|
1. TRANSIT SERVICES ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2009 RAPPORT ANNUEL SUR LE RENDEMENT DES
SERVICES DE TRANSPORT EN COMMUN 2009 |
That Council receive this report for
information.
Que le Conseil municipale prenne connaissance du présent rapport.
Documentation
1. Deputy City Manager, Infrastructure Services and Community Sustainability’s report dated 8 June 2010 (ACS2010-ICS-TRA-0007)
2. Extract
of Draft Minutes 46, Transit Committee meeting of 16 June 2010
and Council / et au
Conseil
08 June 2010 / le 08 juin 2010
Submitted by/Soumis par : Nancy Schepers, Deputy City Manager/Directrice
municipale adjointe, Infrastructure Services and Community
Sustainability/Services d 'infrastructure et Viabilité des collectivités
Contact Person/Personne ressource : Vincent Patterson, Manager, Performance
and Quality Management/Gestionnaire, Rendement et qualité,
Transit Services/Services de transport en commun
(613) 842-3636 ext. 3672,
vincent.patterson@ottawa.ca
SUBJECT:
|
|
|
|
|
OBJET :
|
RAPPORT
ANNUEL SUR LE RENDEMENT DES SERVICES DE TRANSPORT EN COMMUN 2009 |
That the Transit Committee and Council receive this report for information.
Que le Comité du transport en
commun et le Conseil municipal prennent connaissance du présent rapport.
The Annual Performance Report has been prepared by
Transit Services as both a snapshot and a scorecard of how transit services
were planned, operated and managed in 2009. This is the third edition of an
annual occurrence, which serves to monitor and assess how transit services are
evolving from year to year.
Document 1 to this report presents the Annual Performance Report of the Transit Services Branch for 2009.
There are no specific rural implications.
Consultation/public notification was not required as part of the preparation of this document.
As this report is administrative in nature, no consultation with the Councillors was undertaken.
There are no legal/risk management impediments to the implementation of this Report's recommendation.
Integrate outcome-based performance measurements into a flexible and evolving service delivery model that respects triple bottom line approaches, to respond to community and environmental demands.
There are no financial implications related to this
document.
SUPPORTING
DOCUMENTATION
Document 1 - Transit
Services Annual Performance Report 2009 - English and French versions (Issued
separately to all members of Council and held on file with the City Clerk)
DISPOSITION
TRANSIT SERVICES ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2009
RAPPORT ANNUEL SUR LE RENDEMENT DES SERVICES DE TRANSPORT EN COMMUN 2009
ACS2010-ICS-TRA-0007 CITY WIDE/À
L'ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE
Mr. Alain Mercier, General Manager of Transit Services, spoke to a PowerPoint presentation, which served to provide Committee with a detailed overview of the report. A copy of his presentation is held on file with the City Clerk.
Responding to a question from Councillor Wilkinson with respect to the revenue-cost ratios presented in the report, Mr. Mercier indicated the tradition has been to use a formula that is an industry-wide standard. He explained that the revenue-cost ratio presented in the current report was based on the Canadian Urban Transit and the American Public Transit Association format, which would exclude depreciation or pay-as-you-go elements.
Councillor Legendre referenced the on-time performance and drivers’ tendency to minimize lateness, which sometimes results in being early. He wondered how this could be addressed. Mr. Mercier reminded Committee that the Service had changed its standards so that being two minutes early was acceptable. He indicated they had also made changes to the information given to drivers. He advised that unfortunately, their screen displays told them when they were early and late and they focused on a numerical number. He reported that the Service was going through some changes, which would be introduced to drivers’ screens as part of the smart bus programs. He submitted that when the Service asked a driver to be on time at zero minutes, they were being measured at such a level of precision that even a red light could influence them coming in early at a stop. He maintained that drivers had been given a very hard challenge and the Service had not yet helped them through some of the technology changes.
Councillor Legendre talked about the results referenced on slide 25, with respect to calling out stops. He recognized that drivers were doing better, however he believed that in some cases, they were doing it reluctantly. He maintained that they should speak up and not be shy. Mr. Mercier noted the organization had changed its focus over the past 25 years in terms the skills of driving a bus to the skills of serving customers. He referenced the data reported at slide 25 and submitted that it took tremendous effort to have this level of consistency, though he recognized it was not 100%.
