Joint Corporate Services and Economic
Development Committee and Transit Committee/
Réunion
conjointe du Comité des services organisationnels et du développement
économique et Comité du transport en commun
and Council / et au Conseil
11 June 2008 / le 11 juin 2008
Submitted by/Soumis par : Nancy Schepers, Deputy City Manager/
Directrice municipale adjointe,
Planning, Transit and the
Environment/
Urbanisme, Transport en commun et
Environnement
Contact Person/Personne ressource : Alain Mercier, Director
Transit
Services/Services du transport en commun
(613)
842-3636 x 2271 ,
Alain.Mercier@ottawa.ca
SUBJECT:
|
|
|
|
|
OBJET :
|
SERVICES
DE TRANSPORT EN COMMUN: EXAMEN
STRATÉGIQUE DE LA DIRECTION |
That the
Joint Corporate Services and Economic Development and Transit Committees
approve the Transit Services Strategic Branch Review and its overall content,
including:
1.
The core outcome objectives and the services provided
by the Transit Services Branch; and
2.
The policy standards and related performance measures
set forth therein.
Que les comités
conjoints des services organisationnels et du développement économique et du
transport en commun approuve l’Examen stratégique de la Direction des Services
du transport en commun et l’ensemble de son contenu, notamment :
1.
les objectifs-clés de résultats et
les services fournis par la Direction des Services du transport en commun; et
2.
les normes liées aux politiques et
les mesures de rendement s’y rattachant, proposées dans le cadre de cet Examen.
In the summer of 2007, Council made the decision to move to an outcome-based system of management as part of the business transformation program of the City. For any given Branch, outcomes are the changes or benefits for the community that result from the outputs of services that the Branch provides. When outcomes and services are clearly defined and measured, Branches can “contract” with Council for the delivery of services to citizens at predetermined service standards.
The Strategic Branch Review (SBR) process was approved by Council on 7 May 2008 as the tool to achieve this outcome-based management approach. This Strategic Branch Review of the Transit Services Branch is in response to Council’s direction for each branch to have its operating budget and service level standards reviewed once each term. It appears before this Joint Committee as a result of motion 36/7, approved by Council on 7 May 2008:
“WHEREAS
the Strategic Branch Review report has stated each operating branch will come forward
to Committee of the Whole (except as otherwise directed by Council) with their
branch outcomes, services, service standards and the cost of providing the
service at those service standards;
AND WHEREAS the Joint
Transportation and Transit Committee approved a motion on June 20, 2007 to
initiate an organizational and governance review
of Transit Services and that such report rise to a joint meeting of the
Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee and Transit Services
Committee;
AND WHEREAS it is most appropriate that these companion reviews be
dealt with at the same Committee meeting;
BE IT RESOLVED THAT both the Strategic Branch Review and Organizational
and Governance Review of Transit Services be considered at a Joint Corporate
Services and Economic Development and Transit Committee Meeting to be scheduled
in June.”
Transit Services began its Strategic
Branch Review early in 2008.
The objective of the SBR process is to solidify Council’s direction with respect to the core outcomes a Branch should strive to achieve, the services the Branch should provide for achieving those outcomes and how success is to be measured toward achieving the outcomes.
In
addition to describing the core outcome objectives of the Transit Services
Branch and the services it provides, this SBR report reviews the risks the
Branch foresees in achieving its outcomes and what risk management approaches
the branch is adopting.
For measuring success, this report also identifies service standards and performance measures for those standards. Specifically, the report focuses on policy-level standards and measures, that is those about which Council would provide direction to the Branch. A large number of performance measures exist in the transit industry, and a comprehensive set of these measures will be implemented within the Branch to more closely monitor and better manage transit services. To these will correspond business standards and quality standards – the former for performance, the latter for consistency. Both types of standards will complement the policy standards. Together, all three types of performance measures and standards will be part of an on going improvement program, which the Branch will report upon to Council and the public through an Annual Performance Report.
The appendix to this report presents a performance measurement strategy for collecting, analyzing and reporting performance.
The mission statement of the Transit Services Branch was not changed as part of this SBR process. It still defines the core purpose of the Branch and represents both the current and future directions of the Branch. The mission of the Branch is
“Excellence in transit services, which is responsive to the growing needs of our community while providing optimal value.”
