Report to/Rapport au:

Council/Conseil

December 1, 2004/le 1^er décembre 2004

Submitted by/Soumis par: R.T. Leclair,

Deputy City Manager/Directrice municipale adjointe,

Public Works and Services/Services et Travaux publics

Contact/Personne-ressource: G. Diamond, Director/Directeur,

Transit Services/Service du transport en commun

842-3636 ext. 2271, gordon.diamond@transpo.ottawa.on.ca

SUBJECT:    POSSIBLE REINSTATEMENT IN 2005 OF TRANSIT SERVICE REDUCTIONS FROM 2004 – RESPONSE TO CORPORATE SERVICES AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE DIRECTION

OBJET:          RÉTABLISSEMENT POSSIBLE EN 2005 DES SERVICES DE TRANSPORTS EN COMMUN RÉDUITS EN 2004 – RÉPONSE À LA DIRECTION DU COMITÉ DES SERVICES ORGANISATIONNELS ET DU DÉVELOPPEMENT ÉCONOMIQUE

REPORT RECOMMENDATION

That Council receive this report for information.

RECOMMANDATION DU RAPPORT

Que le Conseil prenne connaissance du présent rapport à titre d’information.

BACKGROUND

At its meeting of October 19, 2004, Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee adopted the following motion:

That staff prepare a report for consideration during budget discussions, to reverse up to 10% of 2004 transit cutbacks.

This report responds to that direction.

As part of its decisions to establish the 2004 operating budget, Council approved in March 2004 the reduction of transit services to achieve $9.172 million in annual net operating costs.  This represented a reduction of $10.886 million in total operating costs and the loss of $1.714 million in revenue from customers’ fares.  Ten percent of the gross reduction is approximately $1 million.

The service reductions included in the 2004 budget discussion were selected based on the value the services provided to the mobility of transit customers in Ottawa.  This was measured in terms of the number of customers lost per net dollar saved, the services with the lowest number of customers that would stop using transit for every dollar of net savings being the ones that contribute the least to the aims of the transit network as defined in the Transportation Master Plan.  The estimation of the number of customers who would stop using transit from the total number of customers using the route was based on whether or not there were nearby alternative services available.

The approved service reductions were implemented in two parts: at the end of June 2004 and at the start of September 2004.  In some cases, it was possible to mitigate the effects of the reductions by making small changes on other routes, or by retaining part of the services in modified form.

A list of the service reductions made in 2004 is provided in Appendix A.

DISCUSSION

The reaction from transit customers to the individual service reductions made in 2004 has been monitored in terms of customer contacts: e-mail messages, telephone calls, letters, and petitions.  A summary of these is attached in Table 1.  (Table 1 does not include contacts from customers during the budget process in 2004.)

The service reductions which affected the most customers were, generally, the ones that generated the most complaints.  In certain cases, the complaints may be disproportionate because of the severity of the reduction as perceived by customers or because of the possibility that customers on certain routes have greater access to e-mail and telephone communication while at work than others.

It is too early to assess the detailed impact of the changes in transit ridership resulting from the service reductions and to make comparisons with the estimates of ridership and revenue loss that were part of the 2004 budget.  This assessment and comparison will be made in early 2005 when sufficient data are available from the automatic passenger counting system.

During the preparation of the list of possible service reductions for the Universal Program Review and the 2004 City budget, the analysis that was carried out by staff was at the City-wide scale.  As such, that analysis could not include a detailed examination of the particular circumstances of each area affected by a reduction, nor could it include a thorough assessment of alternative approaches to achieving the required savings.  As well, because the scope of the reductions decided by Council was only known after the preliminary analysis had been conducted, it was not possible to include in the calculation of the total expected ridership losses the cumulative impact on customers of a series of changes, which might have involved not only the removal of a customer’s preferred service but also the removal of a service that had been identified as an alternative.  Some more-detailed analysis was carried out when the service changes to mitigate the effects on customers of the approved reductions were developed and recommended, and some additional detailed work has been carried out in preparing this report.  There may remain scope for further service changes that would improve service for customers within the funding level established by Council, and these would be evaluated as part of the normal Transplan review for 2005 and in future years.

