|
1. TRANSIT SERVICES TECHNOLOGY ROADMAP FEUILLE DE ROUTE TECHNOLOGIQUE DES
SERVICES DE TRANSPORT EN COMMUN |
That Council approve the Transit Services
Technology Roadmap attached as Document 1.
Que le Conseil approuve la feuille de route technologique des services
de transport en commun jointe en tant que document 1.
Documentation
1. Deputy City Manager’s report dated 21 June 2010 (ACS2010-COS-ITS-0011)
2. Extract of Draft Minutes 47, Transit Committee meeting of 12 July 2010
Information
Technology Sub-committe /
Sous-comité de la technologie de l’information
Transit Services Committee / Comité du transport en commun
and Council /et au
Conseil
21 June 2010 / le 21 juin 2010
Submitted by/Soumis par:
Steve Kanellakos,
Deputy City Manager/Directeur municipal adjoint,
City
Operations/Opérations municipales
Contact Person/Personne ressource : David B. Johnston, Manager, Business
Technology Architecture/Gestionnaire architecture techno des entreprises
Information Technology Services/Services de technologie de l'information
(613) 580-2424 x21375, david.johnston@ottawa.ca
|
Ref N°: ACS2010-COS-ITS-0011 |
SUBJECT:
|
|
|
|
|
OBJET :
|
FEUILLE DE ROUTE TECHNOLOGIQUE DES
SERVICES DE TRANSPORT EN COMMUN |
That the Information Technology Sub-Committee recommend that the Transit Services Committee recommend Council approve the Transit Services Technology Roadmap attached as Document 1
Que le Sous-comité de la technologie de l’information recommande que le
Comité des services de transport en commun (STC) recommande au Conseil
d’approuver la feuille de route technologique des services de transport en
commun jointe en tant que document 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Transit Services is a critical City service,
ensuring the efficient and timely movement of Ottawa citizen’s to where they
live, work, shop and play. As
highlighted in the Transportation Master Plan, public transit supports the
social, environmental and economic sustainability of our City.
Information and Technology is a key enabler
of Transit’s mission and business priorities. The Technology Roadmap represents
the plan that will be used to deploy technology by the Service over the next
five (5) years.
Analysis of the current technology
environment and plans has identified opportunities, strengths, weaknesses and
gaps in terms of alignment with business requirements. The Technology Roadmap
addresses these issues and identifies the timing and sequencing of specific
investments to meet Transit’s business needs.
The Roadmap not only aligns Transit technology
priorities with key corporate initiatives including the Service Excellence Plan
and the City Strategic Plan, but importantly to Transit’s key business
priorities.
The Roadmap identifies technology
“platforms”, based on a Transit industry, standards-based framework, including:
·
Customer Service
Systems:
Provision of information to Transit customers and addressing customer service
needs;
·
On-Board
Systems:
Provision of information on vehicle and passenger location and status;
·
Vehicle
Maintenance Systems: Provision of information that maximizes vehicle
availability and reduces operating costs;
·
Operations and
Control Centre Systems: Dispatching and Transit operations;
·
Security
Systems:
Protecting Transit customers, employees, assets, and facilitating
investigations;
·
Service
Planning, Design, Scheduling and Performance Systems: Provision of
information for service and route planning and scheduling, capacity planning,
performance measurement and analysis; and
·
Business Support
Systems: Provision
of financial, human resource information, information/records management,
communications, office productivity and collaboration tools
The Transit Technology Roadmap represents a
conscious and significant shift from in-house developed and supported
technology, to Transit-specific solutions that are represented by a standards
based “best of breed”, vendor-supported approach.
The Transit Technology Roadmap is a living
document. Each year, progress against the plan will be reviewed with the IT Sub-Committee,
and a new 5-year plan produced to reflect changing business priorities,
technology, or fiscal constraints. Annual budget submissions to Council will
always reflect the Roadmap priorities.
The cost to implement and support the
technology identified in the Transit Roadmap 2010-2014 is projected to be $58.9M
over 5 years, with that investment bringing substantial benefit in terms of
improved reliability and operational performance, increased ridership and
revenues, employee engagement, and efficiency and productivity savings.