The vision of the Branch has not been changed either
as part of the SBR process, as it still reflects the desired future state the
Branch sees as possible to achieve:
“To provide a quality transit
service which is reliable, accessible, cost effective, safe, courteous and
offers residents a high level of mobility.”
The attributes of quality transit services mentioned above are also echoed in the Strategic Plan of the Department of Planning, Transit and the Environment. The Plan envisions transit services that meet the mobility needs of the community – including citizens with permanent or temporary disabilities, reduce pollution and environmental costs, and enhance quality of life. The Plan also refers to the safety and the security of both customers and employees and to good customer relations.
Among the values promoted within the Department, the Strategic Plan articulates an action plan for Transit Services to be quality-driven, financially sustainable and accountable.
The mission and vision of the Transit Services Branch is directly aligned with these Departmental values.
There has
been a constant state of change in the organization and direction of OC Transpo
over the last 20 years. In the 1990s, it operated as a commission separate from
the government of the municipalities it served. It was integrated in 1999 as a
department within the former Region. Then in 2001, it became a branch under a
department of the amalgamated City of Ottawa, that of Transportation, Utilities
and Public Works. In 2006, it was transferred to another department, that of
Planning, Transit and the Environment.
Over a number of years,
there has been much focus on the long-term future of transit in the City.
Council has recently approved a new long-term vision for the rapid transit
network with further supplemental long-term investment needs and short-term
priorities to be confirmed this fall. Discussions on the organization and governance
structure of OC Transpo are the subject of a separate report being considered
by Committee.
Much of this context speaks
to increasing the accountability of Transit Services, not only internally but
also to the transit customers themselves, both actual and potential ones, in
order to be truly responsive to their mobility needs. A great emphasis is now
placed at Transit Services on the customer experience. A range of market
research tools has been applied over the past few months, ranging from focus
groups to attitude surveys over the telephone, to better understand the views
of actual and potential customers alike. Similarly, both focus groups and
surveys have also been conducted with the employees of the Branch. Better
understanding their attitudes and perceptions will help engage them and thus
lead to improving the customer experience of transit services.
A core outcome objective is
a long-term and enduring benefit to residents of Ottawa that stems from a
Branch’s mission and vision. It represents the difference a Branch’s work will
make for residents over time.
The
Transit Services Branch strives to achieve four core public outcomes. They are
listed in Table 1 and each is then discussed along with its relationship to the
City Strategic Plan.
Most
of the policy-level standards contained in this Strategic Branch Review are
introduced in this section because each is common to and applies equally to the full range of transit services
provided by the Branch. Those standards that differ somewhat from one type of transit
service to another are described accordingly in the Branch Services section
further below.
Statement of Core Outcomes
Table 1 – Summary of Core Outcome Objectives of the Transit
Services Branch
|
Core Outcome Objective |
Description |
|
Ease of Mobility |
For the transit system to
provide ease of mobility to the community by offering public transportation
options that meet the needs and expectations of the largest number of persons
possible in various circumstances |
|
Accessibility |
To offer to residents and
visitors with permanent or temporary disabilities full accessibility to
transit, whether through specialized services or barrier-free conventional
services, in agreement with legislative requirements |
|
Environmental Efficiency |
For the transit system to
achieve state-of-the-art environment efficiency, including fuel efficiency
and reductions in the greenhouse gas (GHG) footprint over time |
|
Economic Efficiency |
For the transit system to
offer effective transportation options, at the lowest possible cost. |
Table 2 shows that several policy-level performance
measures and standards relate to this key outcome. Additional ones are
described in the Branch Services section further below, as they differ somewhat
from one type of transit service to another.