Responding to a follow-up comment from the Councillor, Mr. Mercier explained there were some technical problems with some of the buses where the quality of the microphones and microphone assembly was not very good because they were never intended to be high demand usage. Secondly, he indicated there was one series of buses on which the Service had decided to replace the speakers because they were such poor quality that, even with the new automated announcement system, they would not be intelligible to the level needed. He advised that staff was learning through this process and these problems made it difficult for any operator to do a good job.
Councillor Legendre went to slide 29 and inquired as to the timing for the implementation of the Next Stop Announcement System. Mr. Mercier estimated that the system would be implemented around October. He explained that the voice management was quite a complex program to introduce and the department had spent more time making sure it had the right voice of Ottawa for transit. He noted the Service had also expanded the visual display, which would provide more visible information than originally anticipated.
Responding to a question from Councillor Bloess with respect to fare compliance, Mr. Mercier confirmed that the department had greatly reduced the number of verbal warnings. He indicated one of the changes made related to how the Service collected and managed information on what constituted a verbal warning. As an example, he explained that in the past, the department would interpret what it referred to as fare evasion (when someone would approach the bus to board, see a fare enforcement officer and turn away). These were eliminated from the data collected because this was making a supposition. Therefore, the department was becoming more disciplined in what it was reporting. He advised the Service was now using standards that were recognized across Canada so it could monitor its program against other agencies. As a result, there was a bit of difference between the measurement processes in 2008 and 2009. He submitted that if someone was in clear violation of the by-law, then enforcement was through a Provincial Offence Notice (PON) or a written warning. Further, he explained that there were protocols for the day of the month where the Service tried to be more direct in terms of a PONs and to allocate resources where the need was greatest. As a result, there had also been some revenue stimulation over the past year.
Councillor Bloess submitted that a good enforcement system should increase compliance through deterrence rather than coming down heavy. He asked for assurances that this was built into the protocols in place. Mr. Mercier responded affirmatively, adding that the Service had spent a lot of time ensuring it had very clear protocols and that these protocols were publicly stated. Further, he indicated there was a lot more rigour in how enforcement teams functioned, in order to treat people fairly. He maintained the goal was to collect revenue, not irritate customers.
Councillor Bloess referenced the SmartCard and asked whether other jurisdictions were moving on to other initiatives. Mr. Mercier stated that, in comparison with other cities, Presto would be a step above in many areas in terms of convenience for customers. He talked about some of the things happening in Montréal and Toronto and reported having significant discussions with the Presto team as to where Ottawa fit within this migration. He advised that this year, the cities introducing Presto were benefiting from the first generation of this technology. He indicated Ottawa was next and would be an evolution of the first version so it would have many more features available for its customers.
Responding to a question from Councillor Bloess with respect to GPS equipment and on-time performance, Mr. Mercier indicated all but a small portion of the fleet had GPS equipment and that Mr. Vincent Patterson, Manager of Performance and Quality Management, was hard at work with the scheduling team to take the actual performance of routes at the detailed level and recalibrate the Service’s schedules. Further, he advised that the department was acquiring a new module for a schedule system to actually take GPS data and update the scheduling system to be more responsive to congestion pattern changes, roadwork, etc.
Councillor Bédard asked if there was been any review of OC Transpo and/or STO services to see if enhanced services could be provided to people using King Edward Avenue to get to Hull. Mr. Mercier referenced the Interprovincial study that had been going on, noting some announcements would be coming out shortly on this. However, he advised that he and the head of the STO had committed to putting their planning departments together to see what could be done to use the capacity available; perhaps re-organize some of the available capacity to better suit the demand. He hoped that by the end of the year or yearly next year, there would be some solutions to the issue. He noted the next stage for STO was the Rapibus deployment, which would change route patterns.
