Report Report 1 - Overview of Conventional and Specialized Transit Services

Transcription

1 Report Report 1 - Overview of Conventional and Specialized Transit Services by IBI Group May 27, 2016

2 Table of Contents 1 Introduction... 1 Study Objectives... 2 Study Approach Context and Background... 4 Summary of Transit Services... 4 Fare Structure... 6 Budget Policy Framework... 8 Transportation Master Plan and Official Plan... 8 Vision for Transit in Brantford... 9 Service Standards Peer Review Market Research Stakeholder Consultation Employees, Task Force Rider Surveys Telephone Survey Web Survey Key Findings Public Information Centres Brantford Transit Overview System Assessment Route Assessment Brantford Lift Overview Background Brantford Lift Review Objectives and Approach Profile of Existing Brantford Lift Operations Functional Areas Brantford Lift Peer Review May 27, 2016 i

3 Table of Contents (continued) Travel Demand Stakeholder Consultation Key Observations Next Steps A Way Forward Infrastructure Fleet Transit Centre Terminals Bus Stops and Shelters Vehicle Maintenance Technology Technology Current State Better Use of Technology Accessibility/AODA Compliance Marketing and Customer Service Resources Customer Information Current Initiatives Best Practices Features Analysis Evaluation Next Steps Organizational Review Transit Operations Staffing Peer Review of Organization Distribution of Responsibilities Management Reporting Conclusion May 27, 2016 ii

4 Table of Contents (continued) 13 Demographic and Travel Trends Population and Employment Demographic Trends Travel Trends Ridership Outlook Needs and Opportunities Next Steps Exhibit 2-1: Brantford Transit Route Network... 5 Exhibit 2-2: Brantford Transit Fare Structure... 6 Exhibit 2-3: City of Brantford Transit Budget Summary... 7 Exhibit 3-1: TMP-Recommended Ridership and Financial Targets for 2021 and 2031 Horizons Exhibit 3-2: Proposed Service Coverage Standards Exhibit 3-3: Proposed Time Period Definitions Exhibit 3-4: Proposed Maximum Headways by Time Period Exhibit 4-1: Peer System Service Levels Exhibit 4-2: Peer System Ridership Per Capita Exhibit 4-3: Peer System Municipal Investment Exhibit 4-4: Peer System Characteristics Exhibit 4-5: Peer System Performance Indicators Exhibit 5-1: On-board Survey Respondent Demographics Exhibit 5-2: Comparison of Age Breakdown Between On-Board Survey and 2011 Census Exhibit 5-3: Frequency of Transit Use Exhibit 5-4: Mode Choice Among Frequent Transit Users (3+ Rides/Week) Exhibit 5-5: Primary Trip Purpose by Number of Respondents Exhibit 5-6: Primary Trip Purposes by Demographics Exhibit 5-7: Reasons for Taking Transit (All Respondents) Exhibit 5-8: Surveyed Attitudes Towards Public Transit in Brantford Exhibit 5-9: Preferred Improvements to Transit Service May 27, 2016 iii

5 Table of Contents (continued) Exhibit 5-10: Mode choice amongst transit users Exhibit 5-11: Mode choice among non-transit users Exhibit 5-12: Transit rider reasons for using Brantford Transit Exhibit 5-13: Factors that would encourage non-users to use Brantford Transit Exhibit 5-14: Agreement about the ease of getting around Brantford Exhibit 5-15: Familiarity with how to use Brantford Transit Exhibit 5-16: Support for the statement Brantford Transit Exhibit 5-17: Primary Destinations Transit Users and Non-Users (Telephone Survey). 32 Exhibit 5-18: Factors that would encourage non-users to use Brantford Transit Exhibit 5-19: Primary Destinations Transit Users and Non-Users (Web Survey) Exhibit 6-1: Brantford Transit Boardings and Revenue Vehicle Hours Exhibit 6-2: Brantford Transit Boardings and Municipal Population Exhibit 6-3: Cost Efficiency vs. Service Utilization Exhibit 6-4: Distribution of Daily Travel Demand by Transit Service Quality (All Modes).. 38 Exhibit 6-5: Weekday/Saturday Revenue Service Buses and Operators Exhibit 6-6: Runs Available for Operator Sign-Up Exhibit 6-7: Operators on Break by Time of Day Exhibit 6-8: Operators on Spare By Time of Day Exhibit 6-9: Brantford Transit Route Summary Exhibit 6-10: Weekday Ridership by Route and Time of Day Exhibit 6-11: Travel Demand and Transit Service Quality to/from Northeast Brantford Exhibit 6-12: Travel Demand and Transit Service Quality to/from Southwest Brantford Exhibit 6-13: Weekday Evening and Sunday Ridership on the Evening and Sunday Routes Exhibit 6-14: Maximum and Average Loads in the Peak Periods on Monday to Saturday Routes Exhibit 6-15: Maximum and Average Loads in the Peak Periods on Monday to Saturday Routes Exhibit 6-16: Peak Period Schedule Deviation Monday to Saturday Services Exhibit 6-17: Schedule Deviation Evening and Sunday Services Exhibit 6-18: Average Delay Versus Average Operating Speed Exhibit 7-1: Brantford Lift Performance Relative to Peers May 27, 2016 iv

6 Table of Contents (continued) Exhibit 7-2: Brantford Lift Travel Demand Exhibit 8-1: Brantford Transit Vehicle Fleet Summary Exhibit 8-2: Bus Stop Spacing Analysis Exhibit 9-1: System Architecture Exhibit 10-1: Brantford Accessibility/AODA Compliance Summary Exhibit 11-1: Customer Service and Information Features for Peer Systems Exhibit 12-1: Fleet and Transit Services Division Organization Structure Exhibit 12-2: Operations Staffing within Peer Transit Systems Exhibit 13-1: City of Brantford Projected Population and Employment Growth Exhibit 13-2: City of Brantford Demographics Trends Exhibit 13-3: Total Daily Trips from Brantford Exhibit 13-4: Ridership Outlook Exhibit 13-5: Ridership Forecasts Appendix A Peer Review Technical Memorandum May 27, 2016 v

7 1 Introduction The City of Brantford provides both conventional and specialized transit services. Recent studies of the City s transit needs have included a review of the feasibility of expanding the downtown transit terminal with a parking structure in 2009, a review of the location for the terminal in 2011 and a business case study for extending GO Transit service to the city in In addition, the City completed an update of its Transportation Master Plan in 2014 which included renewed goals and objectives for public transit which form the basis for preparing a transit master plan. The City s transit services operate seven days a week on a network of fixed routes for the conventional system, Brantford Transit, and on a demandresponse basis for the specialized system, Brantford Lift. A total of 106 employees and 47 vehicles provided over 1.59 million trips on the two services in 2015 with some 102,000 revenuehours and 1.7 million kilometres of operation. The City assumed direct responsibility for the operation of the specialized transit service, Brantford Lift, in 2013 from a private not-for-profit contractor. The city has grown both in population and employment over the past 10 years with projections for significant growth and expansion over the next 15 years and beyond. With this growth has come pressure to extend existing services into new areas as well as increased traffic congestion which is affecting the reliability of the conventional fixed route service. The TMP update study recommended that a comprehensive review of the City s transit services be undertaken in order to better position them to meet current and future needs of the community. The last comprehensive operational review of the conventional transit service was completed in No comprehensive review has previously been undertaken for the Brantford Lift service. As a result, it is timely to conduct this review. While the city is experiencing growth and expansion, it is also mindful of economic and financial pressures for all the municipal services it provides. Each must demonstrate that they are being delivered in an efficient and effective manner and are within the economic realities of the City. Therefore, the current comprehensive operations review is to look at all aspects of each transit service and prepare both short and long term plans for delivering the services to meet the transportation and public transit needs of the city s residents and businesses effectively and efficiently. This is to be achieved through extensive public consultation, consideration of alternative route and service networks, and technologies all suited to the needs and financial guidelines of the City. May 27,

8 Study Objectives The primary objectives for this study are to: Develop an optimized service plan for the conventional and specialized transit services for current conditions; Develop a 10 year service plan for both services with annual goals and costs; Review and update service policies and standards for both services; Conduct a peer review to include typical operational levels of service, administration and funding availability; Evaluate the need for one downtown terminal compared to having satellite terminals or a combination as a service strategy; Review the transit market and determine if the level of conventional transit service effectively responds to market needs and propose cost efficient service improvement options where appropriate; Identify opportunities to increase ridership and introduce new and innovative ways to increase transit revenues and reduce expenditures. Include a review of current marketing and promotion efforts identifying opportunities for improvement; Evaluate the specialized transit service in terms of efficiencies, levels of service and define opportunities for improvement including opportunities to shift ridership from the specialized to the conventional transit service. A key issue to be addressed is what can the City do with what it has and what would be the outcome under a do-nothing scenario? Study Approach The approach to this study is divided into two parts: Phase 1 a comprehensive review of the existing services leading to an overall needs assessment of the two services; and, Phase 2 the development of a short term-and a longer-term transit master plan together with operating and capital budget estimates and estimates of physical and human resources needs. The following report presents findings and conclusions as Phase 1 of the study with identification of future needs, challenges and opportunities for improving the city s transit services. The approach and work activities involved in this Phase of the study has included: Research and extensive analysis of the performance and operation of the transit services to identity service deficiencies, needs and opportunities for improvement; A review of transit demand, population demographics and future population and growth trends as well as changes in development patterns; A review of various reports and documents related to the operation and management of the transit system. A peer review of similarly-sized systems; A review of the department organization structure and staffing levels; A review and assessment of the system s infrastructure (transit operations centre (garage), terminals, stops and shelters); A review of the policy framework for the transit services; A review of the recently (2014) approved Transportation Master Plan; and Extensive consultation with stakeholders. May 27,

9 In particular, the work plan included a telephone survey of residents primarily oriented towards non-transit users to determine their awareness of and views on public transit, complemented by an on-board survey of users and a web-based survey through the City s website to solicit feedback and a more specific understanding of user needs and priorities for improving transit. Meetings with the Transit Task Force chaired by a member of Council, and senior transit staff have been held at regular intervals to review the study progress and receive and review interim reports. The findings and conclusions of this report were presented to the Transit Task Force as well as to the public through two Public Information Centre meetings and a PowerPoint summary from the PIC meetings posted on the City s website. The analysis and conclusions reached in this phase form the basis for the development of both a short-term (5 year) and a longer-term master plan for the City s conventional and specialized transit services as part of Phase 2 of the study. May 27,

10 2 Context and Background The City of Brantford today is transitioning from a largely manufacturing economy to one based on education, food manufacturing and service industries. Brantford is also transitioning from being defined as a rural community to becoming a small city and has, since 2006, been identified by the province as an Urban Growth Centre in the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. The city is being revitalized after a period of economic decline. Looking toward the future, Brantford anticipates substantial residential growth, in addition to business growth in both the commercial and industrial sectors. Aggressive and rapid growth is coming to Brantford and the City is prepared to capitalize on these opportunities. Recently (March 2016), the Province of Ontario through its regional planning agency and operator of GO Transit services, Metrolinx, announced plans to extend GO bus service to Brantford in response to the City s GO Transit Business Case study completed in This new service will link Brantford with Hamilton at the McMaster University and the GO Lakeshore rail line at Aldershot. Consequently, the City would like its public transit services to be responsive in supporting this growth, particularly the needs of post-secondary students and inter-city commuters. Public transit in Brantford dates back over 125 years to 1886 when the first service using horse-drawn cars was introduced by the Brantford Street Railway Company. The horse cars were replaced by electric cars in 1893, one of the first conversions to electricity in North America. The City took over the operation in When the Public Utilities Commission was formed in 1935 by amalgamating the Hydro Electric Commission, the Board of Water Commissioners and the Municipal Railway Commission, the responsibility for public transit was vested with the PUC. Streetcars were replaced by buses by the end of Direct municipal operation of the conventional transit service again occurred in 1997 when the PUC was disbanded. Today, conventional and specialized transit services are provided within the municipal boundaries and operated directly by the City s Fleet and Transit Services Division of the Public Works Commission. As noted earlier, the City assumed direct operation of the specialized transit service, Brantford Lift, from a private not-for-profit contractor in The 2014 Transportation Master Plan sets a new mandate and goals for the City s transit services which this study will translate into short and long term service plans. Brantford Transit Summary of Transit Services Brantford s conventional transit service, Brantford Transit (BT), consists of 9 daytime and 5 evening and Sunday fixed routes including peak hour services, and is delivered by a fleet of 31 buses (21 in service during the peak periods), and 68 full and part-time employees including 56 bus operators and the department director. A total of 76,149 revenue-hours of service are operated annually with over million trips taken in Service (first and last trips) is May 27,

11 provided from 6:00 a.m. to 12:30 a.m. Monday to Saturday and 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on Sundays and selected statutory holidays. Routes operate every 30 minutes during daytime hours Monday to Saturday, then hourly in the evenings and on Sundays and selected statutory holidays. Extra service is provided on certain routes in peak hours to handle high ridership levels. In addition to the fixed route services, a demand-based service is offered to the Johnson Road area using Brantford Lift resources. A key feature of the transit fleet is that it is 100% accessible using low floor buses. In addition, Brantford has been progressively investing in new buses with the purchase of five hybrid dieselelectric buses in 2010 and clean diesel with fuel savings features over the past 5 years. Three new buses were received in 2015 with another two buses on order for delivery in The transit division has also been progressively updating its customer information and route scheduling technology to ensure efficient utilization of resources. Exhibit 2-1 presents the current conventional transit route network map. Exhibit 2-1: Brantford Transit Route Network May 27,

12 Brantford Lift Brantford Lift (BL) is a demand-response operation using small, wheelchair-accessible buses dedicated to serving people with disabilities who are unable to access the conventional transit service. Service is provided from accessible door to accessible door. Bus operators assist users to board the vehicles and help secure them within the vehicle. Users must meet eligibility criteria and can book their trips up to 3 hours in advance. There are a total of 16 vehicles in the BL fleet with some 19 full and part time employees dedicated to the BL operation. There were 27,133 revenue-hours of service in 2015 with 66,694 trips taken by eligible users. BL service is generally offered during the same days and hours of operation as BT service although BL service is available until 8:00 p.m. on Sundays and statutory holidays. The transit service fleets are maintained by a staff of 19 as part of the Fleet and Transit Services Division. Fare Structure Brantford uses a cash and stored value smart-card (B-Card) based fare system, providing an affordable alternative to auto ownership and travel. The fare structure was adjusted effective April 1, 2016 as summarized in Exhibit 2-2 with B-Cards and Monthly passes increasing 5% from previous rates. The fare structure was last adjusted in April 1, 2014 when cash fares were increased by 25 cents to the current rates. Exhibit 2-2: Brantford Transit Fare Structure Fare Category Cash B-Card/ Ride Monthly Pass* Day Pass** Summer Pass Adults $3.00 $2.90 $73.50 $ Seniors $3.00 $2.90 $55.50 $ Student $3.00 $2.90 $55.50 $9.50 $64 Children (5 11) $1.75 $1.70 N/A N/A - Children < Age 5 Free Free Free Free - CNIB $1.75 $2.90 $39.00 (3 mo) $ *$5.75 one-time administration fee. 31-days from date of first use **Weekday single rider; Weekend 2 adults + 3 children There is a time-based transfer policy in place where all cash and B-Card fares are issued a 60- minute transfer to allow for connections between routes. Almost all one-way trips can be accommodated within the 60-minute allowance. A time-based transfer also provides the added convenience for short trips where they can be used for return trips as well. Previous research indicated that approximately 8% of transfers are used on the same route on which they were obtained. The B-Card smart card provides stored-value for transit fares and can be loaded with multi-ride passes (at 10 ride intervals up to 40 rides) or monthly. Currently, the B-Card can only be purchased and reloaded at the Transit Kiosk at the Downtown Terminal. There are plans to expand the value-adding capability to additional vendors in the future. May 27,

