year.
In closing, Ms. Schepers
reminded Committee that this report appears as the result of direction from
Committee and Council to the departments in terms of quality improvements
within transit. The priority of the department
is to make sure that transit works as part of a sustainable community. She acknowledged that there are some things
that need improving but she ensured that staff are committed to service
excellence and dealing with those issues.
She congratulated Mr. Mercier and his management team for their
considerable efforts in terms of prioritizing and evaluating opportunities to
improve service, including the development of programs encompassing
technologies and also employee engagement.
The committee then received
the report as presented.
That the Transit Committee receive this report for information
RECEIVED
2. achieving
a 50 per cent revenue-cost ratio by 2010:
strategies and action plan Budget
Guidance and financial sustainability
atteinte d’un ratio recettes/coûts
de 50 % d’ici 2010 : stratégies et plan d’action
ACS2007-PTE-TRA-0012 CITY-WIDE/A L’ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE
The Committee received a PowerPoint
presentation on this matter from Alain Mercier, Director of Transit Services,
and Pat Scrimgeour, Program Manager, Service Planning, Planning, Transit and
the Environment (PTE). Joel Koffman,
Program Manager, Scheduling and Analysis, PTE accompanied them. Nancy Schepers, Deputy City Manager of the
PTE was also in attendance. A copy of
the PowerPoint presentation is held on file with the City Clerk.
Mr. Mercier and Ms. Schepers
explained that the intent of the report is to provide information relative to
the decisions Council would have to make during the upcoming budget process and
to allow opportunity for members to ask for clarifications or additional
information prior to Budget.
The Committee then heard
from the following delegation.
Catherine Gardner expressed concern that the
proposed changes will lead to service reductions for many people that rely
heavily on the buses and generally have no access to a car. She noted some of the local routes do not
run later in the evening and this means that some people are restricted to
specific travel times. For example, she
said there are many people in the Crystal Beach and Bells Corners areas that do
not have a way out of their community on the weekends or in the evenings. This also affects many who would like to or
need to work in the evenings but have no way to get home after a certain
hour. She recognized the goal of
enticing people to use public transit instead of personal vehicles but she
questioned whether that goal is really being achieved if people still have to
drive to a Transitway to make up for the lack of local bus service at certain
hours, or to pick up family members who cannot otherwise make it home at the
end of the night. She added this lack
of local bus service decreases the independence of young people and puts more
hardship on their parents. She asked
that Committee seriously consider that good bus service is a lifeline to many
people in the community and reducing that service will have serious
impacts.
The Committee also received correspondence on
this matter from Ken Holmes, of Woodlawn, via an E-Mail received on 26 November
2007.
In response to questions and
remarks from Councillor McRae, Mr. Mercier offered the following comments:
·
He
was not able to provide a figure with respect to how much more revenue OC
Transpo would obtain if there was one transit levy for the entire city, recognizing
that services would have to be increased in some areas, but he agreed to make
that information available in time for the next Council meeting.
·
With
respect to the issue of non-residents of Ottawa using the City’s Park and Ride
facilities for free, Mr. Mercier responded that the Park & Ride system has
been a free system for all users and he acknowledged that staff are aware that
a significant amount of people from outside of the City of Ottawa are using
certain Park & Ride areas. He
advised that one option staff have been considering is to make the system a
user-pay one for everyone. This could
possibly be integrated into the proposed smartcard. There are a couple of issues that have to be considered because
not all Park & Rides are the same.
Some of them attract a lot of local users, who are paying for the system
through their taxes, but some of them attract non-Ottawa residents to a very
high extent, and charging for parking at those locations may be the best
solution. There are also capacity issues
for local residents to be considered when approaching a solution, and methods
of allocating the premium spots more appropriately is being examined. A blended solution may be required at the
end of the day.
·
Although
the average age of fleet is 8 years in some other major cities, it is 7.2 in
Ottawa because it was a very old bus fleet, the average age in 1997 being 14
years, and as the fleet is being made more accessible its age has been
dropping. The City’s bus procurement
strategy and its growth are forcing the age of the fleet down. The higher capacity buses that are coming
affects the age profile a little faster but it will stabilize over the next few
years and come to more normal rate, which should be approximately nine years.