RÉSUMÉ
Les services de
transport en commun sont un service municipal essentiel qui assure le transport
efficace et ponctuel des citoyens d’Ottawa où ils vivent, travaillent, font
leurs courses et se livrent à des activités de loisirs. Comme l’énonce le Plan
directeur des transports, le transport en commun soutient la viabilité sociale,
environnementale et économique de notre ville.
Les Services de l’information
et de la technologie sont des éléments habilitants essentiels à la mission des
STC et de leurs priorités fonctionnelles. La feuille de route représente le
plan qui servira au déploiement de la technologie par les STC d’ici les cinq
(5) prochaines années.
L’analyse de
l’environnement et des plans technologiques actuels a permis de déterminer les
bonnes occasions, les points forts ainsi que les points faibles et les lacunes
en ce qui a trait à la correspondance avec les besoins fonctionnels. La feuille
de route tient compte de ces enjeux et détermine l’ordonnancement des
investissements nécessaires à la satisfaction des besoins fonctionnels des STC.
La feuille de route
non seulement met en correspondance les priorités technologiques des STC et les
initiatives fonctionnelles clés de la Ville, notamment le Plan d’excellence du
service et le Plan stratégique de la Ville, mais aussi l’importance des
priorités fonctionnelles des STC.
La feuille de route
intègre les « plateformes » technologiques dont il est question ici
dans un contexte industriel de transport en commun fondé sur des normes,
soit :
·
Systèmes de service à la clientèle : Fournir de l’information aux clients des STC et
répondre aux besoins du service à la clientèle;
·
Systèmes à bord : Fournir de l’information sur l’endroit où se trouvent les véhicules et
les voyageurs ainsi que la situation;
·
Systèmes d’entretien des véhicules : Fournir de l’information permettant d’optimiser la
disponibilité des véhicules et de réduire les coûts d’exploitation;
·
Systèmes du Centre d’opération et de contrôle : Assurer la répartition et les opérations du transport
en commun;
·
Systèmes de sécurité : Assurer la protection des clients, des employés et du
parc de véhicules des STC et faciliter les enquêtes;
·
Systèmes de planification, de conception, d’établissement
des horaires et de rendement des services : Fournir de l’information sur les services et la
planification ainsi que les horaires de parcours, la planification de la
capacité, la mesure et l’analyse du rendement;
·
Systèmes de soutien fonctionnel : Fournir de l’information sur les ressources
financières et humaines, gérer l’information et les dossiers, la productivité
des services administratifs et les outils de collaboration.
La feuille de route
de la technologie des STC incarne un changement réfléchi et important d’une
technologie élaborée et exploitée à l’interne vers des solutions représentées
par une approche fondée sur le système de normes le plus performant soutenu par
un fournisseur.
La feuille de route
technologique des Services de transport en commun est un document vivant.
Chaque année, les progrès réalisés par rapport au plan seront examinés par le
Sous-comité de la TI, et un nouveau plan quinquennal sera produit tenant compte
de l’évolution des priorités opérationnelles, de la technologie et des
contraintes budgétaires. Les présentations budgétaires annuelles au Conseil
tiendront toujours compte des priorités de la feuille de route.
On prévoit que le
coût de mise en œuvre et de soutien de la technologie dont la feuille de route
2010-2014 fait état seront de 58.9 M$ sur 5 ans, cet investissement
devant engendrer des avantages substantiels en termes de fiabilité et de
rendement opérationnel accrus, d’augmentation de l’achalandage et des recettes,
de participation des employés et rendement de la productivité.
Technology is one of the critical enablers to create a client-centric organization. The Mayor’s Task Force on eGovernment highlighted the need for an information technology investment model that is focused on strategic priorities and provides the returns necessary to meet Council’s objectives.
Transit Services is one of the City’s most important services, ensuring the efficient and timely movement of Ottawa citizen’s to where they live, work, shop and play. As highlighted in the Transportation Master Plan, public transit supports the social, environmental and economic sustainability of our City.
Information Technology has always been an integral element of an effective Transit Service, and going forward, is becoming increasingly important for all facets of the Transit business.
During the summer of 2009, Transit Services and IT Services (ITS) identified the need to:
· Review all Transit IT investments to confirm their alignment with their business direction and priorities, and to position them within the broader technology plan for the City;
· Improve operational processes and effectiveness of technology project management and IT support.