13 Budget The investment by the City in its transit services, Brantford Transit and Brantford Lift, for 2015 is summarized in Exhibit 2-3. Total expenditures for conventional transit were $8,797,135, revenues $3,075,731 and net City investment, $4,586,822 after provincial gas tax. As noted above, BT ridership was 1,521,531, a 5% decrease from the 2014 level of 1,603,305. For Brantford Lift, expenditures were $1,811,064, revenues $121,442 and net City investment, $1,617,702 after provincial gas tax. The number of trips taken on BL was 66,694. Exhibit 2-3: City of Brantford Transit Budget Summary Budget Category Total Brantford Transit Revenue Fares, charters, advertising, misc. $3,075,731 Other (gas tax) $1,134,581 TOTAL REVENUE $4,210,313 Expenditures Transportation/Operations $4,713,091 Fuel $883,497 Vehicle Maintenance $2,031,918 Plant & Premises $655,548 General/Administration $513,079 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $8,797,135 NET INVESTMENT $4,586,822 Brantford Lift Revenue Revenue, misc. $121,442 Other (gas tax) $71,920 TOTAL REVENUE $193,362 Expenditures TOTAL EXPENDITURES $1,811,064 NET INVESTMENT $1,617,702 The transportation function (bus operator wages and related expenses) accounts for 53.6% of the budget. Fuel accounts for 10%, vehicle maintenance 23.1%, plant and premises, 7.5% and general/administration, 5.8%. These percentages are typical of a transit service although vehicle maintenance costs and plant and premises costs are higher than average. The City has used the provincial Gas Tax funds for both regular operating and capital expenditures. Gas tax was used for service expansion including increased Saturday service, extension of service to the Southwest Brantford area and for an additional Inspector as well as to defer a fare increase in 2009 to encourage more ridership. May 27,

14 3 Policy Framework Transit services should be planned, managed and operated within a policy framework that is based on City Council s decision, at the outset, that a transit service should be provided, then reflecting Council s and the community s vision for transit, its role, goals and objectives and priorities to meet the needs of the community as set by City Council with the advice of senior City transit staff. The needs and objectives are reflected in the vision for what the purpose of the transit services will be in the city and what they will look like to achieve the vision, or the desired end state. The vision is then complemented by a mission statement that summarizes why the transit services exist. In order to achieve the Vision and Mission Statement, specific goals and objectives are established to guide key aspects of how the service is delivered and funded. Service Standards and Planning Guidelines then provide the framework for transit staff to plan, manage and deliver the service and as the basis for reporting back to Council and citizens on the performance of their transit system. Collectively, these elements (vision, mission statement, goals, objectives, service standards, planning guidelines) are known as the policy framework and are intended to form the basis for policy and budgetary decisions by Municipal Council. Having a policy framework in place allows City staff and Council to identify the needs and opportunities for meeting the City s transit goals and objectives as well as to clearly communicate the purpose and role of public transit in Brantford to residents as set out in the 2014 TMP. As such, they also provide the basis for guiding the growth of transit services over the next 5 to 10 years to be defined in the Service Plan as part of this Comprehensive Operations Review. The section reviews the City s policy framework for its transit services. Transportation Master Plan and Official Plan The transportation master plan (TMP) typically defines the role that public transit will play in serving the transportation needs of the city. It does so by acknowledging the value that public transit plays in the community and then should sets targets for what percentage of overall transportation trips will be served by public transit, known as the modal split. In some cities, this percentage is expressed as a percentage of peak hour trips or as a percentage of total annual trips. This percentage is then converted into annual ridership targets (rides per capita) and targets of revenue-hours of service (service-hours per capita) necessary to both attract and serve the target modal split. The City s TMP calls for a Peer Level Investment in transit between now and 2019 followed by an Enhanced Transit Focus of extensive transit service improvements between 2020 and 2031: Peer Level Investment from now to 2019 implement service improvements on key performing routes, add routes to new areas, and increase service levels to increase transit mode share to 4% during peak periods. Enhanced Transit Focus from 2020 to 2031 targeted improvements to key routes, increased service levels and frequencies, introduce express routes between key residential and employment areas, achieve an annual ridership of 3 million trips at a 10% transit mode share during peak periods. The objective of these changes is to increase transit ridership and improve the transit modal split to 3% overall and 4% of peak hour trips. This compares to an approximate 2% modal split (annual ridership level of 1.55 million and 17 riders per capita) in May 27,

15 Over the longer term to 2031, the City is to pursue the Enhanced Transit Focus approach in conjunction with continued population growth and growth in new areas of the city. It is envisioned that by 2031, this strategy will lead to an annual ridership level of 3 million and improve the transit modal split to 6% as a result of growth and increased use of transit. However, achieving an increase in ridership of this magnitude will require increased financial investment by the City, supported by strong transit-supportive policies related to the supply and cost of parking, Transportation Demand Management, land use planning and development and transit priority measures on Brantford streets so that the conventional transit service is convenient, attractive to potential users and is competitive with the private automobile. The TMP (section 4) sets out a broad range of potential short, medium and long term strategies and service improvement actions for achieving the TMP goals. These are subject to the preparation of the short and long term Service Plan being prepared as part of this Comprehensive Operations Review although the TMP goals are the reference-point for this study. Separate strategies and actions for improving the specialized transit service will be presented as part of the Brantford Lift review section. Vision for Transit in Brantford The City currently does not have a vision for its transit service either in the Official Plan or the TMP. There is a Mission Statement. The need to define the future role for public transit was highlighted in the TMP by the statement that incremental fixes have become increasingly limited in meeting Brantford s future transit needs. It is also particularly important as the city is poised for major population growth and boundary expansion. Therefore, the future vision for Brantford s transit service as set out in in the TMP, should place greater emphasis on the following priority areas: Quality of Life Transit needs to provide mobility options for all residents to ensure access to work, education, health care, shopping, social and recreational opportunities; Sustainable Transit needs to be a cost effective alternative to the automobile for environmental reasons, affordable for the community, and fiscally responsible; Economic Development Transit needs to position itself as an economic engine for community growth and prosperity, with services and costs reflective of the City s economic development initiatives and consistent with the growth in its residential and commercial sectors. The following Vision Statement, Mission Statement and goals and objectives are proposed. Vision Statement Provide a convenient, safe, reliable, and efficient transit service that enables all residents to access work, education, health care, shopping, social, and recreational opportunities in Brantford, and that transit offers an attractive alternative to the automobile in terms of quality of life, environmental stewardship, and economic growth in the city. May 27,

16 Mission Statement The current Brantford Transit Mission Statement is as follows: To provide a proactive, modern, safe, reliable, efficient and cost-effective transit service, which improves the quality of life for all residents. While the current statement speaks to the desired outcome of public transit in Brantford, a mission statement is typically intended to communicate the purpose of an organization from a corporate perspective. To better instill a sense of purpose at the staff level and in support of the transit policies and aspirations identified in the TMP, it is recommended that the City s Transit Mission Statement should be revised. The following statement is suggested: To provide a modern, safe, reliable, efficient and cost-effective transit service which improves the quality of life for all residents and an employee work environment that fosters pride, teamwork and job satisfaction. Goals and Objectives The 2014 TMP Update recommended a number of ridership and financial targets to achieve the goals and objectives set out in the TMP. These targets are summarized in Exhibit 3-1 below. Exhibit 3-1: TMP-Recommended Ridership and Financial Targets for 2021 and 2031 Horizons Goal Current Level (2014) 2021 Target 2031 Target Mode Split (% overall and % during peak periods) 2% overall and during peak periods (2011 TTS) 3% overall and 4% during peak periods 6% overall and 10% during peak periods Service Level (annual 76,000 hours 120,000 hours 160,000 hours hours of revenue service) Ridership (annual 16 rides per capita 20 rides per capita 30 rides per capita average service utilization) Overall Cost Recovery 34% Not specified 35% (revenue/cost ratio) Net Operating Cost $6 million Not specified $18.6 million To realize these targets, the City s transit service will need to enter into a sustained period of growth and improvement over the next 15 years as recommended in the TMP and subject to the conclusions and recommended actions from the Comprehensive review of Brantford s transit services. Accordingly, the following objectives for achieving the TMP transit goals and targets are proposed: Objective 1: Improve Service Levels and Ridership considering the transit policies and strategies of the 2014 TMP Update, Brantford Transit must grow at a higher rate than in the past and must attract new customers to the transit system. It needs to improve its services to encourage people to leave their cars at home. There is significant potential for improving transit ridership and modal split as the current route structure and frequencies are discouraging ridership in many service areas. Objective 2: Improve Service Quality and Customer Satisfaction in order to become more competitive with the convenience of the automobile, Brantford Transit will need to continuously and proactively improve the quality of the service it provides to residents. This effort will enable it to retain and increase the frequency of use by current riders and attract new riders. May 27,

17 Objective 3: Improve Productivity and Cost-Effectiveness having a financial policy that encourages Brantford Transit to be efficient and effective in the use of the City s resources including manpower, equipment and vehicles, facilities, and performance monitoring systems. The following sections provide a discussion on the service standards and performance measures required to guide the allocation of available resources in a way that is consistent with the City s transit policies and objectives. Service Standards Service standards are fundamental to the operation of any public transit service as they provide the rationale for making decisions and setting priorities for the allocation of resources. While basic key standards have been in place in Brantford for some time, an expanded set of service standards should be adopted by decision-makers if the vision of providing a higher level and quality of transit service is to be achieved. This section provides a review of the service standards currently in use by the City s transit system updated and expanded by the consultant team to incorporate additional industry best practices. The proposed standards are intended to guide the design and operation of the City s transit services over the next five years. The existing standards proposed for refinement are identified as Update, whereas new standards proposed to address specific areas not addressed in the current standards are identified as New. Standards that remain unchanged are identified as No Change. Service Coverage (Update) Convenient access to transit is an important factor in encouraging the use of public transit. By providing good coverage, walk access to/from transit will be minimized. The current service coverage standards are as follows: Residential Areas within 400 metres before 7 p.m. on weekdays and Saturdays; within 800 metres during all other hours Industrial Areas within 750 metres In order to provide more uniform service coverage throughout the transit service area and to improve access to transit, it is recommended that the above standards be revised regardless of location. Transit routes in Brantford should be designed so that 90% of all residences, places of work, secondary and post-secondary schools, shopping centres and public facilities within the service area are within 400 metres of a route but the coverage percentage is reduced during evening and Sunday hours. The proposed service coverage standards are outlined in Exhibit 3-2. Exhibit 3-2: Proposed Service Coverage Standards Period Mondays to Saturdays (Daytime to 7:00 p.m.) Mondays to Saturdays (Evenings) Sundays (All Hours) Standards 90% of service area residences, places of work, secondary and postsecondary schools, shopping centres, and public facilities within a 400- metre walking distance from a bus stop 80% of service area residences, places of work, secondary and postsecondary schools, shopping centres, and public facilities within a 400- metre walking distance from a bus stop May 27,

18 Stop Spacing (No Change) Bus stops should be placed at most intersections, passenger generators and transfer points. The typical stop spacing in the city is in the range of 200 to 350 metres with 250 to 300 metres being the most common range. As such, the current stop spacing guidelines are as follows: Spacing the spacing of bus stops should be in the range of 250 to 300 metres; the actual stop spacing is subject to specific locations as well as operational and safety considerations. Location in most locations, bus stops should be located at the near-side of intersections for safety and operational considerations although the actual location will depend on the traffic and street conditions. Mid-block stops should be avoided for safety reasons; they encourage jaywalking and the need for additional illumination at night. No changes are suggested as a result of this review. Hours of Service (Update) The current hours of service, defined as the hours between the first and last departures from the Transit Terminal downtown, are as follows: Mondays to Saturdays 6:00 a.m. to 12:30 a.m. Sundays 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Upon further review, it is proposed that the definition should be refined as follows: Mondays to Saturdays 6:00 a.m. to 12:30 a.m. Sundays 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. or beyond as warranted by demand Holidays same as Sunday hours on select statutory holidays as warranted by demand Some variation for individual routes by day of the week should be expected. Time Periods (Update) Based on the recommended hours of service outlined above, the proposed time periods to be used for performance measurement are summarized in Exhibit 3-3. Exhibit 3-3: Proposed Time Period Definitions Time of Day Weekdays A.M. Peak Period Midday P.M. Peak Period Evening Saturdays Morning Afternoon Evening Sundays Morning Afternoon Evening Time Periods 6:00 a.m. to 8:59 a.m. 9:00 a.m. to 1:59 p.m. 2:00 p.m. to 6:29 p.m. 6:30 p.m. to 12:30 a.m. 6:00 a.m. to 11:59 a.m. 12:00 p.m. to 6:29 p.m. 6:30 p.m. to 12:30 a.m. 8:30 a.m. to 11:59 a.m. 12:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. As warranted by demand May 27,

19 Maximum Headways (Update) Maximum headways, or minimum service frequencies, are defined as the maximum gap measured in minutes between two consecutive buses in service. Consistent service frequencies are attractive to users because waiting times are reduced and users have more flexibility in travelling by transit. Clock-face headways are easy for users to remember and improve the attractiveness of using transit. The current maximum headways are as follows: Daytime 30 minutes on all routes Evening 60 minutes Upon further review, it is proposed that all bus routes should be planned and scheduled to operate within the maximum headways during each time period as defined in Exhibit 3-4. Exhibit 3-4: Proposed Maximum Headways by Time Period Time of Day Maximum Headway (mins) Weekdays A.M. Peak Period 30 Midday 30 P.M. Peak Period 30 Evening 60 Saturday Morning 30 Afternoon 30 Evening 60 Sundays Morning 60 Afternoon 60 Evening 60 Vehicle Standard Load (Update) The guideline for vehicle loading for service planning purposes is typically measured as the average load during the peak hour at the peak point along a route. The current standard load for a 12-metre bus is as follows: Average of 55 passengers per vehicle Upon further review, it is recommended that the standard above should be expanded. The maximum passenger load per bus should not exceed the following proposed guidelines during peak periods and off-peaks: Weekday peak periods on average, not exceeding 130% of the seated capacity or 50 passengers on a 12 metre bus. All other times on average, not exceeding 100% of the seated capacity or 37 passengers on a 12 metre bus. On average, the maximum load on a bus should not repeatedly exceed 130% of the rated seating capacity of the bus regardless of time period. When the vehicle loading repeatedly reaches the above levels, consideration should be given to reduce the headways, add extra buses, or introduce limited-service routes to supplement the main service. May 27,