TABLE 2 – Policy-Level Performance Measures and Standards Relating to Ease of Mobility
|
Performance
Measure |
Description |
2007
Value |
Standard |
Exis-ting? |
Target |
|
Area
coverage (*) |
Areas within standard
access distance to the transit system in the Urban Transit Area |
95% |
Residential areas with at
least 250 households aimed at being within a 5-minute walk (400 metres)
during peak hours |
yes |
95% |
|
95% |
Residential areas with at
least 500 households aimed at being within a 10-minute walk (800 metres)
during off-peak hours |
yes |
95 % |
||
|
n/a |
Major employment centres,
major secondary schools, community colleges and universities, and major
sports, recreational and cultural facilities aimed at being within a 5-minute
walk (400 metres) during their core hours of operation |
not in this form |
100% |
||
|
Ridership
(**) |
Passenger trips within the
Urban Transit Area |
95.65
million |
Annual total passenger
trips aimed at exceeding that of 2007 |
not in this form |
Higher
than previous year |
|
Customer
Satisfaction (***) |
Overall
rating of conventional transit system |
63% good or very good, 14%
poor or very poor |
Annual overall rating by
surveyed users aimed at exceeding that of 2007 |
no |
Better
than previous year |
|
Safety |
Rate
of accidents |
0.61 |
Annual number of
preventable accidents per 100,000 passenger trips aimed at not exceeding that
of 2007 |
no |
Lower
than previous year |
|
Security |
Rate
of offences |
0.50 |
Annual number of offences
per 100,000 passenger trips aimed at not exceeding that of 2007 |
no |
Lower
than previous year |
|
The
other Ease of Mobility performance measures – Occupancy, Service Availability
and Reliability – are specific to some individual services provided by the
Branch and discussed in the Branch Services section further below |
|||||
(*)
Paratransit subject to a
distinct Area Coverage standard (see Table 13 further below).
(**)
Paratransit not subject to a
Ridership standard.
(***) A survey measuring the satisfaction of
customers with disabilities (including paratransit users) is being conducted in
June 2008.
Table 3 – Policy-Level Performance Measure and Standard Relating to Accessibility
|
Performance Measure |
Description |
2007 Value |
Standard |
Exis-ting? |
Target |
|
Accessibility |
Barrier-free transit
services |
n/a (Audit to help
determine) |
Barrier-free customer
service, built environment and transportation |
no |
100% |
Table 4 – Policy-Level Performance Measure and Standard Relating to Environmental Efficiency
|
Performance Measure |
Description |
2007 Value |
Standard |
Exis-ting? |
Target |
|
Greenhouse
Gas Emissions |
Rate of CO2 emissions |
1,737 |
Annualized rate of grams of
CO2 equivalent emissions per vehicle-km aimed at being lower than in the
previous year |
not
in this form |
Lower than previous year |
Table 5 – Policy-Level Performance Measure and Standard Relating to Economic Efficiency
|
Performance Measure |
Description |
2007 Value |
Standard |
Exis-ting? |
Target |
|
Revenue-Cost
Ratio |
Portion of operating costs
covered by passengers’ fares and other revenue |
49.8% |
Minimum of 50% of operating
costs to be covered by passengers’ fares and other revenue |
yes |
55% |
Risks are future events that may impact the achievement of a Branch’s outcomes. Table 6 lists for each outcome the most significant risks with respect to that outcome.