ANALYSIS

Tables 2 and 3 show the reductions that were made in 2004 which have the highest value, based on an estimate of the number of new customers who would be attracted to transit per dollar of net costs.  Consistent with the ranking that was adopted by Council for the reductions in 2004, the possible reinstatements of service in 2005 are ranked in the reverse order of the possible reductions in 2004.  That is, the last-recommended reduction is the first-recommended reinstatement. Both tables show the same possible reinstatements; Table 2 shows them in order by route number, and Table 3 shows them in priority order, with the first-recommended shown first. Table 3 also shows the cumulative net and gross costs of the possible reinstatements as listed in priority order.

All of the listed services exceed the minimum financial performance standard for transit services.

The lists include the possible reinstatement of several of the service reductions which generated large numbers of customer contacts.  In particular, the lists show the possible reinstatement of service on Route 5 in the early mornings, on Route 127 between St. Laurent Station and Blair Station at most times of the week, and on Route 174 in the evening from Monday to Friday.

Excluded from these lists of possible reinstatements of service are reductions which were made in 2004 which could not practically be reinstated in the same way in 2005.  This is for reasons such as: route changes which were made to mitigate the effects of the service reductions, and services that would be available only in the early morning or evening without the availability of daytime service.  Also excluded from these lists are possible reinstatements that would have, by their ranked position in the lists, have more than consumed the remaining value in the $1 million that staff were asked to consider as potentially-available.

It is estimated that the reinstatement of these services would:

·         Attract approximately 266,000 customer-trips each year to the transit system, customers who likely stopped using transit after the service reductions in 2004;

·         Improve service for a further 229,000 customer-trips each year by reducing the distance they need to walk to the nearest bus stop;

·         Have a total gross cost of approximately $1.0 million per year ($500,000 in 2005 if reinstated in June 2005);

·         Bring in approximately $300,000 in new fare revenue from new customers ($150,000 in 2005 if reinstated in June 2005);

·         Have a net cost of approximately $700,000 per year ($350,000 in 2005 if reinstated in June 2005); and

·         Require two buses to be reactivated from those retired following the service reductions in 2004.

If a decision is made to reinstate the services listed in this report, the funding should be new funding for transit, and not funding re-allocated from that shown as necessary to accommodate growth in the budget directions report for 2005.  The service increases included in the budget directions report have a higher priority than those listed in this report because they would attract more new customers to transit per net dollar of funding.

CONSULTATION/PUBLIC NOTIFICATION

The information in this report is based in large part on comments that were received from customers following Council’s decisions on transit service reductions in 2004.

TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN

Reinstatement in 2005 of some of the transit service reductions made in 2004 would increase transit ridership, which would be consistent with the aims of the Transportation Master Plan.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The possible reinstatements of transit service listed in this report would:

·         Have a total gross cost of approximately $1.0 million per year ($500,000 in 2005 if reinstated in June 2005);

·         Bring in approximately $300,000 in new fare revenue from new customers ($150,000 in 2005 if reinstated in June 2005); and

·         Have a net cost of approximately $700,000 per year ($350,000 in 2005 if reinstated in June 2005).

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

Table 1 – Tabulation of Customer Contacts Received about Service Reductions

Table 2 – Service Reductions from 2004 Which Could be Reinstated in 2005 – By Route              Number

Table 3 – Service Reductions from 2004 which could be Reinstated in 2005 – In Priority Order

Appendix A – Service Reductions in 2004

TABLE 1

TABLUATION OF CUSTOMER CONTACTS RECEIVED ABOUT SERVICE REDUCTIONS, MAY-SEPTEMBER 2004

TABLE 2

Service reductions from 2004 which could be reinstated in 2005 – BY ROUTE NUMBER

Notes:

1.      The number of customer contacts shown is for all service reductions that were made on each route; the reinstatements listed in this table may not address all of the points raised by customers.

2.      The section of Route 127 east of Blair Station would not operate during these time periods.

3.      The entire route would now operate during this time period.

4.      A revised routing would need to be developed, because of the changes in 2004 to Route 161 in the section of Kanata south of Terry Fox Station

TABLE 3

Service reductions from 2004 which could be reinstated in 2005 – IN PRIORITY ORDER

Notes:

1. The number of customer contacts shown is for all service reductions that were made on each route; the reinstatements listed in this table may not address all of the points raised by customers.

2.      The section of Route 127 east of Blair Station would not operate during these time periods.

3.      The entire route would now operate during this time period.

4.      A revised routing would need to be developed, because of the changes in 2004 to Route 161 in the section of Kanata south of Terry Fox Station.

5.      Priority assigned according to number of customers gained per dollar spent.

Appendix A

SERVICE REDUCTIONS IN 2004