·
With
respect to cost savings associated with maintaining an older fleet,
Mr. Mercier commented that from a purely operating side, having more seats
on the old fleet is an advantage, but he pointed out these buses are not
accessible and therefore have limited capacity.
·
There
are other taxation elements that must be considered when looking at the table
in the staff report that demonstrates comparisons of major Canadian transit
systems, and specifically how it shows Ottawa as having the highest municipal
operating contribution per capita on that list. For example, in Toronto 30% of the contribution is non-user and
non-municipal, as it comes from the Province.
In Ottawa the municipality is paying the largest portion of the
operation.
·
In
order to get to the same level as Toronto’s system, the easiest way to increase
financial performance is to increase the productivity of assets, or in other
words a lot more seats are required per unit cost of labour and energy. It is a high labour driven organization, bus
technology is increasing in cost, and there is very little economy of scales in
the bus industry.
·
Staff
do not have confirmation from the Toronto Transit Commission that all or most
of its 30% Provincial contribution comes from gas tax but it is clear that it
would be the largest share of that contribution. He agreed to request that information from the Toronto Transit
Commission and provide it to members in time for the next Council meeting.
Ms. Schepers added it is her
understanding that the City has a level of choice in terms of where it
allocates its share of the gas tax revenue.
She noted that predominantly in Ottawa it has been used against Capital
costs, but she suggested Council could choose to use it for Operating costs.
Councillor Legendre referred
to Table 1 of the staff report (Transit Fare Scenarios for 2008) and notified
Mr. Mercier that he would be bringing forth a motion during Budget to reduce
the fares for the various student passes to bring them down to the 5%, as he
felt they were much too high. As a result
of questions raised by Councillor Legendre, Mr. Mercier provided the
following clarifications:
·
Increasing
charter bus business is limited right now because of bus availability. Charter business is largely geared to the
summer when operation is at its lower levels in terms of regular service, when
servicing is being carried out, and when vacation allotment is much higher,
resulting in missed opportunities to charter buses. Ensuring that the present fleet is serviced in time and perhaps
limiting vacation time in that period to ensure drivers are available for
charters would help to increase that service.
·
Staff’s
goal with the charter service is that it must recover its costs. It must generate a contribution to the
average costs to the organization so that taxpayers will not be subsidizing the
service. Otherwise it will not be done.
·
With
respect to comments from Councillor Legendre about unfair competition with the
private sector as a result of OC Transpo offering a charter service,
Mr. Mercier responded that demand exists for very short-term bus capacity
within the City, specifically in the summer, and it is not staff’s intent to
offer the same kind and level of service as the private sector. The intent is simply to make modest revenue
from the demand that exists.
·
An
example of the type of charter service that OC Transpo would provide is
bringing a group, including persons with disabilities, from the airport to
downtown for an activity on Parliament Hill that only lasts a couple of hours. It would be that sort of short demand trip
that might require an accessible bus, not a full day type of charter and not
going beyond the boundary of the City.
·
There
are three elements within the Gold Permit Pass service, and Mr. Mercier
acknowledges the program needs to be defined more carefully. One of the elements is the convenience of
having the pass and related information delivered to the customer’s home, which
means no line-ups and value added to the customer. Staff would like to tie that with what they want to create as an
express service; for example, attract new types of users that are more time
sensitive. It has to be a broader
package to work and to get to the kinds of numbers desired.
Councillor Legendre then
advised he also intended to bring forth a motion during the Budget to ensure
that the discount on the Ecopass Program is not reduced from 15 to 12%.
In reply to Councillor
Wilkinson’s queries, staff presented the following responses:
·
Mr.
Mercier agreed to provide information before Council with respect to the cost
of providing service within 600 meters to the whole city if the full transit
levy were put on the entire city.
·
The
four per cent productivity target (by 2010) that was referred to in the report
and presentation is four per cent of the $300 million cost base and that
includes all the operations.