Table 6 – High-Level Risk Analysis and Management
|
Type of Risk |
Sources |
Impacts |
Score (Impact rating x likelihood) |
Mitigation Strategy / Action Plan |
Resource requirements |
|
Availability of Financial Resources – risks related to levels
of capital and operational funding |
Changes in tax rate or tax base, fares, government funding programs,
revenue from advertising, rents, charters and others |
Levels of service (reach,
frequency, service span, occupancy standards), ridership, levels of
accessibility |
Moderate impact (3) x Possible (3) = 9 |
Increased economic
efficiency through development of a costing base and improved monitoring;
multi-year capital planning |
Included in creation and staffing of Performance Management Division,
strengthening of FSU reporting to Director |
|
Regulatory Environment – risks related to compliance requirements |
Federal sources include:
work rules, safety, labour relations, human rights, rail operations,
inter-provincial transit; Provincial sources include:
environmental assessments; Municipal sources include:
Official Plan (land use, long-range transportation plan), by-laws |
Compliance-related costs,
increased liability potential, threats to reputation |
Moderate impact (3) x
Unlikely (2) = 6 |
Fuller compliance through
development and application of internal procedures, increased inter-agency
co-operation, improved on-going training of operations staff |
Included in internal
accessibility audit, development of a safety management system, development
of training programs |
|
Catastrophic Loss – risks to physical assets that originate outside
of the organization |
Physical damage to fleet,
infrastructure and/or real estate property and personal injuries |
Service delivery
disruptions, loss of ridership, loss of revenue, cost expenditures and
multi-year financial impact |
Major impact (4) x Rare (1)
= 4 |
Insurance, risk acceptance
for uninsured assets, emergency preparedness plan |
Included in budget and
Transit Support Division activities |
|
Price-Value Relationship – risks that relate to the effectiveness of
business processes in shaping the way customers perceive transit services |
Changes in customer
satisfaction from sources such as changes in service quality, safety and
reputation and their relationship to fares |
Changes in ridership,
changes in fare revenue |
Moderate impact (3) x
Possible (3) = 9 |
Increased accountability
throughout the organizational structure, improved on-going training of
front-line staff, development and implementation of recurring market research
activities, introduction of quality management processes, improved
performance monitoring, development of a tactical plan |
Included in the
organizational restructuring, the development of training programs, market
research budget and the creation and staffing of the Performance Management
Division |
|
Service Performance Gap – risks that relate to the effectiveness and
efficiency of business processes |
Negative effects on service delivery from sources
such as fleet unavailability, staff shortages, decreased on-time performance:
delays, decreased quality of service, impacted reputation |
Increased operating costs,
lower ridership, loss of fare revenue |
Minor impact (2) x Possible
(3) = 6 |
Increased accountability
throughout the organizational structure, improved training of staff,
introduction of quality management processes, improved performance
monitoring, development of a tactical plan |
Included in the
organizational restructuring, the development of training programs, the creation and
staffing of the Performance Management Division |
The services provided by the
Transit Services Branch should not be thought of in terms of transit modes used
for delivering them: the same mode may be used for more than one type of
service, and the same service may be delivered by more than one mode. Instead,
transit services are primarily defined by the market segments they target.
Market segments correspond to different transportation needs, different user
profiles, different values and different revenue potentials.
Table 7 shows the
characteristics of the services provided to the community by the Transit
Services Branch. It is important to note that each of these services
contributes to achieving all of the core outcome objectives described in the
previous section.
The table shows that the main
types of transit services serve different types of passenger trips. Transit
users make short trips that are local in nature, such as a trip on a local
route within a downtown neighbourhood or within an urban community outside
the Greenbelt. Transit users also make long, linehaul trips between
origin and destination points much farther apart, along major corridors of
travel: an example would be a trip on a trunk route on the Transitway
between outside the Greenbelt and downtown. Transit users also make connecting,
access trips which serve to connect local points outside of major
corridors of travel with a trunk route: an example would be a trip on a feeder
route to a Transitway station, en route to somewhere else.
Regular Transit operates on fixed schedules at regular fares, throughout the City. It includes “mainline” bus routes, all local bus routes and peak period routes, as well as the O-Train. Commuter Transit operates on fixed schedules at premium fares. It runs during peak periods, along typically longer routes and faster than regular transit. It includes express and rural express routes. School Transit operates on fixed, local routes anchored at secondary/high schools, targeting a specific clientele for a specific trip purpose, at specific times: before the start of classes (AM) and as school ends (PM). It corresponds to the 600-series bus routes. Paratransit is not operated on fixed schedules, nor along fixed routes. It responds instead to demand by individual registered customers. It may be offered using minibuses, vans, cars or taxis.
Table 7 – Definition of the Services Provided by the Transit Services Branch
|
|
P a s s e n g e r
T r i p s S e r v e d |
Routes, Schedules |
Times of Day |
Fares
|
Main Client Base |
||
|
Type of Service |
Short (local) (e.g. within a neighbourhood or an urban
community) |
Long (linehaul) (e.g.