20 Travel Time (No Change) Currently, most bus routes in Brantford operate along routings that allow 75% of the customers to complete a trip within 30 minutes (in-vehicle travel time), and that 95% of the trips can be completed within 45 minutes. No changes are suggested as a result of this review. Warrants for New Services (New) Brantford Transit currently does not have any warrants or conditions for introducing new services. As such, the following proposed warrants for new services should be considered: A new route or route extension may be introduced when the following conditions are met: Distance to Existing Service the new service area should be greater than 400m from existing services and must be adjacent to areas served by transit. Residential Threshold for each kilometre of route being considered in a residential area, at least 1,500 people should live within a 400m walk of a proposed route. Employment Threshold -- for each kilometre of route being considered in an employment area, at least 750 people should work within a 400m walk of a proposed route. This guideline should also consider the pace and timing of the new development. Minimum Service Frequency the projected ridership justifies a service frequency of at least one bus every 30 minutes during peak periods. Minimum Utilization the projected ridership can achieve at least the minimum peak/daytime standards (see Table 5) within the first 12 months of introduction, and the off-peak/evening standards within the first 24 months. Minimum Cost Recovery (Route Level) the projected ridership must be sufficient such that the new service will achieve a revenue/cost ratio of 25% (daily average on Weekdays/Saturdays/Sundays) within 12 months of introduction and 35% within the first 24 months. New services should be implemented with the expectation that a certain level of ridership can be achieved. If the expected ridership does not materialize within two years of the introduction of the new service, the service in question should be reviewed and consideration given to remedial action or discontinuation. New services are best introduced in September, as this provides eight to nine months during the normal high-ridership period for the service to demonstrate its ridership potential. Transit-Supportive Policies in Development Approvals (New) Land use planning needs to be more supportive of public transit in the planning of residential development as well as the placement of roads and high density development in subdivisions. All development approvals and major roadwork proposals should include, prior to approval or adoption, a requirement for specific comments from transit staff regarding accommodation of existing transit services or protection for future transit services and associated amenities. Input from transit staff could indicate: The preliminary design of a transit route to serve a development or a subdivision, with the proposed locations of bus stops and shelters, to avoid conflict between the planned development and bus stop locations. Requirement to provide for a concrete pad and protect for a shelter for a future bus stop. May 27,

21 Comments on the relative location of low-density and high-density residential development, commercial, and office uses in terms of the impact on transit routing. Locations where walkways to transit routes would be desirable. Comments on the phasing of the proposed development. Requirement to inform home buyers of future plans for a bus route or bus stop in their neighbourhood. The foregoing policies and service standards form the basis for both the critical assessment of Brantford s existing transit services as well as the basis for the preparation of the Short and Long term service plan in Phase 2 of the study. May 27,

22 4 Peer Review This chapter presents a summary of a peer review of Brantford s conventional transit service performance in comparison to those in nine Canadian municipalities based on both urban population and transit system size. Peer system characteristics are summarized in Exhibit 4-1, while peer system performance indicators are summarized in Exhibit 4-2. The peer review is documented in a Technical Memorandum attached as Appendix A. Allowing for the size and nature of the community it serves, and depending on the perspective taken (cost, performance, ridership), Brantford s conventional transit service indicates mixed performance characteristics compared to its peers. Overall, it performs poorly (below) in 15 of the 25 categories compared to its peer group as indicated by the colour coding. It performs better in 7 categories and average in 3 categories. The following are the key conclusions from the peer analysis: The system operating cost per revenue-hour ($120.23) is significantly higher (+20%) although this is largely attributable to the City s full cost accounting method of cost-allocation compared to the peer group; The amount of transit service as measured by revenue-vehicle kilometres and revenue-hours is significantly lower (-25%); Ridership is lower in total (-25%) and on a per capita basis (-30%); The average fare is significantly higher ($1.92 versus $1.34) than the peer group. This indicates generally higher fare levels as well as good revenue on a per passenger basis possibly as a result of fewer discounted fares compared to the peer group; The Net Operating Cost and Municipal Contribution per capita are significantly below the peer group by 25% to 30%. This reflects the lower level of transit service provided and higher contribution of provincial gas tax directed towards the operating cost. Given Brantford s full cost-accounting approach to budgeting, Brantford s net operating cost and municipal contribution levels can be considered even lower than the peer group on a comparative cost basis; Employee productivity (RVH per FTE employee) is lower by approximately 11%; The vehicle spare ratio (47.6%) is high. While comparable to the peer group, general industry experience indicates a rate of 20 to 25% depending on fleet mix; Brantford Transit s average trip length and average speed is higher (+10%). The high average speed can indicate difficulty in maintaining schedule adherence. The results of the peer review, particularly with respect to service levels and ridership experience, will serve to inform the development of the Short and Long Term services plans and ridership estimates in Phase 2 of the study. May 27,

23 Exhibit 4-1: Peer System Service Levels Exhibit 4-2: Peer System Ridership Per Capita Exhibit 4-3: Peer System Municipal Investment May 27,

24 Exhibit 4-4: Peer System Characteristics Agency (Reporting Year) Brantford Transit (2014) Thunder Bay Transit (2014) Niagara Falls Transit (2014) Thunder Bay, Niagara ON Falls, ON Kingston Transit (2014) Everett Transit (2013) Red Deer Transit (2014) Sarnia Transit (2014) Kingston, ON Everett, WA Red Deer, AB Sarnia, ON Peterborough Transit (2014) Peterborough. ON Sault Ste. Marie Transit (2014) Sault Ste Marie, ON Saint John Transit (2014) Saint John, NB Lethbridge Transit (2014) Lethbridge, AB Urban Area Brantford, ON Service Area Service Area (square km) #N/A Service Area Population 97, ,000 80, , ,843 98,505 71,420 80,000 69, ,389 93,004 95,755 Service Area Population Density 1,300 1,058 1,000 1,232 1,191 1,368 1,231 1,194 1,092 #N/A 1,045 1,191 Network and System Number of Fixed Routes Network Route Kilometres (NRK) #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A Service Area Population per NRK #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A Revenue Vehicle Kilometres (RVK) 1,705,699 3,134,889 1,990,813 4,017,912 1,927,183 2,979,795 1,307,238 2,233,858 1,810,899 2,207,978 2,282,842 2,220,918 Revenue Vehicle Hours (RVH) 76, ,030 79, ,999 99, ,880 69, ,132 84, , , ,828 Service Intensity (RVK/NRK) 17,405 21,620 25,855 22,959 18,011 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 27,840 22,959 Route Density (NRK per sqaure km) #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A Weekday span of service (hours) Operating Fleet Active Standard Buses Active Articulated Buses Active Small Community Buses Total Active Vehicles (TAV) Vehicles Operated in Maximum Service (VOMS) Spare Ratio (TAV/VOMS - 1.0) 46.7% 50.0% 28.6% 26.1% 53.1% 41.5% 53.3% 35.1% 58.8% 20.6% 61.5% 45.7% Average Vehicle Age (years) Labour Force Full-Time Operators Part-Time Operators Full-Time Employees Part-Time Employees Full Time Equivalent Employees (FTE) Top Operator Wage Rate $25.33 $24.15 $26.65 $27.87 $26.38 (2010) $28.34 $25.24 $26.39 $25.01 $26.55 $27.30 $26.55 Ridership Regular Service Passenger Trips 1,603,305 3,778,219 2,094,909 4,185,170 1,553,529 4,015,291 1,274,265 3,323,170 1,978,646 2,287,625 1,215,147 2,191,267 Passenger-kilometres (PK) 12,690,401 26,447,533 #N/A 17,700,000 11,769,558 #N/A 10,002,990 14,954,255 8,547,751 #N/A #N/A 13,361,907 Average Trip Length (km) #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 5.7 Operating Revenue Regular Passenger Service Fares $3,083,014 $5,268,427 $2,316,585 $5,971,967 $1,507,463 $5,133,468 $1,542,426 $4,702,611 $2,390,621 $4,326,602 $2,871,029 $3,598,816 Total Operating Revenues $3,100,086 $5,408,929 $4,219,444 $6,088,916 #N/A $5,561,896 $1,722,694 $4,768,542 $2,492,368 $4,602,973 $3,069,761 $4,602,973 Average Fare $1.92 $1.39 $1.11 $1.43 $0.97 $1.28 $1.21 $1.42 $1.21 $1.89 $2.36 $1.34 Operating Costs Transportation Operations $4,722,525 $7,499,976 $4,413,871 $11,191,350 $6,230,000 $8,605,339 $3,440,104 $7,076,610 $4,305,642 $5,182,682 $6,000,092 $6,115,046 Fuel/Energy Expense for Vehicles $1,156,354 $2,191,028 $1,019,476 $2,832,318 $1,139,500 $2,405,280 $624,688 $1,522,110 $1,376,301 $1,640,133 $1,283,142 $1,449,206 Vehicle Maintenance $1,625,548 $3,101,327 $1,912,008 $2,880,037 $1,633,000 $3,795,745 $662,200 $1,311,084 $1,515,827 $2,320,059 $1,889,252 $1,900,630 Plant and Other Maintenance $1,561,517 $877,985 $236,469 $628,378 $654,500 $619,852 $242,149 $581,170 $574,954 $777,241 $937,495 $624,115 General/Administrative $89,311 $2,206,112 $235,895 $419,717 $3,370,900 $1,005,547 $678,780 $341,578 $552,929 $548,146 $1,010,907 $615,855 Total Direct Operating Expenses $9,155,256 $15,876,421 $7,819,720 $17,951,800 $13,427,819 $16,431,764 $5,647,921 $10,832,550 $8,325,553 $10,468,451 $11,120,887 $10,976,719 Net Direct Operating Cost $6,072,242 $10,607,994 $5,503,135 $11,979,833 $11,920,356 $11,298,296 $4,105,495 $6,129,939 $5,934,932 $6,141,849 $8,249,858 $7,195,854 Provincial Operating Contribution $1,103,097 $624,800 $532,000 $1,969,658 $0 $0 $483,355 $1,380,600 $922,785 $0 $0 $532,000 Municipal Operating Contribution $4,854,509 $9,842,702 $5,540,508 $11,518,401 $10,887,669 $12,483,828 $3,350,725 $4,663,408 $4,893,365 $5,492,528 $8,061,125 $6,800,817 Average of (Selected ) Peers May 27,

25 Exhibit 4-5: Peer System Performance Indicators Agency (Reporting Year) Brantford Transit (2014) Thunder Bay Transit (2014) Niagara Falls Transit (2014) Thunder Bay, Niagara ON Falls, ON Kingston Transit (2014) Everett Transit (2013) Red Deer Transit (2014) Sarnia Transit (2014) Kingston, ON Everett, WA Red Deer, AB Sarnia, ON Peterborough Transit (2014) Peterborough. ON Sault Ste. Marie Transit (2014) Sault Ste Marie, ON Saint John Transit (2014) Saint John, NB Lethbridge Transit (2014) Lethbridge, AB Urban Area Brantford, ON Performance Indicators (Agency) RVK per Active Vehicle 55,023 65,310 73,734 69,274 39,330 51,376 56,836 44,677 67,070 53,853 54,353 55,595 RVK per capita RVH per VOMS 3,626 4,688 3,807 4,283 3,121 3,509 4,607 3,301 4,942 3,018 3,963 3,885 RVH per FTE Employee 1,022 1, , ,257 1,382 1,279 1,128 1,173 1,205 1,189 RVH per capita Total Direct Operating Cost per passenger $5.71 $4.20 $3.73 $4.29 $8.64 $4.09 $4.43 $3.26 $4.21 $4.58 $9.15 $4.25 Total Direct Operating Cost per passenger-km $0.72 $0.60 #N/A $1.01 $1.14 #N/A $0.56 $0.72 $0.97 #N/A #N/A $0.85 Total Direct Operating Cost per RVH $ $ $97.81 $91.13 $ $ $81.74 $88.70 $99.11 $ $ $ Total Direct Operating Cost per RVK $5.37 $5.06 $3.93 $4.47 $6.97 $5.51 $4.32 $4.85 $4.60 $4.74 $4.87 $4.80 Transportation Operations per RVH $62.02 $49.99 $55.21 $56.81 $62.38 $59.81 $49.78 $57.94 $51.25 $50.51 $58.23 $56.01 Vehicle Maintenance Cost per RVK $0.95 $0.99 $0.96 $0.72 $0.85 $1.27 $0.51 $0.59 $0.84 $1.05 $0.83 $0.84 Plant and Other Maintenance Cost per passenger $0.97 $0.23 $0.11 $0.15 $0.42 $0.15 $0.19 $0.17 $0.29 $0.34 $0.77 $0.21 General & Administrative Cost per passenger-km $0.01 $0.08 #N/A $0.02 $0.29 #N/A $0.07 $0.02 $0.06 #N/A #N/A $0.07 Operating Cost Recovery Ratio 33.7% 33.2% 29.6% 33.3% 11.2% 31.2% 27.3% 43.4% 28.7% 41.3% 25.8% 30.4% Net Operating Cost per passenger $3.79 $2.81 $2.63 $2.86 $7.67 $2.81 $3.22 $1.84 $3.00 $2.68 $6.79 $2.84 Net Operating Cost per passenger-km $0.48 $0.40 #N/A $0.68 $1.01 #N/A $0.41 $0.41 $0.69 #N/A #N/A $0.48 Net Operating Cost per capita $62.28 $97.32 $68.79 $ $ $ $57.48 $76.62 $84.91 $50.18 $88.70 $86.81 Municipal Contribution per capita $49.79 $90.30 $69.26 $ $ $ $46.92 $58.29 $70.01 $44.88 $86.68 $78.34 Average Operating Speed (RVK/RVH) Performance Indicators (Community) Non-renewable MJ per RVK Passengers per RSH Passenger-km per RSH #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A Average bus occupancy (PK/RVK) #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 6.4 Passengers per capita Passenger-km per capita #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 147 PERFORMANCE RATING Better Average Below Average of (Selected ) Peers May 27,

26 5 Market Research This section presents the results of research and analysis of the market for public transit in the city and stakeholder consultation. The work included: Consultation with transit employees including bus operators, Inspectors and administrative staff; Consultation with the Transit Task Force; An on-board survey of conventional transit users; A telephone survey primarily focussed on non-transit users; An on-line survey through the City website for transit users and non-users; and Two Public Information Centre (PIC) presentations. The objectives of the market research were three-fold: 1. To determine attitudes towards public transit; 2. To determine the level of awareness of the City s transit services; and 3. To identify the potential for and actions needed to increase transit use. Stakeholder Consultation Employees, Task Force Meetings were held early in the study process with three employee groups bus operators, the Runs Committee (which reviews and advises on transit service needs) and Transit Inspectors to solicit their input on key transit issues and needs to help guide the consulting team in reviewing and assessing the transit service. The issues that came out of these meetings were: A need to improve on-time performance of routes. Bus operators were regularly having difficulty maintaining schedule and limited ability to return to on-time performance once route began to run late. One important suggestion was to utilize spare buses to help routes return to on-time performance. Extend weekday daytime routes and 30-minute route schedules into the evening. Transit users found the evening (and Sunday) service levels poor. As well, the long one-way loop routes were inconvenient and increased travel times for transit users. Improve Sunday service. Existing routes and hourly schedules were inconvenient and not reflective of the needs of the community. Improve customer information materials, and Provide more shelters; improve the stop and transfer arrangements at the Lynden Park Mall and Brantford Commons. May 27,