Following Council’s decision to deploy the Next Stop Announcement system in October 2009, the Deputy City Manager, Infrastructure & Community Sustainability, requested that the review be advanced in order to guide Transit Committee and Council on future technology decisions and to enable the Service to more readily leverage future technology developments.
ITS and Transit Services have worked closely over the past several months to ensure that current and planned technology investments align with Transit business priorities, and to ensure that they provide a solid foundation for the future.
This report describes the results of the review and specific actions that have been taken based on the findings.
More importantly, the report presents the Transit Services Technology Roadmap (Document 1) which provides Council with a plan that shows how technology will be deployed in Transit Services over the coming 5 years, the benefits that can be expected, and how all the components fit together.
DISCUSSION
Findings and Opportunities for
Improvement
The comprehensive review and analysis of Transit IT projects resulted in:
Transit Services Business
Priorities
Transit Services align their major business activities on seven priorities:
All activities that require an IT focus align with one or more of these seven priorities.
Secondly, proposed IT investment decisions are made with due regard to the principles of the City’s Fiscal Framework, such as ensuring value, measurable outcomes, and maintaining/replacing technology assets using models of best economy.
Standards Based Framework
The current portfolio of applications and systems that support Transit planning and operations has evolved over time based on the needs of the Service and Council’s priorities. Through a combination of purchased systems and in-house applications that are integrated and supported by ITS, Transit’s needs have generally been met.
However, the evolution of technology for Transit Services has not kept pace with the Transit industry, which is quickly developing “industry standard platforms” against which the technology needs of Transit organizations can be built. These include”
This approach offers significant advantages over the current model of ‘in-house” supported systems and addresses many of the current challenges, including:
Ensuring
Technology Reliability
Many of the systems that are critical to Transit operations depend on City-supported infrastructure, including voice and data networks (including wireless and cellular), servers and computers (including mobile devices). Several outages in the past 12 months have negatively affected Transit operations and customer services.
Ensuring systems and critical technology are architected to meet high availability (HA) requirements is key to Transit reliability and customer satisfaction.
Transit Services Technology
Roadmap
The Transit Technology Roadmap (Document 1) describes in detail the technology plan for Transit Services for the next five (5) years, including the strategies, components, and overall high level architecture of the technology platforms and priority initiatives.
Budgetary estimates reflect fully loaded costs to implement and support the Transit Technology Roadmap. Projects currently in progress or planned for 2010 have been similarly costed and the anticipated benefits described in detail for each initiative. Where benefits are quantifiable, the projected payback and return-on-investment is indicated.
IT Program/Project
Management, Governance and Support
The review of Transit IT projects concluded that current program/project management practices have proven inadequate for many of the large, integrated technology initiatives described in the Roadmap, and ITS and Transit are actively working on strengthening oversight, decision-making, and day-to-day project management.
In conjunction with regular status reporting to the IT Sub-Committee, IT governance has improved significantly.
There are no specific rural implications associated with this report.
Staff have worked closely with the Transit Services department in the development of this information report, and consulted with Mr. Rob Collins, Chief Technology Advisor.
LEGAL/RISK MANAGEMENT
IMPLICATIONS
Subject to the following condition, there are no legal/risk
management impediments to implementing the recommendation in this Report.
The budget for the various projects in the roadmap will be approved in due
course by Council. Given the estimated cost of the individual projects
within the roadmap, it will be important to ensure that appropriate competitive
processes, together with the City’s Purchasing By-Law, are followed in order to
reduce the likelihood of any successful challenges to the various procurement
processes. The City Clerk and Solicitor Department, together with Supply
Management, should be consulted in the event that there are any issues that
arise during any stage of the procurement processes.
This information report has no additional Technology implications other than those described in the report.
The investments proposed in the Transit
Technology Roadmap total $30.2M in 2010, and are projected to cost $58.9M over
5 years.
Annualized savings resulting from these investments have previously been identified as Transit Services efficiency targets.
