|
1. COSTS FOR DIFFERENT
TRANSPORTATION MODES COÛTS
DE DIVERS MOYENS DE TRANSPORT |
That Council approve 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 Conseil
approuve que le budget
de 2011 comprenne des renseignements concernant l’immobilisation et
l’exploitation d’un seul vehicule, des autobus express, des circuits ruraux et
suburbains, des services de transport en commun a l’interieur de la ceinture de
verdure, des deplacements a pied et en velo et que ces renseignements soient
utilises pour calculer et comparer les repercussions de la prestation de ces
divers services sur le taux d’imposition.
Documentation
1. Transportation Committee report dated 1
February 2010 (ACS2010-CCS-TRC-0006).
2. Extract of Draft Minute, 7 April 2010
immediately follows the report.
Report to / Rapport au:
Transportation Committee
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.
DISCUSSION
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.
CONSULTATION
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
Cyclist: $0.24
Pedestrian: $0.10
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.
RURAL
IMPLICATIONS
N/A
LEGAL/RISK
MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS
There are no legal/risk management impediments to the implementation of this Report’s recommendation.
FINANCIAL
IMPLICATIONS
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.
SUPPORTING
DOCUMENTATION
Document 1 Extract of Special Ottawa City Council
Minute, 25-28 January 2010
The recommendation of the Transportation Committee will be forwarded to Council.
MINUTES
82
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.
REFERRAL CARRIED
COSTS FOR
DIFFERENT TRANSPORTATION
MODES
COÛTS DE DIVERS MOYENS DE TRANSPORT
ACS2010-CCS-TRC-0006 City Wide / À L'échelle De La Ville
The Committee received a written
submission dated 6 April from K. Beltzner, a copy of which is held on file.
Councillor Desroches asked what
staff’s interpretation of the Motion was, especially given the fact that the
information being requested would be used to calculate the differential impact
on the tax rate of the provision of services listed in the Motion. Vivi Chi, Manager, Transportation Planning
understood it to be to look at the dollar investment in infrastructure for the
different transportation modes (capital and operating). She estimated it would take about six to
eight months and there would be a requirement for experts to help us with the
analysis. If an update is done as a
result of the Motion, staff hope to coincide it with the next
Origin-Destination Survey data, which is planned for 2011. She was not sure if it can be completed in
time for the 2011 budget process. Councillor
Desroches felt the direction this Motion is to favour one mode of
transportation over another, which may not realistically respond to the needs
of the city from a transportation perspective given the geography of Ottawa.
Councillor Wilkinson was concerned
about the amount of time and effort that this Motion would require, if
approved, and did not think it would provide more information and will take
money away from doing something else. She
referred to see staff and financial resources put into the Pedestrian and
Cycling Plans which have already been approved.
If approved, Councillor Bloess asked
what the end result of the Motion would be and Ms. Chi advised that such
an exercise would give staff updated numbers; it would not do anything more in
terms of the recommendations staff make to Committee and Council because staff
would continue to follow with the Transportation Master Plan and the Pedestrian
and Cycling plans. In terms of the efficiency
targets for the department, she explained that this would change the existing
priorities within the Department.
Councillor Legendre was supportive
of the philosophy behind the Motion and the information staff currently have
provided in the report with respect to costs does not change a lot from year to year. Ms. Chi agreed, adding that it depends on how
much is spent each year on capital dollars.
She suspected that in the next round of updates the values for cycling
and pedestrian/sidewalks would increase because the City is investing more
money. The councilor felt obtaining this
information could be easily done and Ms. Abouhenidy Program Manager,
Transportation Strategic Planning explained that those numbers were based on a
complex model, which included, besides operating and capital costs, societal
costs such as air pollution; accidents, et cetera so the whole model would need
to be updated. The councilor believed
that many of those things do not change and that what does change is the City’s
input into them. He did not believe this
required a lot of time and effort to work out those figures. Ms. Abouhenidy further explained that they
could plug in the new information; however, there has been more advancement in
the total cost calculation that if staff were to do the proper update for that study,
they would have to update and look at the values they have attributed to some
of those societal costs based on new updated information.
Councillor Leadman noted that
there was a study done in 2002 for a purpose and she asked what the purpose of
that study. Ms. Chi explained it was
done to confirm the policies in place; that the mode/split targets are in the
right direction and that due to societal costs, the City should be investing in
these other modes such as walking, cycling and transit. That is the currently policy today and
visiting these numbers now would not change the policies and directions Council
has already approved in the TMP.
Councillor Doucet indicated that from
the discussion held today, the understanding is that there is no new
information available that would change how Council is doing. He made note of the fact that other countries
have found that the over-dependency on roads has lead to higher transportation
costs, degradation of infrastructure, deterioration of the environment, et
cetera. He remarked that half the City’s
budget goes into the transportation sector and he was surprised that many
Committee members were not supportive of looking for more information that
might help the City move differently. He
did not believe the City could ever balance its’ budget or ever reduce taxes as
long as it is growing it in a way that has diseconomies of scale. He believed therefore that if the City wants
to plan its’ budget, there is a need to have intelligent, up-to-date, complex
reference data to refer to and this is not currently available. If we want to plan our city to balance our
budget and to spend less money it has to be grown in a way where it is getting economies
of scale. He believed this Motion, if
approved, would provide a study that illustrates what the advantages are of
investing in modes that have economies of scale.
Moved by C. Doucet
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.
CARRIED
YEAS (4): G. Bédard, J.
Legendre, C. Doucet, M. McRae
NAYS (3): R. Bloess, M. Wilkinson, S. Desroches