27 Two meetings were held with the City s Transit Task Force to update them on the study progress and to solicit input on their perspective of the transit service. Task Force members indicated a strong desire for improving the transit service and reported that common feedback heard from residents were the lengthy travel times, particularly at night and on Sundays, indirect routes, and limited availability of customer information materials and promotion of the transit service. The Task Force was fully supportive of the potential for GO Transit bus service to be extended to the city (recently announced by Metrolinx) and saw this as a way to further support local transit service improvements. Rider Surveys On-board passenger surveys were conducted from March 7 to 11, 2016 on all Brantford Transit buses. The surveys asked a number of questions related to trip attributes (e.g. origin, destination, and purpose), views on Brantford Transit, benefits of transit, and demographic data. In total 715 completed surveys were returned. Demographics of Respondents Among 715 on-board survey respondents, there were 408 who identified themselves as full- or part-time workers, 176 who identified as students, and 87 who were retired. The ridership breakdown is roughly in line with 2014 CUTA ridership statistics, which report 20% of riders are students, and 4% are seniors. The higher portion of senior respondents may be due to time of day or location of surveying. A detailed breakdown of respondent demographics is available in Exhibit 5-1. May 27,

28 Exhibit 5-1: On-board Survey Respondent Demographics 300 Number of Respondents % 21% 22% 11% 17% 0 Employed fulltime Employed parttime Student Retired Other Employment Status Among demographics age 25 and older, an almost identical breakdown of age can be seen in the survey results, to the 2011 Census results for the City of Brantford. Ages 15 and younger are under-represented in the on-board survey results, likely due to their low transit use, and the general difficulty associated with attracting this demographic to complete surveys. Ages 19 to 24 are over-represented in the ridership survey compared with census data, which is consistent with CUTA statistics indicating approximately 20% student ridership. A full comparison of demographics can be found in Exhibit 5-2. Exhibit 5-2: Comparison of Age Breakdown Between On-Board Survey and 2011 Census Frequency of Transit and other Modes Usage 84% of transit users ride frequently, between 3-7 days per week. 37% of riders use transit 6-7 days per week, indicating there is a sizable demand for expanding weekend transit service. The proportions of transit use by demographic are generally similar to the overall trend. A summary is shown in Exhibit 5-3. May 27,

29 Exhibit 5-3: Frequency of Transit Use 1-2 days a week 10% Less than once/week 6% 3-4 days a week 18% 6-7 days a week 37% 5 days a week 29% While transit users travel by transit the majority of the time, they regularly use other travel modes as a compliment. On average transit users walk 3.4 days per week, versus non-transit users who walk only 2.6 days per week. This indicates an active lifestyle amongst transit users and a potential to market transit as part of a healthy routine. After walking, transit users are next most likely to be driven as a passenger as an alternative to transit, using this mode approximately two days per week. Car as passenger rates show a very similar profile between transit users and non-transit users, with highly diverse usage patterns. Transit users are very unlikely to drive, with 78% reporting zero driving in a typical week, and only 13% driving occasionally (less than once per week). Exhibit 5-4: Mode Choice Among Frequent Transit Users (3+ Rides/Week) Mode Everyday Usage During a Typical Week 3-4 days a week 1-2 days a week Occasionally Never Approximate Number of Days Used per Week Car as Driver 2% 2% 5% 13% 78% 0.4 Car as Passenger 12% 17% 19% 38% 14% 2.0 Brantford Lift 2% 2% 0% 2% 94% 0.2 VIA Rail 1% - 1% 24% 74% 0.3 GO Transit 2% 2% 2% 23% 70% 0.5 Walk 43% 12% 11% 22% 12% 3.4 Taxi 1% 3% 10% 50% 36% 0.8 Bicycle 4% 4% 3% 24% 65% 0.7 Primary Trip Purposes Overall, transit is primarily taken to commute to work, representing 38% of responses. Shopping and medical trips combined make up another 26% of overall responses for primary trip purposes. A full breakdown of primary trip purposes is shown in Exhibit 5-6. The high concentration of trips to work, shopping, and medical show the importance of serving major trip generators in these categories. May 27,

30 Exhibit 5-5: Primary Trip Purpose by Number of Respondents Number of Respondents Work Shopping Medical/dental care Attend High School Attend College/University Other Full- and part-time workers primarily take transit to commute to work, at 77% and 54% of trips respectively. Workers are less likely to take transit for shopping compared to other demographics, as those working regular business hours are not well served by hour-frequency routes in the evening, when they are available to do shopping. This can be seen in Exhibit 5-9 where a high fraction of workers requested later, or more frequent evening service. Students take only 51% of transit trips for school purposes, work, and other representing their other major purposes, at 21% and 19%, respectively. Low fares for students make transit a competitive travel alternative, meaning they are likely to take transit for a variety of trip purposes. Similarly to workers, students are not available during business hours for shopping, and thus are very under-represented in shopping trip purposes. Retired respondents are most likely to take transit for shopping (41%), and medical/dental care (21%). The category other also makes up a significant 37% of seniors trip purposes, being made up primarily of leisure outings and personal trip purposes. Exhibit 5-6: Primary Trip Purposes by Demographics Employed full-time 77% 9% 6% 9% Employed part-time 54% 13% 9% 9% 2% 13% Student 21% 8% 1% 30% 21% 19% 1% Retired 41% 21% 37% 1% Other 10% 24% 20% 43% 2% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Percent of Respondents Work Shopping Medical/dental care Attend High School Attend College/University Other May 27,

31 Reasons for Taking Transit A predictably high portion of Brantford Transit users form a captive market, where driving is not a viable alternative, at 62% of users surveyed. Responses indicating a captive rider are No driver s licence, No car was available, and Not able to drive. This fraction is predictably high among students, at 64%, and lower amongst retirees, at 56%. The other 38% of transit users take the bus out of preference; 7% said their reason for taking transit was to help the environment, 11% take transit to save money, and 15% said they simply prefer to take the bus over other modes of transportation. Exhibit 5-7: Reasons for Taking Transit (All Respondents) Attitudes Towards Transit Among survey respondents, current riders have a generally positive view of Brantford Transit services: 81% agree that transit provides increased mobility choices; 66% agree that transit supports economic growth and development; 80% agree that transit is good for the environment; and 70% agree that transit gives residents a better quality of life. These results are summarized in Exhibit 5-8. Fewer than 10% of riders disagreed within any of these statements, indicating a strong support for transit and its impact on the community. May 27,

32 Exhibit 5-8: Surveyed Attitudes Towards Public Transit in Brantford Transit provides increased mobility choices. 43% 38% 13% Transit supports economic growth and development. 32% 34% 28% Transit is good for the environment. 45% 35% 17% Transit gives residents a better quality of life. 31% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Neutral Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree Prioritizing Service Improvements Survey respondents were asked to indicate what types of service improvements would encourage them to use Brantford Transit more frequently. Responses are summarized in Exhibit 5-9 by occupation type. Exhibit 5-9: Preferred Improvements to Transit Service 39% 22% Employed full-time 36% 27% 15% 9% 5% 7% Employed part-time 40% 24% 15% 12% 4% 5% Student 31% 23% 20% 13% 6% 7% Retired 31% 11% 11% 18% 16% 13% Other 32% 18% 17% 15% 7% 11% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% More frequent service If service started earlier or ended later in the day If it was faster If transit went were you needed to go Nothing would encourage me to use it more often Other These results show a remarkably consistent set of preferences among survey respondents. More frequent service is the most popular improvement, followed by increases to service span, and then by increases to service speed. Predictably, frequency is valued most highly by workers, who would be expected to value the convenience of a high-frequency service to meet their travel needs. Workers also valued service span most highly which may reflect Brantford s high percentage of shift workers and the associated early/late hours of work. Retired individuals were the only occupation category that did not follow the order of prioritization outlined above, instead placing higher preference on access ( service where you need to go ). This result is not unexpected given the mobility issues faced by many elderly individuals. May 27,

33 Key Destinations The trip start and end locations reported by transit riders are broadly consistent with the focal points of the Brantford Transit route network. Downtown: The downtown remains an important destination for transit travellers. It is the location of the majority of major government administrative and service centres, post-secondary institutions, and small-scale retail. Malls: Lynden Park Mall and Brantford Commons are common transit trip generators, both as locations for retail employment and as a destination for shoppers. Hospital: Brantford General is both a major employer and destination for those needing regular medical treatment. Employment Areas: Brantford s north-west industrial sector is home to thousands of jobs and is continuing to expand. It was a frequently reported destination among respondents. To a lesser extent, the employment area in the City s north-east (adjacent Lynden Road) were also reported as a work destination. Methodology Telephone Survey A telephone survey of 500 Brantford residents was conducted between February 4 and 21, 2016 by Leger Marketing, an independent market research firm. Response targets of 150 transit users and 350 non-transit users were put in place to provide an adequate sample of both groups. Households with a Brantford telephone number were contacted and all respondents were asked where they resided in order to verify that they were a Brantford household before starting the survey. The sample has a margin of error of +/- 4.4%, 19 times out of 20. Ways to Get Around Both users (Exhibit 5-10) and non-users (Exhibit 5-11) use a variety of ways to travel throughout their typical week. Within the typical day, transit users walk (56%), take Brantford Transit (24%) and ride as a car passenger (20%). In contrast, non-transit users drive (76%) and walk (24%). The behaviour indicates that many Brantford residents incorporate multiple methods of travelling to meet their daily needs, which is supportive of the objectives of the City s Transportation Master Plan. This will likely become more prevalent as new transportation options become available in Brantford. Transit will inevitably play an important role to achieving this, and expanding transit could support these shifts. May 27,

34 Exhibit 5-10: Mode choice amongst transit users Mode Everyday 3-4 days a week 1-2 days a week Occasionally Never Car as Driver 13% 6% 4% 11% 66% Car as Passenger 20% 19% 20% 28% 14% Brantford Transit 24% 19% 21% 25% 11% Brantford Lift 1% 3% 7% 4% 81% VIA Rail --- 1% % 71% GO Transit --- 1% 1% 21% 75% Walk 56% 11% 10% 12% 11% Taxi --- 6% 16% 45% 33% Bicycle 5% 6% 4% 15% 68% Exhibit 5-11: Mode choice among non-transit users Mode Everyday 3-4 days a week 1-2 days a week Occasionally Never Car as Driver 76% 10% 4% 2% 8% Car as Passenger 12% 15% 26% 25% 22% Brantford Transit --- <1% <1% 7% 93% Brantford Lift % 1% 98% VIA Rail <1% 20% 79% GO Transit <1% % 73% Walk 27% 14% 16% 21% 22% Taxi <1% <1% 3% 29% 67% Bicycle 2% 5% 6% 19% 68% Most Transit Users Are Captive Riders When transit users were asked their primary reason for taking Brantford Transit, 67% of respondents gave a reason that would make them a captive rider. This is consistent with the results of the Onboard Rider Survey which found 62% were captive. The top six responses, which were provided by at least 10% of the sample, is provided in Exhibit Of the top reasons given by respondents, three related directly to being a captive rider, and were in-line with those identified in the on-board survey: Not having a car available; Not having a licence; and, Not being able to drive. Two of the other top reasons save money and prefer the bus are indicative of choice riders, while the remaining option to get around is applicable to both groups. Improvements to the transit system that would attract choice riders would support the experience of captive riders. 1 This question was open ended and respondents could provide multiple responses. May 27,

35 Exhibit 5-12: Transit rider reasons for using Brantford Transit Number of Respondents No car available To get around (in general) No driver's licence Not able to drive Save money Prefer the bus Up to 56% of Non-Users Would Use Transit If Improved Nearly half (46%) of all non-transit users indicated that there is nothing that would encourage them to use transit. The remaining 54%, which can be considered potential choice riders, identified a set of improvements that could be implemented to encourage them. In particular, five system service improvements account for 33% of all responses: Transit went where you need to go; More frequent service; Faster speed; Improved reliability; and, Longer service hours. These improvements could include measures such as improved evening and weekend service, new and realigned routes, transit priority measures, and updated service hours. The remaining responses dealt with issues outside the realm of this service review such as no longer having family commitments and no longer needing to own a car for work. Exhibit 5-13: Factors that would encourage non-users to use Brantford Transit Number of Respondents Nothing Transit went where you need to go More frequent service If it was faster If it was more reliable Service start earlier/ended later May 27,

36 Residents Are Supportive of Reducing Auto Dependence Both groups were asked whether they agreed or disagreed with three statements related to getting around Brantford (Exhibit 5-14). The rate of agreement with these statements indicate that: The vast majority of both groups agree that it is easier to get around Brantford by car than any other form of transportation; A majority of both groups agree that people in Brantford should use their vehicle less often in favour of other modes, those transit users were more likely to agree with this; and, The majority of both groups agreed that transit routes and systems need to be better designed, with transit riders agreeing at a higher rate. When viewed together, the findings indicate that residents view Brantford as an automobile city where other forms of travel are at a disadvantage for getting around. However, there is strong support among both groups to reduce the reliance on private vehicles and begin to break the auto-dependence cycle. This could include a combination of measures including supporting mixed-use communities, transportation demand management measures, changes and improvements to the transit network and active transportation investments. In particular, the support for redesigning aspects of the transit network draw strong support from both groups. Exhibit 5-14: Agreement about the ease of getting around Brantford Question It is much easier to get around Brantford with a car than any other form of transportation People in Brantford should drive their vehicle less often and use other types of transportation Transit routes and systems need to be better designed to meet the needs of the Brantford community % Agreeing Transit User Non Transit User 80% 90% 80% 68% 80% 59% Low Familiarity With Transit Among Non-Users The familiarity that users and non-users have with how to use transit is mixed. Transit users were nearly twice as likely to be familiar with using transit (81%) than non-transit users (42%). This is likely a reflection of the fact that they have used transit within the past month, whereas non-transit users may have no or little experience using the system. Among transit users, familiarity was lowest among respondents who were 65 or older with only 61% being very or somewhat familiar. Among other age groups, the familiarity rates were in the 79%-89% range. This low rate among seniors may be due to a combination of factors, which could include: i) that they rely on a select number of routes and are not interested in other aspects of the system that they consider irrelevant to them; or, ii) that they are unaware of information channels or are unable to access them. Further work to identify the gap should be considered, as the 65+ age group makes up 15% of the population, yet only 12% of riders. May 27,