on a trunk route on the Transitway) |
Connecting (access) (e.g. on feeder route to
the Transitway) |
||||
|
Regular Transit |
Ö |
Ö |
Ö |
fixed |
all times or weekday peaks |
regular / discount |
all residents |
|
Commuter Transit |
|
Ö |
|
fixed |
weekday peaks |
premium (express / rural) |
all residents |
|
School Transit |
Ö |
|
|
fixed |
secondary school start / end |
discount |
secondary school students |
|
Paratransit |
Ö |
Ö |
Ö |
demand-responsive |
all times |
regular |
registered clients |
|
Charter Services |
Individual transit vehicles may be hired through
contract for exclusive use |
||||||
|
Special Event Mobility
Support |
In certain special or emergency situations, transit
vehicles may be used to provide ad hoc mobility to the community, whether on
a fixed-route and fixed-schedule basis or not |
||||||
Services
described in this section are not aligned with organizational units of the
Branch. Accordingly, the amounts that appear in Table 8 are allocations only
that will be firmed up through a formal costing exercise. The table shows the
existing resources needed to provide the services described above, at the policy-level
standards introduced throughout this report. It is indeed the approach proposed
by the Transit Services Branch that these policy-level standards can be
implemented at the current level of funding. It must be noted that the
paratransit services, however, have for several years now been operated as a
fixed-capacity model. To articulate changes in policy standards for paratransit
services would require further analysis and debate.
Likewise,
land use and park-n-ride issues are very much policy matters and would also
warrant further analysis and debate. Both types of issues relate to the access
portion of trips users make on the transit system, as defined in the previous
section. Transit users may connect with the system on foot in the more densely developed
areas, they may drive to a park-n-ride, or transit feeder routes may reach them
close to their door, etc. Different access policies would obviously have
different financial implications for planning and delivering transit services.
In particular, there is a need for a definitive policy orientation with regard
to access criteria for rural users, in order to balance taxpayers’ needs,
access opportunities for transit users and financially sustainable revenues for
OC Transpo or regional operators serving the rural areas.
Table 8 – Financial Overview of Branch Services
|
Type
of Service |
Total Net Operating Expenditures ($M) |
Total Revenues
($M) |
Net ($M) |
Fare Recovery (%) |
|
Regular Transit |
$197 |
$110 |
$88 |
56 |
|
Commuter Transit |
$35 |
$15 |
$20 |
44 |
|
School Transit |
$5 |
$3 |
$2 |
54 |
|
Paratransit |
$25 |
$2 |
$23 |
7 |
|
Charter Services and
Special Event Mobility Support |
$0.4 |
$0.2 |
$0.1 |
60 |
|
Total, Services |
$263 |
$130 |
$133 |
50 |
On the basis of the levels of service currently provided, the amounts shown in Table 8 correspond to estimated unit costs of $49 per bus service hour, $2 per bus service kilometre, and $61,000 per peak bus (i.e. incremental costs incurred in relation to fleet size).
Sample 2007 benchmarking information is summarized in Table 9, referring to transit service areas of comparable size to that of OC Transpo. A more complete set of benchmarking results may be found in the Organization and Governance Review report to the Joint Transit and Corporate Services and Economic Development Committees on 18 June 2008.
Table 9 – 2007 Benchmarking against Transit Systems of Similar Size
|
Performance Measure |
Ottawa |
Calgary |
Edmonton |
Mississauga |
Median (*) |
|
Passenger Trips / Capita |
119 |
89 |
79 |
41 |
56 |
|
On-Time Performance |
80% |
|
80% |
|
86% |
|
Customer Satisfaction |
63% |
92% |
90% |
|
87% |
|
R/C Ratio |
50% |
59% |
46% |
58% |
57% |
|
Cost effectiveness (Operating Cost per
Passenger Trip) |
$2.63 |
$2.24 |
$2.79 |
$3.27 |
$2.75 |
|
Cost Efficiency (Operating
Cost / Revenue Vehicle Hour) |
$102 |
$93 |
$89 |
$84 |
$89 |
(*) Using a group of transit systems of various sizes in Ottawa, Calgary, Edmonton, Mississauga, Hamilton, Brampton, Halifax, Toronto, Montreal, London, Gatineau, Windsor and Vancouver
Service-Specific Policy-Level
Performance Measures and Standards
The
section on core outcomes above presented policy-level performance measures and
standards that apply to the full range of transit services provided by this
Branch. When considering ease of mobility as a core outcome, additional
measures and standards should be put forth that vary across service types.
These are presented in Tables 10 to 13.