·
The
12 initiatives that are planned to ensure
the fiscal projections are attained (page 26 of the report) will complement some of the
productivity initiatives but it is productivity that staff will be going
after. There are some risks with
anything that is done in the future to achieve that productivity, but staff are
planning a series of other initiatives on top of that to be able to find new
sources of productivity gains, new revenue basis, to improve the quality and to
try to offset those risks behind that $12 million and/or any potential cut to
the service.
·
Staff
will be working internally over the next few months to review some of the
sources for the productivity savings, looking at labour, organization, bus
availability, planning scheduling issues and etcetera. Staff will report back to Committee with
their findings.
·
The
proposed changes to the fare system are not part of that productivity.
·
The
proposed fare changes for students and for the Ecopass program would be
implemented on July 1, 2008, as per the normal process. It has been included in the revenue
calculation and has been incorporated in the 2008 draft budget as part of the
July adjustments.
·
The
fare increases in Scenario A of the report (Table 1) are the recommended
structure. The chart does not include
the changes to the discounts; that would be additional revenue over and above
what is in Scenario A. Staff will provide clarity on that issue before the
Budget deliberations.
·
The
newer buses have fewer seats than the old ones primarily because of the design
that is required to make them accessible.
·
The
two double-decker buses that are supposed to arrive in 2008 would address the
issue of fewer seats per bus. They
should be available for the next fall session, but will have to be evaluated
for a year before deciding whether to purchase more of them.
·
Staff
have looked at options to alleviate bus congestion on Albert and Slater
Streets, as part of their efficiencies targets. As such, a report was presented to committee in the spring that
laid out the evaluation of some the alternatives. Laurier Avenue would be a very difficult alternative because it
does not connect well to the Transitway at either end of downtown. Queen Street is a little less difficult; but
still has some difficulties and it is mostly making right and left turns from
the Albert/Slater corridor on to those other streets such as Elgin, Kent, Bay
or Lyon. Staff will continue, therefore,
over the next 3 or 4 years to use a greater quantity of higher capacity buses
and articulated buses, and perhaps double-decker buses in the future, to carry
more people on the same number of buses or fewer in that area.
·
The
left and right turns in that area are really limited by the capacity of the
roads and how many north-south buses are on those streets, which would be
delayed if priority is given to the turning buses, not to mention there are a
lot of cars on the street as well.
·
Staff
will report regularly on the progress and on how Albert/Slater is
functioning. It is likely that some
small route changes will be made over the next couple of years, although maybe
not in 2008, and there will be consultation and approval on those through the
normal Transplan route change process.
·
Some
of the initiatives listed in this staff report are listed in the draft Budget,
e.g. fare enforcement is included.
Staff will provide a report to Committee on the status of these
initiatives prior to any annual budgeting exercise and will actually report on
a regular basis as they go forward.
·
The
Video Monitoring Initiative will be done in 2008 with the use of funds
previously approved for a pilot of the video system that already exists, funds
that were not spent. Staff will not
proceed with the pilot of the traditional system since there is no funding
capacity to support it in the long-term, which is a change of direction. Assuming that the upcoming pilot is
successful, staff would then advise Council that any surplus funds remaining in
that pre-approved budget would be released back for Council’s discretion.
·
Following
on comments from Councillor Wilkinson about the actual cost of the
aforementioned pilot, staff agreed to get back to Committee with verification
because the report notes that the 2008 draft capital budget contains an
authority request of $750,000 for this program, in addition to the $500,000
previously budgeted, adding up to $1.25 million.
Messrs. Mercier and
Scrimgeour offered the following comments in answer to questions from
Councillor Bloess:
·
One
example of the strategies that will be used to achieve the $12 million annual
productivity targets include, for example, working with Fleet Services to
examine ways of lowering the usage of fuel, perhaps by modifications that would
allow the operator to see his fuel consumption so that he has more incentive
through feedback to be able to reduce the consumption. Idling would also be part of the equation.