37 Exhibit 5-15: Familiarity with how to use Brantford Transit Strong Support for the Benefits of Brantford Transit Over 8 in 10 transit users and non-transit users agree that transit is beneficial to Brantford residents in various ways. The most positive benefits were to the environment and increased mobility choices which both had 88% or higher support from both transit users and non-transit users. Economic development and quality of life had the support of between 81-83% among both groups. The strong support for transit indicates that residents view Brantford Transit as an important asset that supports a number of aspects of city-building beyond just mobility. Exhibit 5-16: Support for the statement Brantford Transit % of respondents 'Strongly' or 'Somewhat' agreeing 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 90% 88% 88% 88% 82% 83% 81% 83% Transit users Non-transit users 0% is good for the environment provides increased mobility choices...supports growth and economic development gives Brantford residents a better quality of life Major Destinations The telephone survey captured the trip destinations among both the transit users and non-users surveyed. The results suggest there is strong transportation demand to the downtown by both users and non-users, but that it is a more frequent destination (on a percentage basis) among transit users than among non-users. Other major destinations include the King George Road area (top destination among non-transit-users), Lynden Park Mall, and the north-west and Braneida industrial parks. May 27,

38 Exhibit 5-17: Primary Destinations Transit Users and Non-Users (Telephone Survey) Web Survey To supplement the telephone and on-board surveys, a web survey was made available for those wishing to provide electronic feedback on Brantford transit services. The survey consisted primarily of the same questions asked as part of the telephone survey. Unlike the telephone survey, however, the responses cannot be deemed to be statistically significant because respondents were not specifically targeted on the basis of home location, age, or other demographic trait. As such, the results presented here are purely illustrative. The survey was hosted on the SurveyMonkey platform from March 4 th to March 30 th and advertised through the City of Brantford s media channels. Of the 138 responses received, approximately 61% had used Brantford Transit in the past month. As such, the aggregate results of the survey are more indicative of the preferences of transit users rather than nonusers. On the whole, however, the results of the survey are broadly consistent with the major findings of the on-board and telephone surveys: Both users and non-users are supportive of transit: 60% of respondents agreed that transit improves Brantford residents quality of life 60% of respondents agreed that Brantford residents should drive less Respondent priorities are similar to that of the on-board survey: Exhibit 5-18 shows that the top priorities for web survey respondents are similar to on-board survey respondents, with increased emphasis on overall accessibility May 27,

39 Exhibit 5-18: Factors that would encourage non-users to use Brantford Transit Number of Respondents More frequent service Transit went where you need to go If it was faster Service start earlier/ended later Nothing If it was more reliable Major destinations are the same as Brantford Transit focal points: The three most common destinations for survey respondents correspond to the location of the downtown terminal and the two major malls in the north of the city. Exhibit 5-19: Primary Destinations Transit Users and Non-Users (Web Survey) Downtown Lynden Park Mall King George Road retail area, including Brantford General Hospital North-West Industrial Area None of the above Braneida Industrial Park Non-User User Number of Respondents Key Findings Based on the results of the consultation, a number of key findings have emerged: Approximately 66% of riders are captive. These individuals do not have licences, cannot access a vehicle, or are unable to drive. This high rate of captive riders shows that the current service levels is primarily attracting only riders that have no alternative; The top service improvements identified by users were: more frequent service, earlier/later start times, faster service, and direct connections to major destinations. Based on the comments received, this could include restructuring routes to make them more direct (i.e. ending circuitous routing), providing regular service to the North-West Industrial Area, better frequency on all routes, introducing service to new growth areas and improving reliability across the system. In particular, many comments recommended improving the frequency during weekends and evenings; May 27,

40 54% of non-transit users would consider using transit if improvements were made. Among this untapped market, 33% replied that they d like to see improvements such as more direct routes to major destinations, improved frequencies, faster speeds, increased reliability and longer service hours. These service improvements were consistent with those of the existing riders discussed above; Brantford Transit users are more likely to be female, under 40 and have a household income of less than $40,000 per year. Lower household incomes correlates to the low service levels and low ridership, meaning that transit is primarily attracting lower income individuals who have no alternative to get around. This is reflected by the higher percentage of captive riders identified in the survey results; There is strong support for transit among users and non-users but travelling by automobile is viewed as a better option in Brantford. The majority of residents agreed that Brantford Transit is beneficial to the environment, quality of life, economic development and for improving mobility options. However, both users (80%) and non-users (90%) believe that it s easier to get around Brantford with a car than without one. This indicates that Branford Transit is viewed as being uncompetitive with the automobile; Over half of non-users and a fifth of users have low familiarity with using Brantford Transit. Opportunities exist to improve customer information materials, in particular with individuals 65+ who had significantly lower rates of awareness; and, Major destinations that residents travel to are Lynden Park Mall, Brantford Commons, Downtown, the Hospitals and industrial areas. These areas are consistently accessed by both users and non-users and should be major focus areas that transit needs to serve. However, the rates of accessing the industrial areas and Brantford Commons by transit was proportionally lower when compared to other areas of Brantford, indicating that there may be service gaps in these areas that make it difficult to travel there by bus. Public Information Centres Two public information centre (PIC) meetings were held on May 5 th, one at the Lynwood Park Mall, the other at St. Andrew s United Church in downtown Brantford. The purpose of the meetings were to present the key study findings and conclusions and provide the general public with an opportunity to provide comment. The presentation materials were also posted on the City s website for comment. A total of 42 people attended the meetings. Comments received were supportive of the study findings and conclusions, in particularly, with reference to the need to improve transit service levels. A number of other comments related to operational issues were received as well and were referred to City staff for consideration as they were outside the scope of the study. May 27,

41 6 Brantford Transit Overview This section provides a critical assessment of the conventional transit service as it relates to overall system performance, including recent operational trends, its ability to serve residents travel patterns, and the efficacy of current operator assignments (crewing). The overall aim of the analysis is to determine whether the system meets the needs of residents effectively and efficiently. System Assessment Performance Trends This sub-section assesses the historical performance of the transit system as measured by three major indicators: ridership versus revenue-kilometres to gauge the public s response to service changes; a demand analysis in terms of ridership versus population to illustrate transit s changing share of the travel market; and passengers per revenue hour versus operating cost per revenue hour to assess efficiency trends. Since 2006, Brantford Transit ridership has grown by approximately 13%, with the majority of the increase occurring between 2009 and As illustrated in Exhibit 6-1, this increase coincided with an approximate 15% increase in the amount of service provided as measured by revenue vehicle hours. The increase in ridership also occurred shortly after the adoption of a transit U- Pass for students at WLU s Brantford campus in 2007 which led to an observable increase in the number of student transit riders. Since 2012, however, ridership remained level then decreased by 5% in While there may be several contributing factors for this recent trend, it is noteworthy that they coincided with the freeze in revenue service hours in place since Industry experience demonstrates a direct link between ridership growth and service levels. Exhibit 6-1: Brantford Transit Boardings and Revenue Vehicle Hours Boardings 1,700,000 1,600,000 1,500,000 1,400,000 1,300,000 1,200,000 Boardings 1,100,000 Revenue Vehicle Hours 1,000, Source: CUTA Canadian Transit Factbook, Brantford Transit 78,000 76,000 74,000 72,000 70,000 68,000 66,000 64,000 62,000 60,000 58,000 56,000 Revenue Vehicle Hours More importantly, however, while ridership has remained static over the past four years, Brantford s population has been increasing at a rate of approximately 1% per year, as illustrated in Exhibit 6-2. The implication of this trend is that transit has lost market share. That is, a May 27,

42 decreasing percentage of Brantford residents are choosing to take transit as represented by a declining rides per capita rate. This is a significantly negative trend and indicates that the transit service being offered is not attractive or useful. Exhibit 6-2: Brantford Transit Boardings and Municipal Population Boardings 1,700,000 1,600,000 1,500,000 1,400,000 1,300,000 1,200,000 Boardings 1,100,000 Brantford Population 1,000, Source: CUTA Canadian Transit Factbook, Statistics Canada 100,000 98,000 96,000 94,000 92,000 90,000 88,000 86,000 Residents There is also a growing disparity between cost efficiency and utilization by the public. Exhibit 6-3 demonstrates the steady rise in operating cost per revenue service hour, which have nearly doubled, rising 96% since Even between 2012 and 2014, where revenue service hours did not increase, operating costs per service hour increased by 31%. Meanwhile, service utilization, the number of rides per revenue service hour, has remained relatively stable. Some of the increase in operating cost can be attributed to specific initiatives such as major bus refurbishment, an additional staff position for supervision and the City s adoption of full costaccounting. However, the consistent upward trend suggests that there may be other factors that are contributing to cost increases. Exhibit 6-3: Cost Efficiency vs. Service Utilization Operating Cost per Revenue Service Hour (Inflation-Adjusted) Regular Service Passengers per Revenue Service Hour Index Source: CUTA Canadian Transit Fact Book The preceding analysis indicates some troubling trends: transit ridership is stagnating and losing market share to other transport modes; and, the cost to provide the service, even when adjusted May 27,

43 for inflation, is increasing. The service plan must take concrete steps to reverse these trends in order to ensure the long-term competitiveness and viability of the service Demand Analysis The Transportation Tomorrow Survey (TTS) is a major household travel survey conducted every five years by the Data Management Group (DMG) at the University of Toronto. Representatives from approximately 125,000 households across the Greater Golden Horseshoe (GGH) amounting to a 5% sample of the entire region are asked about the trips they made on a given day, including when they left, what travel mode they used, and the purpose for the trip. Last updated in 2011, this dataset presents a snapshot of how Brantford residents travel and is a very useful tool to assess travel demand in the city. This information provides an over-arching view in addition to information gathered through the on-board, web and telephone surveys described in the previous section. An aggregate zone system has been developed to visualize travel demand in the TTS. This zone system divides Brantford into 11 zones according to areas of similar land use and bounded by major roads or natural barriers. A schematic map of daily zone-to-zone travel flows (by all modes, not just transit) categorized by transit service quality is presented in Error! Not a valid bookmark self-reference.. For the purposes of this analysis, well served travel demand are those trips that can be made by transit without transferring and with relatively little deviation from the shortest path between origin and destination. Under-served travel demand is less directly served by transit and generally requires a transfer. Analysis of this figure reveals that: Travel demand is dispersed: Although the downtown is an important generator of trips, travel demand is not heavily focussed on any one area. This pattern is difficult to serve with transit because there is no efficient way to connect all points in the city at a reasonable level of service. Areas north of the downtown have a high density of trips: There is a substantial volume of trips made in the city s north, particularly between zones 6, 10, and 11, as well as between zones 6 and 8. This is consistent with the relatively high concentration of multi-unit housing along Fairview Drive and the presence of several major retail and institutional facilities (e.g. Lynden Park Mall, Brantford Commons, Wayne Gretzky Sports Centre, and Brantford General Hospital). Trips to and from downtown are well-served by transit: Given the historical development of the city as well as its road pattern, it is no surprise that the downtown receives the highest quality of transit service in the city. Transit users and non-transit users destined to or residing in the downtown can conveniently travel to any other location in the city. East-west demand is poorly served by transit: Cross-town demand, particularly between zones 5 and 8, 5 and 10, and 4 and 8, is poorly served by transit. In order to make trips between these zones on transit, a circuitous trip through the downtown must be taken. The southwest is poorly served by transit: The only other zone to which the southwest is directly connected is the downtown. Based on observed travel patterns, this means that less than a quarter of all trips to and from this zone are able to be accessed by transit without having to transfer between routes. On the whole, approximately two-thirds of total daily travel is reasonably well-served by the current transit network reflecting the service focus on major trip generators such as the downtown, Lynden Park Mall, Brantford Commons, and Brantford General Hospital. In contrast, however, the network does not effectively serve the remaining trips particularly to and from new residential areas in the vicinity of Shellard Lane and major east-west travel flows. This is a May 27,

44 concern for the purpose of this assessment of the current transit network because these areas along with the northwest employment lands and areas north of the city are the most fertile areas for future ridership growth. This will be explored further in Chapter 13. As such, the transit route network needs to evolve to better serve destinations other than the downtown and major retail facilities so that growth markets can be effectively captured by transit. Exhibit 6-4: Distribution of Daily Travel Demand by Transit Service Quality (All Modes) Number of Trip Destinations 40,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 Well Served Travel Demand Underserved Travel Demand Zone Source: 2011 Transportation Tomorrow Survey May 27,

45 6.1.3 Crew Scheduling As per typical industry practice, conventional service operators sign up to pre-defined runs on the basis of seniority. Monday to Saturday, work is divided into 32 runs that cover the 9 daytime regular service routes, the 5 evening regular service routes, as well as two special runs. In addition, there are 12 spareboard positions used to cover absences, vacations, and special routes that operate for short periods in the a.m. and p.m. peak periods. On Sundays, operators sign up to one of 7 runs that cover the reduced service operated from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. (last departure from terminal). A summary of all runs available for signup is shown in Exhibit 6-6. The remainder of this review is focussed on weekday/saturday crew scheduling. There are two primary reasons for this: there are considerably more runs and paid operator hours; as such, there may be an opportunity for more effective use of the available staff; and it is where the vast majority of staff resources are devoted annually. In theory, an optimized crew schedule is one that minimizes the number of paid operator hours while still providing sufficient staff to meet the needs of revenue service. Such a schedule would match the number of operators on shift as closely as possible to the number of buses in revenue service. In other words, the profile of operators active throughout the day (i.e. in revenue service, on break, or on spare) should follow the number of buses in revenue service. As shown in Exhibit 6-5, however, there are discrepancies between the two profiles: there is an excess of operators on shift during the midday hours in comparison to service demands. 15 buses are needed to sustain regular service throughout most of the day, but there are 25 operators that are on duty the maximum number of active operators does not coincide with the maximum number of buses in revenue service. Exhibit 6-5: Weekday/Saturday Revenue Service Buses and Operators May 27,

46 Exhibit 6-6: Runs Available for Operator Sign-Up Run Routes Start End Span (hrs) Run Breakdown (hrs) Revenue Spare Break Weekday and Saturday 101 1,5,7 06:00 16: ,5,7 06:00 16: ,5,7 06:00 16: ,5,7,13 16:00 25: ,5,7,14 16:00 25: ,5,7,11 16:00 25: :00 15: :45 14: ,9,13 10:00 20: ,5,7 09:30 18: A 06:00 15: A 05:45 14: A,6,8 10:00 19: A,5,7,9 09:30 18: C 06:00 15: C 05:45 14: C,11 Varies 20:30 Varies 5.00 Varies A,4C,8 09:30 18: :00 15: :45 15: :00 19: ,12 15:30 25: :00 15: :45 15: ,12,Sp. 15:00 23: ,15 15:30 25: :00 15: :45 14: A,4C,9,14 10:00 20: ,4C,9 09:30 18: R1 15,Sp. 12:45 21: R2 Sp. 06:00 16: Spare (x12) Sunday :30 18: :30 18: :30 18: :30 18: :30 18: R1 11,12,15 08:00 16: R2 13,14,15 09:00 17: May 27,

