BACKGROUND

At its meeting of May 5, 2004, Transportation Committee received the following inquiry from Councillor Eli El-Chantiry.  The following information is provided in response to that inquiry.

            Would the General Manager, TUPW, please have the appropriate staff review the 2002 annual operating statistics for Ontario’s urban and specialized transit systems (published by the Canadian Urban Transit Association), and prepare a report to the Transportation Committee and City Council by September 2004, explaining OC Transpo’s performance in comparison to the other Canadian transit authorities listed in that annual publication.

DISCUSSION

CUTA compiles and distributes transit statistics each year.  These are usually available in the late summer, so the 2002 statistics are the latest complete set at the time of writing.

The CUTA 2002 Canadian Fact Book groups transit properties into four for comparison purposes in recognition of the differences to be expected between properties of different sizes.  The groups are:

            Group 1 (over 400,000 population)

            Group 2 (150,000 – 400,000 population)

            Group 3 (50,000 – 150,000 population)

            Group 4 (under 50,000 population)

Smaller properties such as Halifax or Hamilton typically have a lower market penetration so that indicators such as passenger trips/capita are lower.  They also have lower overheads so the cost per service hour tends to be lower.  A summary of Groups 1 to 4 cost/vehicle hour and passenger trips/capita is given in Exhibit 1.

OC Transpo falls into Group 1 which also includes Toronto and Montreal, both of which are very much bigger than OC Transpo.  The most meaningful comparisons are with other large properties in similar sized cities such as Edmonton, Calgary and Winnipeg. 

Specific Comparisons

Exhibit 2 shows the specific comparisons made by Councillor Eli-Chantiry.  For the purposes of this report the transit properties have been grouped so that they are comparable as far as possible.

Cost Per Service Hour

Ottawa’s costs are greater than those of Edmonton and Winnipeg but lower than those of Vancouver, Calgary and Quebec City.  As explained above, costs per hour are typically higher for larger transit properties.

Labour Productivity (Vehicle Hour Per Operator Paid Hour)

Ottawa’s productivity in this area, at 0.72, measures up reasonably against other cities; it is very similar to Calgary, Edmonton and Winnipeg.  It is important in this respect to ensure that ‘total vehicle hours’ are used in the calculation, as opposed to ‘revenue vehicle hours’.

Passenger Trips Per Capita (Market Penetration)

At 120, Ottawa far exceeds any other municipality of a similar size. Only Toronto and Montreal are higher due to their high volume subway systems.

Direct Operating Expense Per Passenger Trip

At $2.03 Ottawa’s costs are lower than all other cities of similar size.

Average Fare

Ottawa’s average fare in 2002 was $1.15.  There is a wide range of average fares across Canada, from $0.88 in Montreal to $1.75 in Vancouver.  Although Ottawa has a relatively high cash fare, now $2.60, only 8% of customers choose to use cash:  22% use tickets, at a cost of $1.80, and 70% use bus passes.

Revenue:Cost

There is a wide range of revenue:cost ratios across Canadian transit properties, as shown in Exhibit 2, from a high a 81% in Toronto to a low of 48% in Calgary.  Ottawa’s performance, at 59%, compares well with other similar sized cities.

Average Age of Fleet

The average age of OC Transpo’s fleet is 9.7 years.  This is compared with the average age of other fleets across Canada in Exhibit 2.  In the late 1990s, a Comprehensive Review of OC Transpo operations was conducted.  One of the findings was that the older buses were costing more to maintain and causing unreliability in service delivery.  The current fleet plan aims for an average age of 9 years, meaning that buses would be retired at the age of 18 years.

Municipal Contribution Per Capita

In Exhibit 3, the net operating expense for each transit property is shown, as taken from the CUTA 2002 Transit Fact Book.  The net operating cost/capita is also shown.  This is $153.44 in Ottawa; higher than Calgary at $92.65, Edmonton at $87.12 and Winnipeg at $61.60.  The variation in these numbers is largely a reflection of the market penetration. Ottawa has a very high market penetration at 120 trips per capita and, as with all other transit properties, has an average revenue to cost recovery rate of less than 100%. While many individual trips on major routes have revenue to cost ratios of over 100%, the average system-wide revenue to cost recovery rate of 59% means that additional riders add to the net operating expense. This then increases the municipal contribution per capita. For example, in the case of Ottawa, the net cost per customer is $0.88 per trip.  Therefore, if 20 million additional passengers were carried, the additional costs would be $17.6 million.  Unless a system revenue:cost of one or greater can be achieved, which is not the experience anywhere in the western world, the cost of success (carrying more passengers) is an increase in the net operating cost per capita.

The Fact Book also provides information on the municipal contribution to operating costs.  However, on closer examination, it does not always include such elements as the operating contribution to depreciation and does not provide a consistent basis for comparison.  No Canadian transit property received an operating subsidy from the Federal Government in 2002.  Some received subsidies from the province.  The provincial contributions, as provided by the CUTA Fact Book, are shown in Exhibit 3.

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION 

Exhibit 1 –   Summary of Comparative Performance Statistics by Population Group

Exhibit 2 –   Comparative Property Statistics – Canadian Transit Fact Book 2002         Operating Data

Exhibit 3 –   Net Operating Expenses and Net Operating Costs by Property

ORIGINAL SIGNED BY:

R.T. Leclair

EXHIBIT 1

SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE PERFORMANCE STATISTICS

BY POPULATION GROUP

EXHIBIT 2

EXHIBIT 3

NET OPERATING EXPENSES AND NET OPERATING COSTS

BY PROPERTY