·
The
current policy in terms of bus idling is dependant on temperature; for example,
heating is turned on in when the temperature is –5 or lower and air
conditioning is turned on when temperatures reach +25.
·
The
timing and public consultation aspect of this report is the same as what staff
did last year when they outlined the rationale for their proposals in the
budget. This will be followed, as per
usual, by consultation with customers and the public, and approval with the
individual councillors of specific route changes.
·
This
report contains options for service reductions, on which Council must make a
decision. The Transplan process is for
consultation on route changes, extensions of routes or new service in a new
area. There is no request here to
approve, or to pre-approve anything other than the budget to allow those to
occur. In the example of a service to
the growing area northeast of Kanata, staff expect that there will be enough
population there to need a bus service.
The amount thus marked in this report is the amount they anticipate it
will cost to provide a service like that, the details of which will be
presented for consultation in February or March.
Responding to questions from
Councillor Thompson, Mr. Mercier confirmed that consultation would be part of
the process if a citywide user fee were proposed for Park and Rides. He noted that a mixed solution might be
required. Mr. Mercier confirmed that
staff will look at, as an option, Councillor Thompson’s suggestion of
implementing a system to monitor those who drive in to Park and Rides, whether
through license plate checks or some other means, so that non-residents could
be charged for the use of the facilities.
In looking at this option, staff will consult with the Rural Affairs
Office
In response to a question
from Councillor Doucet, Mr. Mercier agreed that in simple terms, the best way
to increase productivity would be to have vehicles like light rail where one
chauffeur could accommodate 150 to 250 paying passengers, such as in Calgary,
where ridership is increasing but cost is not.
Mr Mercier provided the
following verifications at the request of Chair Cullen:
·
If
Council were to adopt the three options listed on page 29 of the report (as
proposed in the draft budget), OC Transpo would loose about 6.79 million
customers, meaning about $6.8 million lost from riders, and about a 4.4% drop
in ridership. If Council were to adopt
the transit fare scenario (A) recommended on page 36 of the report, it would
result in an increase in ridership from 95.1 million riders in 2007 to 97.8 in
2008, even based on the 5% fare increase, meaning a 2.8% increase in ridership.
·
Staff
will circulate to members, prior to the next Council, clarification of the
transit fare increases with the adjustment on the discount rate for the student
regular bus pass (Table 1, p.36). The
Carleton University and the Ottawa University Student Associations will be
included in that circulation of information.
The Committee then received
the staff report as presented.
That the Transit Committee receive this
report for information.
RECEIVED
3. SMARTCARD
FARE SYSTEM
SYSTÈME
D’ENCAISSEMENT DES TARIFS PAR CARTE À PUCE
ACS2007-PTE-TRA-0010 CITY-WIDE/A L’ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE
Alain
Mercier, Director of Transit Services, Planning, Transit and the Environment (PTE) provided a PowerPoint presentation, a copy of
which is held on file with the City Clerk.
He was accompanied and assisted by the following personnel:
· Joel Koffman, Program Manager, Scheduling and Analysis, PTE;
· David Smith, Ministry of Transportation of Ontario; and
· Michael Wilson, Accenture, Greater Toronto Area Fare System (GTAFS) Program Manager.
The Committee then heard from the following delegation:
Catherine Gardner was pleased to see that Para Transpo was listed with the smartcards, but she wished to receive some clarifications. She pointed out that at present, users of Para Transpo who have a Community Pass have to top up, and she noted that according to this report, there would be no tickets, only cash fare, in lieu of the smartcard. She wondered if users of the Community Pass would have to top at $3.00, which would be a lot more expensive. She also questioned whether the Community Pass program would still continue and be recognized by the smartcard. She also wondered how this would work with respect to the taxis that work in conjunction with Para Transpo. She noted that able-bodied persons are able to use an OC Transpo transfer to board STO buses, but STO buses are not accessible right now so Para Users could take Para Transpo to go over but cannot use STO services once there. She wondered if there would be any changes in that regard with the new system.