47 For practical reasons, it is rarely possible to develop a crew schedule that perfectly matches the number of buses in revenue service. Not only does the profile of in-service buses change rapidly throughout the day, the necessities of operator break time and appropriate shift duration mean that shifts must be scheduled in relatively fixed chunks. However, there are elements of the current schedule that could be modified to improve overall efficiency. First, the number of operators on break throughout the day should be distributed as evenly as possible in order to maximize the effectiveness of relief runs. To the extent possible, breaks should be scheduled in such a way as to allow relief operators to move from route to route to match the wave of operators going on break. As shown in Exhibit 6-7, operator breaks peak heavily at midday (up to 9 operators) and in the evening (up to 5 operators), meaning that additional relief work pieces must be constructed to replace operators on break, or the amount of time given for breaks (30 minutes instead of 60 minutes), at these times. If this peaking is reduced, it may be possible to reduce the number of bus operators, thereby reducing overall costs and the ability to re-deploy them to improve service. Exhibit 6-7: Operators on Break by Time of Day Operators on Break :30 7:30 9:30 11:30 13:30 15:30 17:30 19:30 21:30 23:30 Second, spare work pieces as part of regular service runs should be avoided to the extent possible. As shown in Exhibit 6-8, up to 4 operators are on spare duty at various times throughout the day in addition to the 12 spareboard operators. These work pieces correspond to paid time that (anecdotally) is not being used for revenue service. Exhibit 6-8: Operators on Spare By Time of Day Operators on Spare :30 7:30 9:30 11:30 13:30 15:30 17:30 19:30 21:30 23:30 Finally, the number of spareboard operators should be reviewed. Although the function of these operators is essential (coverage for illness, vacation, etc.), the number of spareboard operators appears to be excessive in comparison to the number of operators required to meet service needs. The preceding guidelines provide an indication that there is room for improvement in crew scheduling. They are, however, provided with the caveat that practicalities of geography, routing, and collective bargaining agreements may limit the extent to which they can be implemented. May 27,

48 Route Assessment This section provides a route-level examination of the conventional transit system s operation, focussing on key operating characteristics, ridership, and schedule adherence. The purpose of this analysis is to identify which routes should be targeted for improvements during the development of the five- and ten-year service plans Operating Characteristics The conventional service network consists of 14 fixed routes, nine of which constitute the weekday and Saturday network and five of which constitute the evening and Sunday network. Both networks cover roughly the same geographic area although a higher level of service is provided by the weekday/saturday network. The weekday route network operates between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m. with a service headway of 30 minutes. The evening/sunday routes operate in the evening from 6:30 p.m. to 12:30 a.m. and on Sundays from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Exhibit 6-9 summarizes the key operational parameters of the 14 routes, subdivided into weekdays, Saturdays, and Sundays. Exhibit 6-9: Brantford Transit Route Summary Headway (mins) Length (km) Cycle Time (mins) Buses Required Cycles per Day Revenue Veh-kms per Day Revenue Veh-hrs per Day Average Speed (km/h) Route Weekday A C Saturday A C Sunday Note: Figures exclude limited service to industrial areas and school specials May 27,

49 6.2.2 Ridership and Loading This section has three primary objectives: Compare weekday, evening, Saturday, and Sunday ridership to assess the degree to which ridership growth may be hindered by low levels of service. Compare route-by-route ridership patterns to determine which routes attract the greatest number of riders and which attract the least. This information will be carried forward to inform service plan resource allocation. Determine vehicle loading patterns to identify routes that may be exceeding the Brantford Transit s current maximum loading standard. As per the first objective, this information will be used to inform where additional resources should be allocated as part of the five- and ten-year service plans. Time of day The most recent ride counts conducted in 2011 indicate that Brantford Transit carries about 6,800 riders on an average weekday, about 6,200 of which are carried between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m. That is, approximately 90% of weekday transit trips are made during the day, while the remaining 10% are made in the evening. While evening travel volumes are lower than daytime, the ridership characteristic is not experienced by other modes. According to the 2011 TTS, 17% of daily trips on all travel modes occur during the evening hours, substantially more than the percent on transit. This fact suggests that there is latent demand for increased transit use in the evenings which is being supressed by the lower service level and circuitous route network design. Despite offering the same level of service as on weekdays, Saturday service attracts approximately 3,900 riders, 43% fewer users than on weekdays. This is to be expected, as weekend travel is less frequent than on weekdays. At the same time, however, with Saturday travel patterns and volumes approaching those of weekdays, adjustments to Saturday service levels may be warranted. Sunday service, however, attracts only 1,100 riders despite a broad trend towards increased Sunday shopping hours. Again, this suggests that current Sunday service levels and route network demand are discouraging transit use. Route-by-route Below, Exhibit 6-10 charts daily ridership by route, subdivided by time of day. Exhibit 6-10: Weekday Ridership by Route and Time of Day 1,400 Rest of Day 1,204 1,200 PM Peak (3-6PM) 1, AM Peak (6-9AM) 52% % 57% % % 46% % 26% 24% 21% 44% % 28% 54% 26% 19% 17% 20% 22% 27% 21% 23% 19% 25% 28% 22% 26% A 4C Route Route 9 Echo Place is the best performing route, carrying about 20% of total daily ridership. However, taken together, the Mall Link routes (4A and 4C) carry almost a third of weekday riders. The strength of these two routes can be corroborated by examining the travel demand plots originally produced in section 6.1. Exhibit 6-11 isolates travel to and from zone 11 the Total Boardings May 27,

50 focal point for routes 4A, 4C, and 9 and shows that there is a high level of demand to/from zones 3 (served by routes 4A/C and 9), 4 (served by route 9), 6 (served by routes 4A/C), 8 (served by routes 4A/C), and 10 (served by routes 4A/C and 9). In other words, these three routes are successful because they serve high-volume corridors. Exhibit 6-11: Travel Demand and Transit Service Quality to/from Northeast Brantford Routes 5 and 6, serving the Shellard Lane, West Brant, and Oakhill neighbourhoods have the lowest ridership among weekday routes. Together, the two routes carry only 712 riders daily, an average of slightly over 14 riders per trip. The performance of these routes can be attributed, in part, to challenges serving this relatively isolated corner of the city. As noted in section 6.1, the southwest is only directly accessible by transit to and from the downtown. Transit travellers must therefore make a transfer to complete their journey. This is reinforced by examining the travel demand patterns to and from the area in Exhibit It should, however, also be noted that these areas are still undergoing development and that ridership will likely climb as densities approach the levels seen in other neighbourhoods. May 27,

51 Exhibit 6-12: Travel Demand and Transit Service Quality to/from Southwest Brantford Weekday evening ridership totals about 560 across the five routes operating at that time. As Exhibit 6-13 illustrates, route 14 Echo Place/East Ward is the most patronized evening service, which is consistent with the observation that route 9 Echo Place is the most popular route during the average weekday. Routes 13 King George Rd/Brantwood Park and 15 West Street/Mayfair, however, are by far the most popular Sunday routes, each carrying about 30% of the trips. These two routes connect Brantford Commons and Lynden Park mall to areas of concentrated population, suggesting that Sunday ridership is being driven by shopping trips. Exhibit 6-13: Weekday Evening and Sunday Ridership on the Evening and Sunday Routes Total Boardings Loading Vehicle loading measures the number of riders onboard at a given point in time. This is distinct from ridership, which is typically calculated as the total number of riders boarding or alighting a vehicle or route over a given period of time (e.g. daily, monthly, etc). Vehicle loading is typically used to assess the level of crowding on a route. The average load refers to the mean number of riders onboard over a given period of time, while the maximum load refers to the maximum number of riders onboard over that same period. Brantford Transit s current standard for maximum loading is 55 riders Route 313 Weekday Evening Sunday May 27,

52 The maximum passenger load in the morning peak period averages 25 passengers with an average load of 7. Route 7 East Ward/Braneida sees highest loads at 38, as shown in Exhibit 6-14, with the maximum load section occurring around the midpoint of the route in the industrial area in the city s east end. Exhibit 6-14 also indicates that the afternoon peak period tends to see higher maximum loads than the morning peak, with an average maximum load of 28 passengers. In the p.m. peak, Routes 4C Mall Link and 9 Echo Place have the highest maximum loads of 42 and 41 respectively, both of which occur near the terminal on the outbound section. On route 4C, significant numbers of passengers board at Brantford Collegiate Institute and Vocational School. For all routes, the maximum load is lower than the standard of 55 riders. Among evening and Sunday routes, the highest average and maximum loading occurs on Sunday. Over the course of the day, the average load is approximately 6 riders, while the maximum load is 34 (observed at the downtown terminal on route 13 in the mid-afternoon). Average and maximum loads are lower on weekday and Saturday evenings, with average loads of 5 and 4 riders, respectively. Route 15 sees the highest average loads on weekday evenings, while route 13 sees the highest loads on Saturday evenings. Although none of the routes in the extracted data exceeded the current loading standard, it should be noted that there may still be instances of crowding aboard buses. Other factors, such as the presence of walkers, strollers, mobility devices, etc. mean that over-crowding can occur at load far below the current standard. Based on anecdotal evidence collected from riders and staff, instances of over-crowding occur most frequently on routes with a high percentage of student riders, such as route 8. This is because a large proportion of students travel to meet a fixed class start or end time, meaning that there are likely to be many travelling at the same time. It should also be noted that the data analyzed represents only a limited sample of data; actual loading may fluctuate substantially throughout the year. Exhibit 6-14: Maximum and Average Loads in the Peak Periods on Monday to Saturday Routes Route AM Peak (6-9AM) Avg Load Max Load Max Load Section Whitehead St & Ninth Ave Ninth Ave & Erie Ave Clarence St & Dundas St Transit Terminal PM Peak (3-6PM) Avg Load Max Load Max Load Section Colborne & Park Ave Murray St. & Mary St Clarence St. & Nelson Clarence St. & Elgin St. 4A 6 28 Transit Terminal Market St. & Grey St Market St & Grey St West St. & Buffalo St. 4C 6 32 Sympatica & Brantwood Lynden Rd & Dalkeith Dr King St. & Dalhousie Colborne St. & Norwich Colborne St. West & Oak Darling & George St Brant Ave & Palace St. King George Rd & Borden St 5 14 Brant Ave. & Armoury Colborne St. West & Gilkison 5 19 Diana & Blackburn Mt. Pleasant St & Balfour Dekka Resins Dunn Building Darling & Clarence St Park Ave & Nelson St Grand River & Sterling St. Grand River & Jarvis St Albion St & Richmond St Dufferin Tennis Club Transit Terminal Beckett Building Harmony Square Colborne & Echo AVG May 27,

53 Exhibit 6-15: Maximum and Average Loads in the Peak Periods on Monday to Saturday Routes Weekday Evening Saturday Evening Sunday Route Avg Load Max Load Avg Load Max Load Avg Load Max Load AVG Summary The foregoing analysis of the conventional transit service has determined the following There is latent demand for improved evening and Sunday service. Routes with the highest number of riders are in areas that are well connected to major trip generators; routes with low ridership are those that are not connected (or are poorly connected) to areas with major trip generators. Northeast Brantford, produces a strong amount of transit ridership owing to the presence of major trip generators and convenient connections to the downtown and northeast Brantford. Routes 4A/C, which serve this area, are collectively the busiest route, carrying nearly a third of weekday riders Southwest Brantford generates very little transit ridership as a result of poor connectivity to the rest of the City, circuitous and indirect routes, and a population base that is continuing to develop. The highest observed weekday loading occurs during the p.m. peak hours (3:00 p.m. 6:00 p.m.), with routes 4C, 7, and 9 showing the highest loads. Loads are substantially lower in the evenings and on weekends, with maximum loading rarely exceeding 20 riders per bus Schedule Adherence Reliability is often cited as one of the most important qualities of good public transit service. A reliable service is one which instills the confidence that riders will be able to make their trips without having to worry about building in excessive time in their trips for late or early buses. This means that buses must run consistently on-time both at terminals and at published time-points. The sub-section analyzes the degree to which Brantford Transit buses adhere to the system s posted timetables with the aim of informing potential changes to the network. Exhibit 6-16 and Exhibit 6-17 present a summary of data collected from Brantford Transit s Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) software. The tables present the difference between the scheduled departure time from a given stop and the actual recorded departure time, averaged over a number of runs. A positive number indicates a tendency to be late, while a negative number indicates a tendency to be early. For each route and time period, the tables summarize the delay at the start of the route (i.e. departure from the transit terminal), delay at the end of the route (i.e. arrival at the transit terminal), and the average delay over the entire route. The tables show that buses run late at most times of day. On average, buses tend to leave the transit terminal just over three minutes behind schedule between 6 9 a.m. on weekday mornings. Routes 2 West Street/Brier Park, 6 Shellard/West Brant, and 8 Holmedale/Mayfair have the best on-time performance in the morning peak, with average delays of less than three minutes. Delays tend to be higher at the end of the route in the morning peak period, averaging May 27,

54 just over five minutes. Route 2 maintains its relatively low deviation, averaging around three minutes on return to the transit terminal. Route 4C Mall Link and route 6 Shellard/West Brant also have average deviations below three minutes. Route 5 West Brant/Oak Hill has the highest average delay at both the start and end of the route in the morning peak period. The delay at the end of the route is particularly high, approaching half the scheduled headway. Delays are consistently higher in the afternoon peak period, averaging eight minutes at the start of the route and seven minutes at the end. Considering the average schedule deviation at all stops along the routes, Route 6 performs best and Route 8 has the highest average delay. Aside from route 6 and Route 2 in the morning peak period, all routes have average delays in excess of three minutes in the morning and afternoon peak periods. As illustrated in Exhibit 6-17, these delays continue to propagate into the evening hours. In fact, this data suggest that buses run the most behind schedule during the evenings. One potential explanation for this observation is that delay is propagating throughout the day. That is, buses begin to run late in the morning and are not able to make up the lost time during the day. Delays continue to worsen by the afternoon peak and are at their worst by the evening. This situation could be avoided if measures were put in place to recover lost time throughout the day by using, for example, spare buses to replace late-running vehicles. Exhibit 6-16: Peak Period Schedule Deviation Monday to Saturday Services Average Delay at Route Start (mins) Average Delay at Route End (mins) Average Delay on Entire Route (mins) Route AM Peak (6 9 a.m.) PM Peak (3 6 p.m.) AM Peak (6 9 a.m.) PM Peak (3 6 p.m.) AM Peak (6 9 a.m.) PM Peak (3 6 p.m.) N/A N/A A C N/A N/A 5.0 N/A 7.2 N/A 7.9 AVG Notes: - Deviation is based on 1-2 days of Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) data and may highlight operating conditions on those days that do not reflect usual operating conditions. - Cells showing N/A indicate that schedule adherence data are not available. Exhibit 6-17: Schedule Deviation Evening and Sunday Services Average Delay at Route Start (mins) Average Delay at Route End (mins) Average Delay on Entire Route (mins) Route Evenings Sunday Evenings Sunday Evenings Sunday AVG Notes: - Deviation is based on 1-2 days of Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) data and may highlight operating conditions on those days that do not reflect usual operating conditions. May 27,