As a consequence of the review and analysis, Transit Services will re-profile its Capital program in its “10 Year Tactical Plan” later this year which will reset the envelope for Budget 2011 and beyond. This document is a detailed operating and capital plan and is required by Transit Committee and Council prior to Budget. For 2010, the Operating and Capital Budget Q2 report will bring forth recommendations to align existing budgets, previously approved by Council within the proposed Roadmap structure.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
Document 1 - Transit Services Technology Roadmap (Issued separately to all members of Council and held on file with the City Clerk)
Document 2 - Extract of Draft Minutes, IT Sub-Committee meeting of 21 June 2010
The Transit Services and IT Services Departments will action any direction received as part of consideration of this report.
DOCUMENT 2
|
information technology sub-committee EXTRACT OF DRAFT Minutes 8 21 JUNE 2010 |
|
sous-Comité de la
technologie de l’information EXTRAITE DE L’ÉBAUCHE DU Procès-verbal 8 le 21 JUIN 2010 |
TRANSIT SERVICES TECHNOLOGY ROADMAP
FEUILLE DE ROUTE
TECHNOLOGIQUE DES SERVICES DE TRANSPORT EN COMMUN
ACS2010-COS-ITS-0011
David Johnston, Manager, Business Technology Architecture provided a PowerPoint presentation, a copy of which is held on file. He was accompanied by Steve Nicolaiff, Technology Architect and Alain Mercier, General Manager, Transit Services. His presentation provided an overview of the entire Transit technology picture, identifying relationships, timelines and duration of planned improvements for each of the eight identified platforms. He noted the next steps are to: re-profile Transit’s Capital program in the “10 Year Tactical Plan”; reset the envelope for Budget 2011 and beyond; align existing budgets previously approved by Council within the proposed Roadmap structure; and implement new governance processes to maintain and update the Roadmap. Mr. Johnston requested the sub-committee’s feedback.
Vice-Chair Desroches suggested this exercise is about putting IT and OC Transpo matters in order, and that it stems from discomfort that some Members of Council had with the roll-out of the automated call system and the problems that ensued. He said it would help rationalize what the City needs from an IT perspective and OC Transpo, and would facilitate working in an open and transparent way to make those decisions and acquisitions. Mr. Mercier agreed, remarking that it allows both OC Transpo and Council the chance to demystify matters, i.e. to clearly define goals and strategies to achieve them and provide a transparent tool for evaluation and consideration of the process. He added that the Roadmap gives both Transit and Members of Council some understanding of how to make the move from the current situation to the desired outcome in a world where the market for transit products, in terms of IT solutions for transit activities, has evolved tremendously. He said this would equate to a significant risk reduction for the City because City staff could leverage solutions that have been hardened and developed by hundreds of other transit systems in North America.
Vice-Chair Desroches questioned how confident staff are that they can adhere to at least the fundamentals of plans agreed to for any future technology, given that technology will continue to evolve and may do so over the life of a contract, as happened in the past. Mr. Mercier replied that from a Transit delivery perspective, staff has to clearly define customer service objectives so that once a direction is set the execution phase must be considered from a longer term view. He noted the transit industry is huge and invests billions of dollars in technology, and staff’s goal is to leverage that existing knowledge and look for best practices to pursue. Vice-Chair Desroches stressed the importance of adhering to approved plans and budgets and not being swayed to add minor improvements as technology evolves.
The Councillor noted the report identifies a ballpark budget for the coming years and the anticipated payback time, and he questioned the City’s ability to prioritize that within the Roadmap. For example, he suggested that priorities should be security and improvements to customer service, but he noted staff might see other issues as priority. Mr. Mercier responded that from an internal Transit perspective, the plan includes the ability to move ahead with many things at once. He noted it has been a joint exercise between IT Services and Transit Services, and although there are some things Transit would prefer to move ahead with first, IT has indicated that is not possible due to infrastructure needs, which has been reflected in the Roadmap.
Vice-Chair Desroches pointed out that the Roadmap lays out a five-year investment plan of more than $58 M, of which $27 M is intended to be spent in 2010. He thought it might be a bit ambitious to try to launch that much in one year and he questioned when the discussion would occur about the feasibility of implementation of the plan as presented. Mr. Johnston replied that the bulk of investment falls into three areas: Next Stop Announcement (NSA), Smartcard fare payment, and preparing the platform on the bus to support NSA. The plan defines those as priorities. Recognizing that, he said, the other initiatives indicated by Transit Services in past as desired investments will be moved off in queue. He noted some further functional reviews and analyses in key platforms would be conducted so the plan could be refined as it moves forward. He added there are always opportunities to prioritize but the impact of prioritization in those three areas is something that would have to be considered in light of agreements in place with the Province. He suggested that reprioritization could occur on an annual basis, either by way of recommendations during the budget process or through the IT-Subcommittee, Transit Committee and Council.
