1. DEFERRAL
OF CAPITAL AND OPERATING INFORMATION FOR VARIOUS MODES OF TRANSPORTATION REPORT DE
RENSEIGNEMENTS SUR LES DÉPENSES D’IMMOBILISATION ET D’EXPLOITATION DE DIVERS
MOYENS DE TRANSPORT |
Committee Recommendation
That Council direct
staff to provide, with the next Transportation Master Plan, 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 demande au personnel
de fournir, avec le dépôt du prochain Plan directeur des transports, les
détails des coûts d’immobilisation et d’exploitation liés à l’utilisation d’un
véhicule unique, d’un autobus express, d’un circuit en milieu rural/suburbain,
du transport en commun à l’intérieur de la ceinture de verdure, à un piéton et
à un cycliste; et que ces données servent à calculer les
répercussions différentes qu’a la prestation de ces services sur le taux
d’imposition.
Documentation
1. Transportation Committee report dated 1
February 2011 (ACS2011-CCS-TRC-0005).
Conseil municipal
1 February 2011 /
le 1 février 2011
Coordonnatrice des comités permanents, City Clerk’s
Branch/Direction du greffe
Contact/Personne-ressource: Rosemary Theriault
580-2424, Ext. / poste :
21624, Rosemary.Theriault@ottawa.ca
That Council direct staff to provide,
with the next Transportation Master Plan, 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 demande au personnel de fournir,
avec le dépôt du prochain Plan directeur des transports, les détails des coûts
d’immobilisation et d’exploitation liés à l’utilisation d’un véhicule unique,
d’un autobus express, d’un circuit en milieu rural/suburbain, du transport en
commun à l’intérieur de la ceinture de verdure, à un piéton et à un cycliste; et que
ces données servent à calculer les répercussions différentes qu’a la prestation
de ces services sur le taux d’imposition.
On 12 January 2011, the Transportation Committee agreed to suspend the rules to consider a Motion brought forward to address direction provided by City Council on 28 April 2010. A full copy of the Motion to defer is attached as Document 1 to this report. The original report to Council last April is appended as Document 2.
On 28 April 2010, City Council recommended the following:
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.
At its meeting
on 12 January 2011, it was brought to the attention of the Transportation
Committee by staff that this is a
very complicated process to undertake and it was felt to be premature at this
time. They recommended that it be
deferred and that the information be provided as part of the next TMP
update. The Committee agreed with this
direction and subsequently approved the Motion to defer.
PGM supports the recommendation contained in this report.
There are no financial implications associated with the approval of the recommendation to defer.
LEGAL / RISK MANAGEMENT
IMPLICATIONS
There are no legal/risk management impediments to implementing the recommendation in this report.
RURAL IMPLICATIONS
There are no rural implications.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
Document 1 – Motion of 12 January 2011
Document 2 - Transportation Committee Report 38, Item 1, to City Council 28 April 2010
Staff will follow through as directed by the
Committee and Council.
Document 1
WHEREAS Council directed at its April 28th 2010 meeting 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.
WHEREAS to respond to Council direction, an update to the Cost of Travel
study would be based on the most recent available Origin/Destination Survey
results which are already more than five-years old.
AND WHEREAS it has been determined that this work would benefit from the
next Origin-Destination Survey results to be completed in 2011 and put before
Council in the context of the next Transportation Master Plan review (beginning
in 2012);
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT staff be directed to provide this
information to Council with the next Transportation Master Plan.
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