55 The most common reason for buses running behind schedule is that the routes are simply too long. In these cases, there is an insufficient amount of time scheduled to cover the entire length of the route in the time scheduled. Looked at another way, the average speed required to maintain schedule over the length of the route (that is, the length of the route divided by the scheduled time) is too high to achieve in practice. Exhibit 6-18 supports this hypothesis by illustrating that routes with higher required speeds also tend to have higher average delays in the morning and afternoon peak periods. In other words, longer routes are more likely to have longer delays. Exhibit 6-18: Average Delay Versus Average Operating Speed Notes: - Deviation is based on 1-2 days of Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) data and may highlight operating conditions on those days that do not reflect usual operating conditions. - Routes without a schedule deviation indicate that schedule adherence data are not available. A rule of thumb frequently applied in transit planning circles is that the operating speed of a route should not exceed 22 km/hr. Referring back to Exhibit 6-9, only a single route route 2 is below this threshold. Whether by coincidence or otherwise, this route also has the lowest average delay in the a.m. peak period and the next-to-lowest delays in the p.m. peak period. Improving on-time performance will likely require the reconfiguration of the route network to shorten the length of individual routes in order to allow operators to complete a trip within the scheduled running time. Given that late trips are defined as those that are more than 3 minutes behind schedule, increasing scheduled running time by reducing the scheduled layover time is not a solution, as it would reduce time at the downtown terminal to 2 minutes, making it difficult for customers to transfer between routes. The prevalence of early trips may be a consequence of constant late-running trips as operators may avoid adhering to timing points for fear of running late elsewhere on the route. In sum, this analysis has revealed the following: Brantford Transit buses frequently run late throughout the day during the week. On average, buses leave the terminal more than 3 minutes late in the a.m. peak and nearly 8 minutes late in the p.m. peak. Delays are even more pronounced in the evening. There is a correlation between the length of a route and the average delay on the route. On the whole, conventional service routes are too long and exceed industry standards for average operating speed. Delay propagates during the day/between runs. This speaks to the need for a formalized recovery procedure to stop delays from getting worse throughout the day. May 27,

56 6.2.4 Route Analysis This section provides a route-by-route overview of Brantford s conventional service network. The role and function of each route is identified along with a summary of findings and potential issues to be investigated and/or resolved as part service planning work. Route 1 Eagle Place Function: Connects predominately residential neighbourhood Eagle Place to downtown. Issues: Single-direction loop results in circuitous trips for riders at the start and end of the line Most passengers travelling along this route must transfer to reach destination. Average speed exceeds guideline, resulting in below-average schedule adherence Route 2 West Street/Brier Park Function: Provides direct service from downtown to Lynden Park Mall. Connects Brier Park neighbourhood to Lynden Park Mall. Provides local, two-direction service along busy West Street corridor. Provides service to industrial employment in Braneida Industrial Park during morning shift change. Issues: Majority of ridership is occurring between downtown and Lynden Park, with very little demand occurring in Brier Park/Fairview neighbourhoods. Brier Park connection is only provided in one direction Duplicates connection provided by Routes 4A/C and 9 to Lynden Park Mall. May 27,

57 Route 4 A/C Mall Link Function: Connects neighbourhoods of Brier Park/Greenbrier to the downtown. Connects downtown Brantford (and, by extension all other routes) with two-way service to and from Brantford General Hospital. Direct, two-way service along Fairview Drive, North Park Street, and King George Road. Connects Lynden Park Mall to Brantford Commons and other retail areas along King George Road. Issues: Circuitous deviation via Banbury Road Relatively low loading in residential neighbourhoods north of Fairview Drive/Lynden Road a reflection of the route s primary function as a shuttle between the malls and downtown Higher-than-average delays particularly on route 4A during the a.m. and p.m. peaks Route 5 West Brant/Oakhill Function: Serves community of West Brant Provides (predominantly) two-way service along Colborne Street West. Issues: Very circuitous service, partly due to layout of street network. Lowest ridership route during a.m. and p.m. peaks and overall throughout the day Average speed well in excess of operating guidelines, resulting in delays approaching half of the scheduled headway during peak periods Route 6 Shellard/West Brant Function: Connects the communities of West Brant and Shellard Lane to the downtown. Issues: Very circuitous and indirect service route travelling mainly on local roads. Lowest ridership route outside the peak periods, second lowest ridership route overall. Does not serve major demand patterns; majority of demand from the neighbourhood is travelling farther north than the downtown terminal. May 27,

58 Route 7 East Ward/Braneida Function: Provides a link from downtown to Braneida Industrial Park. Rapid service on arterial roads; approximately 10 minutes from terminal to employment areas. Issues: Travel demand to industrial areas during off-peak periods is low, meaning that a significant portion of this route is unproductive during these times This route was formerly anchored by Mohawk College, which has since closed its doors. Route 8 Holmedale/Mayfair Function: Provides limited service to the Northwest Industrial Area. Provides two-way service along Brant Avenue Connects Mayfair and Henderson neighbourhoods to downtown. Issues: Very circuitous and confusing service to and from the downtown. Below-average ridership throughout the day Average speed well in excess of recommended guidelines, resulting in above-average delays along the route. Route 9 Echo Place Function: Provides local two-way service along Colborne Street corridor. Connects the downtown to industrial employment along Wayne Gretzky Parkway and Garden Avenue. Provides service to Brantford Medical Centre Issues: Low ridership on route segments between Colborne Street and Lynden Park Mall Highest average speed in the weekday/saturday service network Service to medical centre provided only in one direction. May 27,

59 Route 11 West Brant/Oakhill/NWIA/Holmedale Function: Provides service to Northwest Industrial Area. Serves neighbourhoods of Holmedale and West Brant. Provides evening and Sunday service to areas served by daytime Route 3 and sections of Route 5. Issues: Lowest ridership of evening/weekend routes. Extensive branches and one way routing make this route ill-suited to matching travel patterns. Route 12 Eagle Place/Shellard Function: Serves neighbourhoods of West Brant, Eagle Place, and Shellard Lane. Provides evening and Sunday service to areas served by daytime Routes 1 and 6. Issues: Circuitous service along local roads. Very poor schedule adherence during weekday evenings No major destinations along route Route 13 King George Road/Brantwood Park Function: Connects Terrace Hill, Brier Park, Greenbrier, and Lynden Hills neighbourhoods to Lynden Park Mall, downtown, and Brantford Commons. Operates clockwise, serving to provide two way service to neighbourhoods north of Hwy 403 alongside route 15. Provides evening and Sunday service to areas served by daytime Route 4C. Issues: Below-average schedule adherence on weekday evenings. May 27,

60 Route 14 Echo Place/East Ward Function: Connects Echo Place, and East Ward neighbourhoods to Lynden Park Mall and downtown. Serves employment in the Braneida Industrial Park. Provides evening and Sunday service to areas served by daytime Route 9. Issues: Sunday ridership to Braneida Industrial Park is extremely low. Very circuitous service to and from Echo Place neighbourhood Route 15 West Street/Mayfair Function: Connects Terrace Hill, Brier Park, Greenbrier, Lynden Hills, and Mayfair neighbourhoods to Lynden Park Mall and downtown. Operates counter-clockwise, serving to provide two way service to neighbourhoods north of Hwy 403 alongside route 13. Issues: Significant overlap through neighbourhoods with Route 13 may provide redundant service Network and Route Assessment Summary Based on the foregoing analysis of the route network and individual routes, the following are the key areas of deficiency and for improvement. 1. Majority of individual routes are indirect and circuitous. 2. Majority of routes are lengthy and contribute to poor on-time performance. This is compounded by increased boarding time requirements related to accessibility and accommodation of strollers. 3. Route network design does not meet changing travel patterns and growth in city. Need to respond to east-west, southeast to north and northwest travel patterns as well as improved access to the northwest employment area. May 27,

61 7 Brantford Lift Overview This section provides an overview and critical assessment of the Brantford Lift specialized transit service including a review of trip reservation processes, eligibility criteria, staffing and resource utilization. Background The Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) creates strategic planning challenges and financial pressures that are unprecedented within Ontario s transit and specialized transit industry. In fact, the issue before the City of Brantford is how to provide a level of Brantford Lift (BL) specialized transit service that satisfies the requirements of the AODA in general and the Provincial Transportation Standards (the Integrated Accessibility Standards (Ontario regulation 191/11)) specifically. Further, the City is challenged to develop a plan to deliver public transit services to people with a disability that satisfies community requirements and expectations in a cost-effective manner. The Province of Ontario s Integrated Accessibility Standards (Ontario regulation 191/11) requires transportation services to prevent and remove barriers so that people with disabilities can more easily access transportation services across the province. Conventional providers and specialized transportation service providers must have started to meet the requirements of the transportation standards beginning back on July 1, Certain requirements have various other effective dates depending on the requirement and/or type of transportation covered under the standard. What is an accessibility standard? An accessibility standard is a rule (set of measures, policies & practices) that persons and organizations have to follow to identify, remove and prevent barriers. The issue is the management of demand. In other words, it is the management of the demand for specialized transit services that is important in order to help the City and their planning and funding partners plan effectively for the future. Alleviating all capacity constraints on the complementary specialized transit services provided by Brantford Lift represents a key risk factor in the City's efforts to balance community and regulatory requirements and budgetary realities. Efforts to accommodate future demand by simply adding capacity may in fact lead to an upward spiral of increased demand, possible refusal rates, and the need for more services. While this spiral will not perpetuate indefinitely, it is certainly likely to create untenable financial and operating pressures unless steps are taken to manage demand at the same time. It is important to identify potential improvements in meeting fiscally responsible mandates in the delivery of specialized transit services -- demand management measures. These measures are intended to ensure adequate customer and revenue volume for services, or to divert demand from more costly to less costly services using incentives, information, and other voluntary measures. The objective for the City in the near term includes the effective delivery of specialized transit and to accommodate the growing demand for public transit services by people with disabilities. To address this challenge, Brantford Transit May 27,

62 continues to develop an increasingly close relationship between accessible conventional transit services and the delivery of Brantford Lift specialized transit service. The review of Brantford Lift found that specialized transit in Brantford faces several challenges growing demand, changing community expectations, accessible conventional/fixed-route transit services, and increasing costs that present challenges in the delivery of specialized transit services. In light of these challenges, the review proposes a set of recommendations that would result in enhancements to the delivery of specialized transit service in the City, modeled on industry best practices and regulatory trends. At its heart, the recommended service model would ensure the continued compliance with AODA, as they evolve in the province, while simultaneously implementing demand management strategies to preserve the Brantford Lift service for those who truly need it and shifting some trips to more cost-effective transportation services. Brantford Lift Review Objectives and Approach The preparation of a 10-Year Service Plan will be designed to achieve several key objectives, specifically: Set strategic direction for improvements to specialized transit services over the next 10 years; Identify opportunities and obligations of the City in cost-effectively meeting the mobility requirements of the City s elderly and disability communities within a framework of providing shared ride public transit for those unable to use accessible conventional transit. This will include a more integrated approach with the accessible fixed-route, Brantford Transit services; Review existing Brantford Lift policies, procedures, operations and organization to ensure the delivery of efficient, effective and fiscally responsible service delivery in compliance with the Province s AODA (including implications of the Provincial Integrated Accessibility Standards/Ontario regulation 191/11); and Provide estimates of future demand for Brantford Lift services and access the implications of growth and increasing demand on operational and capital budgets. Existing Brantford Lift specialized transit services provide tremendous benefits to people with disabilities, but because of increasing demands and high costs, it is important that the service be provided with maximum efficiency. Improving cost efficiencies requires the review of current processes, and implementation of other creative and innovative solutions to best respond to emerging specialized transit needs over the next five years. To this end current issues and financial realities have been addressed, including: Is the best service being provided, given the financial and operational resources available? How does Brantford Lift address increasing demands for specialized transit service, given fiscal and budgetary limitations? What efficiencies may be gained through enhancements to administrative and operating processes including eligibility and certification, advance booking, trip purpose policy, etc.? What is the most effective manner of providing specialized transit services given the differences in needs for persons with different functional disabilities and the range of service delivery options available? May 27,

63 To what extent can the accessible conventional transit services meet the mobility needs of persons with disabilities? What initiatives and policies can be implemented to promote the use of lower cost options, while providing quality service to customers? What opportunities exist to potentially coordinate, through a community collaborative effort (possibly partnering with or coordinating efforts with local social service agencies, health services, etc.) the operation and funding of transportation services for persons with a disability? These issues and study objectives were subsequently translated into a work program, which included: Data collection: (primary and secondary); Profile of Brantford Lift services Census data / Transport Canada s TransAccess database Operating and demographic data from the City. Development of travel demand forecasts; A series of stakeholder consultations including the public, Brantford Lift customers, agencies/organizations representing the City s elderly and disabled populations, City s Accessibility Advisory Committee and Brantford Transit officials/staff including operations staff and operators. A review of existing Brantford Lift operating policies, service characteristics and budgets, and reservation, scheduling and trip management processes; and Development and analysis of alternate service strategies and related implementation Mobility Vision A Way Forward Through multiple initiatives addressing quality of life considerations, the City ensures a healthy, connected, supportive environment for its residents. It is within this spirit that the following guiding principles will provide the foundation for the recommended Brantford Lift service plan strategies: Universal access including an accessible infrastructure; Flexible mobility options with a cost-effective mix of accessible public transportation services; and Maximize the utility and investment in accessible conventional transit (mobility management strategies) to encourage a shift from specialized to conventional public transit. Brantford Lift: shared ride public transit for those unable to use accessible public transit These guiding principles recognize the requirement for an accessible infrastructure to complement the current operation of Brantford Transit s accessible, low-floor transit buses. As a transit provider, the City of Brantford has facilitated a more integrated approach between accessible conventional transit services and specialized (Brantford Lift) transit services. Transit has created a user friendly, accessible conventional transit service that may provide additional mobility options for many specialized transit service registrants. An accessible public transit system provides a higher degree of trip making flexibility and facilitates greater travel spontaneity and independence. A truly accessible transit system can become the preferred choice for many people with a disability. May 27,

64 In order to fully implement an effective 10-Year Service (Mobility) Plan, Brantford Transit must build on its current successes in developing a corporate and community culture that recognizes and supports the strategic, social and economic benefits of a Mobility Plan. This culture must be fully accepted and supported by the City as well as Brantford Lift program management and frontline staff. The longer term vision is to move towards the concept of universal access to conventional public transit services. While preserving the integrity of Brantford Lift specialized transit services for those with no alternatives, universal access to conventional transit services requires the need to address ancillary considerations including an accessible infrastructure, streetscape, audible signals, etc. Profile of Existing Brantford Lift Operations The City of Brantford operates two public transit services, the conventional bus system (Brantford Transit BT) and Brantford Lift (BL), the specialized system. These two systems complement each other to ultimately provide an accessible public transit system. BL provides local public transportation in the city to people who are unable to use the BT service, due to a physical disability, and who are registered with BL. BL provides accessible door-to-door transportation using lift-equipped vehicles Key Statistics Over 1,950 registrants: Persons with physical disability Application process: validated by health care professional Provision for seasonal and short-term registration Pre-booked trips accepted. 66,694 trips/year Annual operating cost $1.76m. Cost per trip: $ trips per hour 27,133 bus hours of service Since the fares paid for both BT and BL services are the same, passes may be used on either service. Current fare rates are summarized in Exhibit 2-2. Support Persons (attendants) travel free. Bus operators collect fares using portable B-card readers or exact cash fares. BL service is generally offered during the same days and hours of operation as BT service although BL service is available until 8:00 p.m. on Sundays. Functional Areas There are four main functional areas in the delivery of the specialized transit service. They are: Funding and Oversight Eligibility and Registration Brantford Lift Monday to Saturday 6:00 a.m. to 12:30 a.m. Sunday 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. May 27,