TABLE 10 – Policy-Level Performance Measures and Standards Specific to Regular Transit
REGULAR TRANSIT
|
|||||
|
Performance Measure |
Description |
2007 Value |
Standard |
Exis-ting? |
Target |
|
Occupancy |
Passenger-kms
per seat-km |
n/a |
Passenger-kms travelled per
seat-km offered for each route aimed at being above an economically
sustainable minimum during peak and off-peak periods |
no |
Provision-al:
15 |
|
Service
Availability |
%
of vehicle trips into service |
99.19% (week-days) |
100% of scheduled vehicle
trips to be placed into service |
yes |
100% |
|
Reliability |
%
of vehicle trips being on time |
81.4% |
Scheduled vehicle trips
aimed at arriving at time points no more than 0 minute early and 5 minutes
late |
yes |
90% of vehicle trips |
TABLE 11 – Policy-Level Performance Measures and Standards Specific to Commuter Transit
COMMUTER TRANSIT
|
|||||
|
Performance Measure |
Description |
2007 Value |
Standard |
Exis-ting? |
Target |
|
Occupancy |
Passenger-kms
per seat-km |
n/a |
Passenger-kms travelled per
seat-km offered for each route aimed at being above an economically
sustainable minimum and below an economically sustainable maximum during peak
hours |
no |
Provision-al: 15 as minimum
and 40 as maximum |
|
Service
Availability |
%
of vehicle trips into service |
99.19% (week-days) |
100% of scheduled vehicle
trips to be placed into service |
yes |
100% |
|
Reliability |
%
of vehicle trips being on time |
81.4% |
Scheduled vehicle trips
aimed at arriving at time points no more than 0 minute early and 5 minutes
late |
yes |
90% of vehicle trips |
TABLE 12 – Policy-Level Performance Measures and Standards Specific to School Transit
SCHOOL TRANSIT
|
|||||
|
Performance Measure |
Description |
2007 Value |
Standard |
Exis-ting? |
Target |
|
Occupancy |
Passenger-kms
per seat-km |
n/a |
Passenger-kms travelled per
seat-km offered for each route aimed at being above an economically
sustainable minimum during any hour of operation |
no |
Provision-al
= 15 |
|
Service
Availability |
%
of vehicle trips into service |
99.19% (week-days) |
100% of scheduled vehicle
trips to be placed into service |
yes |
100% |
|
Reliability |
%
of vehicle trips being on time |
81.4% |
Scheduled vehicle trips
aimed at arriving at time points no more than 0 minute early and 5 minutes
late |
yes |
90% of vehicle trips |
TABLE 13 – Policy-Level Performance Measures and Standards Specific to Paratransit
PARATRANSIT
|
|||||
|
Performance Measure |
Description |
2007 Value |
Standard |
Exis-ting? |
Target |
|
Area
coverage |
Portion of the Urban
Transit Area with at-the-door access to paratransit |
100% |
100% of the Urban Transit
Area to be served during paratransit hours of operation |
yes |
100% |
|
Reliability |
%
of pick-ups on time |
97% |
Scheduled pick-ups aimed at
arriving within a 30-minute window |
yes |
95% |
The Transit Services Branch is set to develop a continuous improvement program, whose objective will be to foster a culture of service excellence within the Branch, through implementing and following best practices. In addition to the policy-level performance measures and standards included in this report, the Transit Services Branch will implement its own set of business-related and quality-related measurements, drawing from transit industry best practices. Table 14 shows types of performance measures envisaged to be monitored and to become subject to business and quality standards, in relationship to the core outcomes and the strategic activities of the Branch. The highlighted cells in the table show the breadth of performance measures reported upon in the 2007 Annual Performance Report. The implementation of more performance measures over time will lead to a more comprehensive annual performance report.