In response to Ms. Gardner’s questions, staff commented that any change in fare structure is a policy decision and is not part of the scope of the program. There are some mechanics in terms of the Para Transpo integration, but the intent would not be to change the fare policies. Those types of issues would be considered by Committee in future, should there be a need to do so.
Responding to questions from Councillor Legendre, Mr. Mercier and the accompanying personnel provided the following clarifications:
· The KPMG report of 2005 was referenced in the report to Transportation Committee in September 2006 (ACS2006-PWS-TRN-0004) with respect to smartcards. It was referenced as ‘held on file with the City Clerk’s Office’)
· Staff had discussions with the GTAFS prior to 2006 but they were not comprehensive because the details of their system were not really known until they actually signed a contract with Accenture. Staff also had to develop the detailed user requirements so they could do a gap analysis to see where the differences were, and the timing just played out after they signed their contract in October 2006.
· Should STO not receive the funding they need from the Province for the integration of their system with OC Transpo, which is unlikely, it will not hamper the development of the system here. In such an event, staff would have to weigh the risks of an integration investment for OC Transpo to be able to read both cards because the system would not be able to read STO’s first generation cards and be integrated unless STO does an upgrade.
· The technology being considered here would be able to comprehend such things as fare by distance, by time of day, or other options. York Region uses a zone system. Go Transit also uses a zone system but is going to an absolute distance based system in the future and would be using a GPS System on their buses to measure distance.
· Not only would the system have the option to measure true fare by distance, it could be architected to provide rebate for not using the maximum distance, similar to the current co-fare system in Toronto, which works between a municipal transit and Go Transit.
· Cost is a factor for OC Transpo and STO not accepting each other’s paper tickets.
Responding to questions from Councillor Bloess, Mr. Mercier and the accompanying personnel provided the following clarifications:
· The reason that the cost has gone from the $15 Million original estimate to the $22 Million now estimated is because although internal budgeting estimates originally amounted to approximately $15 million, there are also internal costs associated with the final system design, as well as some functionality differences and features that will incur additional costs, such as integrating Para Transpo. There is a bit of scope differential. With the GTAFS, the City is not taking the risk on the back office, and that development cost for OC Transpo is part of why their cost is higher. These technologies are changing quite a bit but the increased investment by the GTAFS would be offset by the City’s risks of operating costs downstream in terms of the back office because now the City will have a fixed operating cost for ten years essentially and no risks. The City is essentially paying the GTAFS program to actually develop that back office, including other system impacts that are not related that normally would have incurred finance costs, IT costs and so on in the City’s operating budget.
· Staff have not yet worked through the details of integration with the taxi industry. It would require a substantial review in terms of the desire of the taxi industry to move in that direction and how it would be done in the context of this type of program. From a priority perspective, the fact that the card could be expanded into a payment methodology for the taxi industry is within the technical capabilities of the system. The question will then be whether to engage with the industry to go through that review process with them and whether they want to sign on board downstream, but the other steps need to be in place before that is considered.
In reply to queries from Councillor Wilkinson, staff emanated the following clarifications:
· Costs have significantly escalated in this report compared to the previous KPMG study because there are some important scope changes in this report. Many of the previous studies were the cursory reviews of these technologies to do something simple on a basic design pattern, but the report before committee today includes the full analysis of how to integrate a smartcard into the City’s current business model. The integration with Para Transpo was never looked at in the past, nor was integration with STO. The other element is that to create an opportunity for long-term development of a card, whether for taxis, libraries, etcetera, staff had to ensure a level of modern standard of inter-operability. It’s a very robust design as opposed to doing something in-house that would have served only basis purposes and then would have had to expand over time.
· Smartcards will contain the photo identification feature and they would have the capability to be exchangeable or not, dependant upon the City’s policy. In other words, there could be small, single-use transportable cards. Photo ID is necessary to protect fare revenues.
· If a person puts money into the E-purse, the smartcard could then be used at any participating transit system within the GTAFS.
· It is anticipated that most of the GTAFS governance meetings, in which City staff will participate, will not incur any travel costs, as they will likely be carried out via teleconference or through email.