The Vice-Chair expressed support for the plan and weeding out unneeded systems, noting it is all subject to debate at Council. Noting that one of the Sub-committee’s objectives is to improve transparency and dialogue with suppliers to make them aware of the City’s IT goals and help them prepare for procurement processes, he asked whether staff agree that the Roadmap would fit in with that objective. Mr. Johnston concurred.
Councillor El-Chantiry remarked that technology requirements have historically taken a back seat in terms of previous City budgets and he inquired whether staff have prepared a business case and presentation plan to bring to Council in advance of the budget process to garner support for the investments laid out in the Roadmap. Mr. Johnston commented that one of the reasons technology investments have not been well supported in the past is because Council has never had the opportunity to see the value of some of the technology investments and their return on investment, in various ways, to the Corporation. He thought that bringing that information forward would help in terms of budget decisions. He added it will also be helpful for Council as staff moves forward with expanding this technology roadmap concept into other departments, as Council will then be able to see the entire technology picture of the City.
In further response to the Councillor, Mr. Johnston said staff would appreciate the opportunity to work with IT Sub-committee members on developing a business case for Council.
Mr. Michaud cautioned that although there has been a great deal of discussion about return on investment for technology projects, the return cannot always be quantified in terms of money. He noted some projects offer value to residents and in some cases may be seen as an investment or an expense. He said staff’s goal is to provide all possible information, including both hard returns on investment and value to residents, so that Council can make informed decisions.
Councillor Chiarelli stated it will be hard to communicate to Council the value of some projects given that the City has been putting money into certain ones for more than a decade and is still not actually using them. Specifically he was referring to Smartcard technology, noting the City has been allocating funding to it since 1997. Furthermore, he said that what is planned for use in Ottawa is not really a smart card but rather is a ‘glorified plastic bus pass’, and other municipalities will quickly advance beyond Ottawa in that regard. He noted that Presto is starting to look at ways to expand the Presto card capacity so it can accommodate more than buses and he questioned whether, since the City has not started using any form of the Presto card yet, Ottawa could be used as a pilot site for a multi-use card.
Mr. Mercier responded, noting he is a member of the Executive Committee of Presto, that there are two main areas under consideration by Presto– one is the expanded use of the card through other services, and the second is the Open Fare Payment model. Expanded use is currently in a deployment phase and takes precedence.
When asked about the areas of deployment, Mr. Mercier responded that out of the 11 jurisdictions, there are four where it has been deployed (Oakville, parts of the Toronto Transit Commission, GoTransit, Brampton and two other cities are coming online). Ottawa is in the second phase of development; its pass products are different and not being applied necessarily in other cities of the GTA. He explained the Open Fare Payment model, which could be used for any application and could utilize various forms of payment, including credit card, would not be implemented for three to four years. He noted it is currently being tested in New York City and similar areas. He added that Smartcards in the Presto system will evolve over the next four to five years, which he said is a normal evolution of this kind of technology, and that smart phones would likely be the final stage of evolution five to ten years from now.
In response to Councillor Chiarelli’s question, Mr. Mercier said he could inquire if Presto would be willing to use Ottawa in the pilot for the multi-use card, if given direction to do so.
Councillor Chiarelli conjectured that the Provincial government has to request that it expand or at least provide money for it to do so. Mr. Mercier replied that the governance structure is such that the member organizations participate in the development of expanded scope and brings money forward to support recommendations. If government support and funding for that development were desired, a separate application to the provincial government to top up or assist with investment would be required.
The Councillor questioned the level at which the Presto card functions, suggesting it is not really a smart card because it only stores an individual’s identification number and must then link to the sites that actually have the personal information. Mr. Mercier asserted that the card is intelligent and interactive but he offered to get back to Councillor Chiarelli with the level of detail that he requested.