Table 14 – Performance Measures Envisaged to Be Subject to
Business and Quality Standards, by Core Outcome
|
Core Outcome |
Strategic Activity |
Types of Performance
Measures |
||||
|
Ease of mobility |
System Planning |
network configuration |
level of service |
service effectiveness |
utilized productivity |
|
|
Quality Management |
customer satisfaction |
service reliability |
|
|
|
|
|
Marketing and Public Relations |
responsiveness to enquiries |
information availability |
|
|
|
|
|
Service Delivery |
schedule efficiency |
operator efficiency |
organizational efficiency |
|
|
|
|
Asset Management |
fleet management |
fleet maintenance effectiveness and
efficiency |
fleet cleanliness and appearance |
property maintenance effective-ness |
property cleanliness and appearance |
|
|
Safety Management and Enforcement |
safety |
security |
occupational health and safety |
|
|
|
|
Accessibility |
Quality Management |
elimination of barriers |
% of major stops called out |
|
|
|
|
Asset Management |
fleet maintenance
effectiveness, |
property maintenance
effectiveness |
|
|
|
|
|
Environmental
Efficiency |
Asset Management |
environmental management |
|
|
|
|
|
Economic Efficiency |
System Planning |
resource efficiency |
financial efficiency |
|
|
|
|
Asset Management |
fleet management |
fleet maintenance
efficiency |
property management
efficiency |
|
|
|
|
Safety Management and Enforcement |
fare evasion |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenue Management |
financial efficiency |
supply management |
|
|
|
|
Consultation/public notification was not
required as part of this scope of the Strategic Branch Review process.
As indicated in the section Financial Overview of Branch Services, policy-level standards can be implemented at the current level of funding. As a result, there are no financial implications arising from this report.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
Document 1 Performance
Measurements Strategy
Following the adoption of this report, the Transit Services Branch will prepare a report to be presented to the Transit Committee and Council in Fall 2008 that will discuss options featuring different values for the policy-level standards presented in this report, along with the cost implications. Council will thus have an opportunity to provide directions toward one of the options.
PERFORMANCE
MEASUREMENTS STRATEGY DOCUMENT
1
As part of the Strategic Branch Review process, Table 15 summarizes the performance measurement strategy of the Transit Services Branch. The table shows how performance will be measured: the type of data that is collected, how, where from and by whom it is collected.
Table 15 – Performance Measurement Strategy for Policy-Level Performance Measures
|
Performance Measure |
Data Required (Sources) |
Data Collection Method |
Responsibility |
Recurrence |
|
Area coverage (reach) |
Land use, population
information and transit route configurations |
Import and processing of
electronic information into a common GIS database application |
Research and Forecasting,
Planning Branch; Service Design, Transit Services |
Every 5 years or as
warranted by major changes |
|
Ridership |
Passenger counts |
Electronic collection and
processing using specialized software applications |
Service Design and
Paratransit Units, Transit Services |
On-going |
|
Occupancy |
Vehicle capacities and
assignment to schedule runs, vehicle service kilometrage and passenger counts |
Electronic collection and
processing using transit service scheduling and automated passenger count
specialized software applications |
Conventional Transit
Operations and Service Design Units, Transit Services |
To be initiated for
measurement quarterly |
|
Service availability |
Fleet count and
roadworthiness status, vehicle assignments to schedule runs |
Manual and electronic
collection of fleet information and vehicle assignments |
Fleet and Transit
Operations, Transit Services |
AM and PM peak periods |
|
Reliability (on-time
performance) |
Schedule run
characteristics and actual vehicle movements |
Electronic collection and
processing using specialized software applications |
Conventional Transit
Operations and Service Design Units, Transit Services |
Quarterly |
|
Customer satisfaction |
Survey results |
Survey questionnaire |
Performance Management
Unit, Transit Services |
Every year |
|
Safety and Security |
Number and nature of
incidents |
Processing of incident
records (Safety Management System to identify needs and opportunities) |
Transit Support Unit,
Transit Services |
On-going |
|
Accessibility |
Number, nature and location
of barriers |
Internal Accessibility
Audit to identify needs and opportunities |
Transit Services |
Internal Accessibility
Audit to help determine |
|
GHG emissions |
Vehicle types and emission
characteristics, vehicle total kilometrage and passenger counts |
Electronic collection and
processing using fleet information and automated passenger count specialized
software applications |
Fleet and Service Design,
Transit Services |
Every year |
|
Revenue-cost ratio |
Entries in cost and revenue
accounts |
Financial analysis of cost
and revenue accounts |
Financial Services Unit |
Monthly |