· Staff have been approached by a number of other businesses in the transportation field, including rail and bus, about the possibility of using the card for other transportation applications to make it easier for travelers to move within Ontario, and that can be done but the first focus is to get it in transit, get it in municipalities, and get it operational before proceeding further.
· The net costs of the project will be covered by the amount ($15 Million) already authorized by the City, minus any federal subsidies that are successfully negotiated.
Responding to further questions from Councillor Legendre, staff provided the following explanations:
· A person could have a smartcard that is personalized for a monthly pass, but s/he could also have stored cash value on that card, which could be used to pay the fare of travelling companion, a child for example, by having the driver deduct the fare from the stored cash on that card.
· The electronic purse feature of the card would not be distinguishable from user to user, i.e. it could be passed from one person to another to use, but because OC Transpo has a pass-based system with various fare structures, it is necessary that the card feature Photo ID to tie it to the person using it as a monthly pass in order to avoid fare fraud.
· The term ‘purse’ is a recognized industry term.
The Committee then considered the report recommendation as presented.
1.
That the Transit Committee recommend that Council approve Transit
Services joining the Greater Toronto Area Fare System (GTAFS) project with a
view to full implementation of the Presto smartcard system in Ottawa by 2010
subject to the following conditions having been met by April 1, 2008:
·
Provincial Cabinet approval of the proposal presented to OC Transpo by
Ministry of Transportation staff as described in this report;
·
Successful negotiation of central system fees to enable OC Transpo to
reduce overall commission to approximately one percent;
·
The STO Commission reaching a funding agreement to proceed with a
technology upgrade; and
·
Signing of the GTAFS Procurement Governance Agreement, the GTAFS
Operating Agreement and the GTA Funding Agreement.
2.
That the Transit Committee recommend to Council the delegation of
authority to the Director of Transit Services to act on behalf of the City to
approve and execute the GTAFS partnership agreements.
3.
That the Transit Committee recommend Council approval of these
recommendations be contingent on approval in the 2008 Capital Budget of an
increase in project authority from $15 million to $21.200 million, recognizing
that the actual cost to the City will be $15 million (or less) as a result of
Provincial funding and the potential for Federal funding, as a result of the
ability to integrate STO operations.
CARRIED
Councillor R. Bloess
dissented.
due
to Provincial funding, or less if Federal funding can be secured for STO
integration.
4. INCIDENT-TRIGGERED VIDEO MONITORING ON TRANSIT FLEET
SURVEILLANCE VIDÉO, DÉCLENCHÉE
LORS D’UN INCIDENT, DANS LES VÉHICULES DE TRANSPORT EN COMMUN
ACS2007-PTE-TRA-0013 CITY-WIDE/A L’ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE
The Committee received the aforementioned report and approved the direction to staff contained therein.
That the
Transit Committee receive this report for information
RECEIVED
and that
staff report back to Committee with the results of the pilot project prior to
the tendering of the proposed solution.
CARRIED
INQUIRIES
DEMANDES
DE RENSEIGNEMENTS
URGENT
- Request for Information prior to Council Budget Meeting
Chair Cullen put forward the following inquiry,
which was referred to the Deputy City Manager, Planning, Transit and the
Environment, for response:
“Please provide to Council prior to the 2008 Budget meetings the
following information for 2001 – 2006 (Please include percentage
increases):
1.
OC Transpo Expenditures
(Total)
2.
OC Transpo Revenues (Total)
3.
OC Transpo Transit Levy
Revenues (Urban and Rural)
4.
OC Transpo Fare Revenues
5.
Urban and Rural Transit
Levies
6.
Adult Regular Bus Pass
7.
Ticket Fare (Regular)
8.
Cash Fare (Regular)
9.
Ridership
10.
Trips per capita
11.
Provincial Gas Tax Revenue.”
ADJOURNMENT
LEVÉE DE LA SÉANCE
The Committee adjourned the meeting at 3:00 p.m.
Original signed by Original
signed by
Anne-Marie Leung Councillor
Alex Cullen
Committee Coordinator Chair