Councillor Bédard wondered if the Service did any kind of review with respect to service availability and satisfaction with OC Transpo’s links with STO. Mr. Mercier admitted that with the operational changes made over the past year and the construction on King Edward, there had been a reduction in this kind of discourse. He referenced some of the things that had happened over the past year, submitting that the two parties had taken responsibility to address issues, which had reduced the amount of negative discourse in both jurisdictions. He noted that they had made improvements in terms of connectivity on the West side, though there was some demand for better services from the East. This was a current area of focus. This being said, he believed the improvements made over the past year had made transit more liveable for people in the downtown areas of both Ottawa and Gatineau and he assured Committee that staff would continue on this journey. He reported being extremely encouraged by the work going on with the two organizations, both of which were focused on improving transit’s impact on the downtowns cores.
Councillor Bédard reported being encouraged by the fact that, with the new Rapibus service, there would be a reduction in the number of STO buses coming into Ottawa’s downtown. He asked if staff had any figures on this. Mr. Mercier reported the preliminary indications were that the service model being contemplated would reduce the number of buses. He noted that currently, almost all STO buses going through the downtown of Hull and Ottawa were coming into Ottawa. The plan was to have a certain number of buses terminate in the Hull region, which would reduce the number of STO buses coming into Ottawa by about 30%.
Mr. David Jeanes, Transport Action, reported taking the bus to attend the meeting. He advised that his driver had stopped several times to get back on schedule, that he had transferred at the end of the downtown core, and that he had travelled along Byron Avenue. On consultation, he submitted the Service still had a long way to go to get adequate consultation, noting it had been 12 years since there had been a comprehensive study of OC Transpo, with public input. He referenced the following items, which had not been the subject of public consultation: the fleet purchase of hybrid, the purchase of articulated buses and the purchase of double-deckers. Further, he noted the public had not seen the reports Council had been promised before fleet purchases would be made. He recalled that there was supposed to be a report on the fuel efficiency of hybrid buses. He submitted that Transplan 2009 worked for some people but not for others, noting there were massive route changes in Kitchissipi Ward but no ward consultation, even though it was requested by community associations and the Councillor. He went on to talk about transit consultation relative to Lansdowne Park, submitting there was no public consultation on bus operation. He remarked that the O-train was close to capacity and he expressed concern over it not being expanded. He referenced the LRT report, which indicated the O-train service could not be increased during the construction of the downtown transit tunnel or LRT. He did not believe this. He believed it could be doubled or increased to four times its current capacity at moderate cost. Speaking to accessibility issues, he referenced the statistics on elevators but noted the graph did not who that some of the outages were very long at some stations, which created significant problems. He indicated he had seen a lot of good things since the strike; drivers calling out stops and one driver adding all the interesting destinations along his route. In terms of ridership growth, he was pleased to see it return to previous levels. He regretted not seeing more emphasis on journey times, which he felt was a critical factor in the transit system’s design and operation. He advised that his morning trip downtown was 15 minutes longer since the cancellation of route 15. With respect to the Pedestrian and Transit Advisory Committee (PTAC), he indicated he often attended their meetings but that because there was no mechanism for public comments at PTAC to reach the standing committee, he felt he was better off simply attending standing committee meetings and speaking directly to councillors. He suggested the City had to look at the issues of bus layovers and the importance of bus bays. He felt downtown layovers due to route splitting was a serious problem. Speaking to the issue of bus bays, he did not think buses could keep on time, either by driving slowly when they are ahead of schedule or by stopping on most roads, without causing severe impact to motorists.
Responding to a question from Councillor Bloess on the issue of public consultations, Mr. Mercier confirmed that any time the Service was asked by a Ward Councillor to participate in consultation, it availed itself of the opportunity. Speaking particularly to last year’s Transplan process, he indicated the Service had clearly disclosed the process that would be followed and then proceeded to go through a process in each ward where changes were being identified and then registered and disclosed all those comments and complaints received. Staff then proposed mitigation measures and made changes to alleviate the concerns of the vast majority of residents. With respect to Route 18 in particular, he noted that staff were still working with the Councillor and the community on options to make it work. Therefore, he felt there was a significant amount of openness, discussion and transparency in terms of how the Service dealt with some of those concerns.
That the Transit Committee and Council receive this
report for information.
RECEIVED