Chair Wilkinson noted that staff would be bringing back a more detailed report on this subject before the end of the year and she felt that might be the appropriate time to deal with Councillor Chiarelli’s suggestion. Mr. Michaud agreed, cautioning that taking the leading role on something does not always work out for the best; however, he felt the matter could be investigated further in the meantime.
Chair Wilkinson, on behalf of the Sub-committee, directed that Mr. Mercier have discussions with Presto during his meetings with them on how Ottawa could be used as one of the first municipalities to test the multi-use card and that he report back to the Sub-committee. Mr. Mercier agreed.
In response to Chair Wilkinson’s questions about budget, Mr. Mercier provided the following clarifications:
· He has met with Finance staff on the second quarter report that will go to Transit Committee; the goal will be to present the current state of all IT related projects for OC Transpo compressed into the new workplan, as presented here, and to provide the alignment of capital budgets from previous to current. Staff will present recommendations at that time as to whether to merge, align, or cancel certain projects.
· In principle, a project does not commence if there are elements of it that have not yet received budget approval. There are new items within the roadmap on the maintenance side that are unbudgeted that will require recommendation to the Transit Committee in terms of whether to cancel other work to prioritize where there is short-term efficiency savings.
· In terms of budget planning and taxation, Mr. Mercier suggested those decisions would be best left to discussion during the 2011 budget debate and beyond.
Mr. Johnston further clarified that the projects identified in the roadmap indicate the fully loaded project costs as staff estimates them, and are shown as close to the year that staff anticipates the money would be expended. He added there will likely be some amount of work carried over to a subsequent year, as frequently happens. Furthermore, he stated that the ten-year tactical plan update and summary profiling of capital projects that Mr. Mercier referred to will help ensure, to the extent that is possible, the capital account and the funding authority is matched to the expenditure plan.
Chair Wilkinson pointed out that this roadmap was not available at the time of the IT Vendor Information Session in February and she asked Mr. Michaud to consider whether another should be planned again soon to provide this update on IT Transit issues. Mr. Michaud indicated the next session is planned for early winter and will demonstrate progress to date and he added if there are components that can be addressed to a very wide audience they will be included at that time. He noted that some of this technology is very specialized to the transit industry and it may require a more focused information session. The Chair agreed that some of the companies in the Ottawa area might not be prime contenders, but she pointed out they might be a component of a number of different companies coming together, which is often the case. She asked Mr. Michaud to consider how to make local vendors aware of this information in order to uphold the City’s commitment to keep them informed.
The committee received the report, noted the following direction to staff and approved the report recommendation, as follows.
Direction to Staff
That Mr. Mercier have discussions with Presto on how
Ottawa could be used as one of the first municipalities to test the multi-use
card and that he report back to the IT Sub-committee.
That the
Information Technology Sub-Committee recommend that the Transit Services
Committee recommend that Council approve the Transit Services Technology
Roadmap attached as Document 1.
CARRIED
TRANSIT SERVICES TECHNOLOGY ROADMAP
FEUILLE DE ROUTE TECHNOLOGIQUE DES SERVICES DE
TRANSPORT EN COMMUN
ACS2010-COS-ITS-0011 CITY WIDE/À L'ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE
Mr. David Johnston, Manager of Business
Technology Architecture, spoke from a PowerPoint presentation, which served to
provide Committee with an overview of the report. A copy of his presentation is held on file
with the City Clerk.
Councillor Wilkinson referenced the financial
return on the investment relative to maintenance, noting it had a 1-year return
but was being funded over three years.
She inquired about accelerating this project. Mr. Alain Mercier, General Manager of Transit
Services, explained the first phase pertained to the asset works software
suite, which allowed the Service to pre-plan its maintenance. He indicated this investment would give
maximum benefit because it would increase productivity upfront. He added that downstream, the department
wanted to introduce technologies on the shop floor to assist mechanics in doing
their work. However, he maintained the
Service first had to get the core system right.
Responding to a question from Councillor
Wilkinson with respect to the re-alignment of budgets, Mr. Mercier indicated
staff’s plan was to bring forward a report at the next meeting of Transit
Committee to reconcile all the currently approved capital budgets under these
projects, show which projects were grouped together and where money would be
moved to align with the current plan. He
did not believe there would be any requirement for additional funding in
2010.
Councillor Bloess recognized that there would
be a re-alignment of the budget.
However, he wondered what it would mean in the end in terms of dollars
and whether the department would be asking for more money in 2011 than it otherwise
would have. Mr. Mercier re-iterated
staff’s plan to bring forward a report at the next Transit Committee meeting
and suggested that until then, it was premature to answer this question.
Responding to a question from the Councillor
about the IBI Group study referenced at slide 11, Mr. Johnston indicated this
referred to the study on the Smartcard.
In response to a question from the Councillor
with respect to the investment in scheduling, the return on this investment,
and how this tied into the Service’s current scheduling issues, Mr. Mercier
remarking that scheduling was one of the department’s core systems. He explained that the Service current
scheduled about 9,000 trips per day and when changes were made to this system,
other associated systems had to be updated manually. He explained that through the referenced
investment, the department would be able to start eliminating some of those
other systems.
Councillor Bloess wondered why, in some
cases, the return on investment was so obvious whereas for others it was less
so. Mr. Johnston submitted one of the
difficulties in presenting some of this information in report form was that,
because of the inter-relationships and inter-dependencies between projects, it
was sometimes difficult to look at individual projects and assess their
return. With respect to the investment
in scheduling, he believed there had not been much spent on the existing system
in a number of years. Therefore, there
was some catch-up needed. Further, he
reminded Committee that there was still some planning work to be done in each
of the platform areas identified in the report, particular around Business
Intelligence and Scheduling. Finally, he
advised that staff tended to be conservative in terms of estimating the business
benefits and trying to quantify those business benefits.
Councillor Bloess referenced the smartcard
and what other jurisdictions were doing.
He wondered if two separate systems were being brought in, whether the
City of Ottawa was still on track or if it should be changing course, and
whether the City of Ottawa was being left behind when compared to other
cities. Mr. Mercier indicated the Presto
card deployment had the capacity to add other value-added features, such as
adding other municipal services. He
noted these were not deployed in the first round of putting out the Presto
system, but if the City wanted to add parking or libraries, the City could come
forth and express this and there would be a cost associated with it. He advised that the Toronto Transit
Commission was looking at an open payment card system, which meant passengers
could board a bus and pay directly with their Visa card. He informed Committee that the Presto system
being implemented and the hardware procured to go on board the buses was
configured so that other kinds of cards could be read. Therefore, if there was a business case for
staff to propose to accept other payment options in the future, the department
would bring this forward to Committee and Council so there could be a
discussion as to whether or not there was value to it.
Councillor Bloess believed other transit
services were already moving in this direction.
Mr. Mercier explained that there were a lot of good studies on this
subject and a number of trials going on in terms of preliminary feasibility
tests. He submitted there were
advantages and disadvantages to it and the jury would likely be out for a long
time on whether bank cards added value in a transit environment because it was
a very limited scope product and would not provide the capability to have
transit incentive type payments or pricing.
Councillor Bloess referenced previous meeting
minutes, at which Councillor Chiarelli had raised concerns about opening this
up to other departments. He requested an
update on this. Mr. Johnston explained
that in responding to Councillor Chiarelli’s inquiry, staff had committed to
reporting back to the IT Sub-committee by the end of the year with a go-forward
strategy as to how the corporation could be brought together under one umbrella
or not. In preparing for this, staff had
talked about what the various services were doing and continue to do this with
a goal to see how the City could leverage what Transit was doing. He noted that library and parking services
were undergoing their own technology changes.
He re-iterated staff’s commitment to report back to the IT Sub-committee
with a go-forward plan.
Councillor Bloess stated that he viewed the
IT department and the IT Sub-committee as having oversight responsibilities in
this area in terms of pulling this together and ensuring the different
departments were not going off and doing their own thing.
In closing, Mr. Mercier reminded Committee
that in late 2008, there was a technical briefing prepared for Council, which
was attended by other departments. He
believed that, when looking at the deployment schedule for the smartcard
system, one of the issues for other departments related to where this fit into
the timing of their systems’ lifecycle.
He also recalled that there was sense of wanting to let Transit get off
the ground first and see how it worked out before moving forward with other
departments.
That the Transit Committee recommend Council approve
the Transit Services Technology Roadmap attached as Document 1.
CARRIED