65 Reservation and Scheduling Service Delivery Program Oversight BL is administered, funded and operated by the City of Brantford through the Transit Division of the Public Works Commission. The Manager of Transit is responsible for BL providing oversight for eligibility certification; policy development and enforcement; service monitoring, evaluation and planning; funding; budget adherence; public relations; the direct operations and the provision of service vehicles, maintenance and fuel. Direct operations management includes the booking, scheduling and dispatching of trips; and the preparation of monthly service performance reports. The Brantford Accessibility Advisory Committee (BAAC) is a committee of Council that works with BT administrative staff in an advisory capacity Eligibility and Registration Eligibility The role of BL in providing door-to-door specialized transit means that it requires a significantly higher subsidy to provide an equal level of mobility. As such, to be responsible to the integrity of service, eligibility requirements are put in place to ensure that people using the service have a true need for it. Virtually every specialized transit service across North America incorporates some type of eligibility criteria and registration process before a person can become a registered customer. Current BL eligibility criterion focuses on applicants physical limitations: persons who are physically unable to climb or descend steps and/or persons who are unable to walk a distance of 175 metres. Eligibility criteria conditions include permanent and temporary. A healthcare provider must provide verification of an applicant s disability. The healthcare provider is asked to validate the applicant s primary disability, if they pose a risk to other passengers, other medical conditions that prevent their use of transit, if the applicant can be left alone at the drop off location, and what period is service required. Registration Process A relatively simple registration process is in place at the City for admittance into the BL program. The applicant must submit an application form to the City, which includes a section to be completed by their healthcare provider. The application form is reviewed by transit staff with questionable applications being forwarded to the Eligibility Sub-Committee of the BAAC for a decision Reservation, Scheduling & Dispatching/Trip Management As is common industry practice, BL requires advanced booking for all trips taken by its registered users. Advanced booked trips are able to be booked within the following parameters: Must be booked by 9:30 p.m. the day before Up to 6 weeks in advance Rides for Saturday, Sunday and Monday must be booked by Friday at 9:30 p.m. BL administrative staff handle trip booking, scheduling and dispatching responsibilities. Trip volumes are such that the three processes can be handled by a dispatcher. There is one May 27,

66 dedicated BL call-taker/dispatcher position with other transit staff providing coverage on an as required basis. The client database, trip bookings and the building of schedules are maintained in a Trapeze (Version 13) software application. Complementing this software is the availability of vehicle locating capabilities (AVL) to monitor vehicle location in real-time. Communication between dispatch and drivers/operators is by mobile radio. Trips can be booked via telephone by reaching the reservationist/dispatcher that is available Monday to Friday from 7:00 a.m. to 9:30 p.m. Trips are generally booked in real-time on the phone. Return trips are booked at the same time, with the exception of some medical trips which are accommodated by a will call (customer phones at end of appointment for return trip). Booked trips are typically confirmed at the time of reservation. Some same-day trip requests are accommodated on a space-available basis. Trip cancellations are made by customers phoning a dispatcher during business hours, leaving a voic outside of business hours or by calling the inspector. Data suggests that no-shows and cancellations are problematic given that they consume unproductive service hours. Current data suggest that these number over 21 percent of scheduled service. Cancellations received at least one day in advance (at least 50% of all cancellations) are less problematic as staff is able to effectively insert trips in available times. Dispatching takes place on the day of service and is juggled with the dispatcher s responsibilities to book trips, process cancellations and optimize schedules for the next day. The dispatcher is able to reassign trips from buses that may be running behind schedule to buses that have extra time between pick-ups and drop-offs Day-to-Day Operations BL has a dedicated core of full and part-time operators. All operators are required to undergo BL training prior to their first shift on the service. Based on interviews with drivers, the current method of service delivery is efficient and effective. However, there are concerns expressed that growing demand, trip distance, and traffic conditions are making it difficult to accommodate all trips in a timely manner. However, with minor changes to the schedule, such as the changing of pick up sequences, and swapping of pick-ups, operators are able to coordinate to ensure that they stay on-time. Under ordinary circumstances, almost all trips remain within the provided fifteen-minute booking window and trip or travel times rarely exceed one half-hour. The ability of the operators to maintain their schedule is a key strength of the service today and stretches the overall efficiency of the system Fleet Utilization The BL fleet is summarized in Exhibit 8-1. Two of the listed vehicles are no longer in service (i.e., and 12115) leaving BL with an active fleet of fourteen buses with a peak vehicle pull out of twelve buses. Exhibit 8-1 presents an inventory of the current fleet and replacement schedule as prepared by City staff. Relative to trip volumes, system performance and industry norms, the number of BL peak vehicles is high. Peer agencies have an average of approximately 8.5 peak vehicles. May 27,

67 Brantford Lift Peer Review Operating characteristics and 2014 data for a select number of peer specialized transit services as well as Population Group 2 2 (50,000 to 150,000) summary was reviewed for general comparison. Peer data is presented in Exhibit 7-1. Salient observations are presented below. BL s cost per trip is marginally less (8%) than the Population Group average. ($26.32 vs. $28.70). The City s investment in specialized transit as measured as the cost per capita, of $16.62 is 26% greater than Population Group average of $ While positive, may also suggest an excessive amount of service being provided and validates the need to explore demand management initiatives. The number of BL trips per capita is 13% greater than the Population Group average (at 0.68 and 0.59, respectively), further suggesting the need to manage travel demand. The average number of kilometres per passenger trip for BL is 17% less than the peer average (6.1 vs. 7.1). This suggests opportunity to promote greater ride sharing and hence enhanced service efficiencies. BL has 41% more peak vehicles than the peer average. In short, the BL is performing similarly to peer properties relative to the cost of service delivery. However the level of service as measured by trip generation rates, trips per capita and the number of peak vehicles is significantly greater than peer averages. The BL program is faced with similar challenges (and opportunities) as many specialized transit services throughout Ontario, including: The need for Legislative compliance (ensure fully compliant with AODA). The need to effectively manage demographics and growth in travel demand. The need to address a range of functional disabilities including cognitive, sensory, etc.; and The need to address program administration and trip management considerations in order to address increasing costs, fiscal accountability and service and scheduling efficiencies. The status quo is not sustainable without interventions including the need for amended eligibility and certification processes, scheduling and trip management enhancements and other demand management strategies providing a range of mobility options for the city s elderly and disability communities. 2 The Canadian Urban Transit Association s (CUTA) national and Ontario Specialized Transit Services Fact Books define Population Group 2 as those communities with a population of 50,000 to 150,000. May 27,

68 Exhibit 7-1: Brantford Lift Performance Relative to Peers Characteristic / Performance Indicator Brantford, ON Guelph, ON Niagara Falls, ON Red Deer, AB Sarnia, ON Thunder Bay, ON Average Population Served 95, ,700 83,000 97,100 71, , k Total Passengers 66,140 53,800 30,300 87,500 34,200 75,800 49,500 # of Peak Vehicles Cost per Passenger $26.32 $46.51 $14.78 $28.21 $25.03 $34.20 $28.70 Cost per Hour $64.85 $ $42.70 $91.70 $56.06 $61.95 $81.50 R/C Ratio 7% 4% 15% 18% 8% 16% 13% Cost/Capita $16.62 $12.30 $4.85 $20.40 $11.70 $19.75 $13.16 Registrants/Capita Passengers/Capita Trips/Registrant Passengers/Hour Kms/Passenger *Source Canadian Urban Transit Association 2014 Statistics May 27,

69 Travel Demand Changing demographics (i.e., aging population), growth in population through migration, and changes in settlement patterns certainly affect the demand for transit, whether it be conventional or specialized transit services. These changes are, however, usually anticipated and, as such, are generally included in the City population projections used in this demand analysis. The projections from 2015 to 2025 take into account things such as an aging population. There are however, issues that are not as easy to project, and are almost impossible to include in a transportation demand model. These issues are usually more socio/political in nature and affect the need and use of many kinds of transportation services. They include, but are not limited to: Trends towards community-based living; Expansion of adult day programs; Health care restructuring; Social policy framework; and Changes to service standards and other operational policies. Recent research commissioned by AARP (formerly known as the American Association of Retired Persons) suggests that the boomer generation, the first wave of which turned 65 years of age in 2011, will typically be healthier than that of previous generations. With greater expectations for mobility, this somewhat more affluent boomer generation will be a product of a more health conscious age group, while experiencing medical advances unprecedented in medical history. Future directions suggest the incidence of disability with aging will not escalate at the same rate that we have seen over the past quarter century. The increase in older adults does not necessarily indicate a proportionate need for the current mix of transit services. The increase in the percentage of older adults as a total of Brantford s population will not result in a direct proportional increase in the demand for BL services. As the baby boom generation ages, the older adult population will generally: Be healthier and more physically fit Have a higher level of education Have a higher disposable income Be less transit dependent with greater automobile ownership/access Be living independently Have a wider range of lifestyle preferences and higher mobility expectations The following section profiles travel demand and trip rates specific to the transportation disabled populations in the city and BL services. Data specific to the incidence of disability is from Statistics Canada s 2006 Participation and Activity Limitation Survey (PALS), the Canadian Survey on Disability (2012) and to a lesser extent, the TransAccess TM database (based on Statistics Canada s Health and Activity Limitation survey) Travel Demand and Trip Rates This section profiles travel demand and trip rates specific to the transportation disabled populations in the city and BL services. One objective of this study was to develop demand estimates and travel trip rates for persons with disabilities. This data is to be used for transportation modelling and the development of operational and service delivery solutions to meet these demands. May 27,

70 Exhibit 7-2 profiles the travel demand for the years 2015, 2020, and The calculations use national incident rates for disabilities to estimate the future number of persons with disabilities in the city. The exhibit also illustrates the potential increase in demand for BL service. As the population grows, the demand for BL service will naturally increase. There is reason to believe the request rate may also increase due to a larger proportion of seniors in the community. The senior population has been increasing in Brantford and will continue to do so at an accelerating rate as the baby boomers (the population cohort born between 1946 and the early 1960 s) age. The area already has fewer people in the 20 to 44 age group and a higher proportion of seniors than the provincial average. A review of recent census data, and projections from the Ontario Ministry of Finance, shows that the growth of the over 65 age group will have a significant impact on the City in the next two decades. The population of seniors will more than double, growing from 19,000 in 2007 to close to 40,000 people in This projection does not take into account seniors moving into the area, so the actual increase will likely be much larger. It is important to note that these calculations are based on recognized trip rates and comparisons of levels of service of communities in the population group of 50,000 to 150,000 people. People based on incident rates for disabilities people refers to estimate of number of people deemed to be transportation disabled (approximately 5% +/- of population). Registrants number of people deemed to have functional limitation (meeting AODA eligibility criteria) and expected/eligible to register for specialized transit service. (Typically 1 to 2% of population expected to increase in the future aging population, increased incidence of disability, etc.). Trips Registered (eligible) passengers carried. Exhibit 7-2 presents alternate scenarios under trips : 2014 Actual as reported Calculated Exhibit 7-2: Brantford Lift Travel Demand Year Population People Registrants Trips 2015 Actual: 1,950 Actual: 67,900 96,430 5,010 Calculated: 1,500 Calculated: 41,100 * 31,600 ** ,000 5,825 2,330 51,260 *** 81,100 (based on current trip rate) ,400 6,410 2,440 58,560 *** * Based on Actual number of registrants - 41,100 is the number of trips that would have been provided based on current number of BL registrants but using industry norms for trip generation rate. ** Based on Calculated number of registrants and industry norms for trip generation - 31,600 number of trips using revised estimate of number of registrants and industry norm for trip generation rate. *** Based on projected number of registrants and trip generation rate These projections assume various demand management strategies (including an amended eligibility and certification process) are implemented to ensure alternate mobility options for the city s elderly and disability communities and for the City to ensure the provision of quality BL services for registrants unable to use other options. May 27,

71 Stakeholder Consultation An integral component of the BL review and preparation of an Action Plan for BL enhancements was seeking input from key stakeholders. The following provides a summary of input received at a number of meetings held Thursday, January 7, 2016 including: Brantford Accessibility Advisory Committee (19 attendees); Focus Group/Working session with representatives from various agencies/organizations representing older adults and the disability community (16 attendees); and BL drivers (5 attendees). Time was also spent with BL operations staff. Outcomes from this meeting including an overview of current policies and procedures is being prepared under separate cover. These consultative sessions were designed to solicit input from the community and other stakeholders. Topics of discussion included: conceptual service alternatives/approaches, trip making characteristics, demand management strategies, and general perceptions about service quality. Much of the discussion with and comments received from consumers were favourable towards the BL program in general and the dispatcher and operators/drivers specifically. The latter receiving much praise for the quality of service including driver assistance above and beyond the call of duty. Many were thankful for the availability of BL service and the City s commitment to providing this service to its residents. In short, BL provides a life-line for many older adults and people with disabilities enabling them to get out and about and partake in all their daily living needs. Further, many expressed concern that the service not be reduced although there was some recognition of the significant cost of delivering the current level of service. A summary of comments follows: a) Eligibility: Preference for a functional limitation criteria rather than the present physical definition. Refer to the functional need and not the medical label. Recognized to need to reflect range of functional disabilities including cognitive, sensory, etc. May need to be more restrictive to ensure those with no alternatives will always be able to use BL. Need to reflect the safety aspect especially for persons with a visual impairment. Discussion of the need for attendants and how attendant care may be addressed in the review of eligibility and certification processes. b) Operations / Service Delivery: Service reliability for the BL service is sometimes problematic. Reports of vehicle break downs and vehicles running late. Sometimes schedules (including scheduling windows) are problematic if running late (examples cited of shopping and being delayed in check-out line while bus is waiting). May 27,

72 Many recognized the need to bring the delivery of specialized transit more in line with shared ride public transit, compliance with provincial legislation and ensure it remain fiscally responsible for all taxpayers. Stricter policies for no-shows and same day cancellations / recognition of the negative impact these have on service delivery. c) Accessible Conventional Transit (BT): Using accessible conventional transit may be appropriate for some BL customers but likely not that practical during the winter months. Discussion of the need for an accessible infrastructure including accessible paths of travel to access transit snow removal, curb-cuts/ramps, accessible bus stops and shelters, etc. Isolated comments on difficulties with the manoeuvrability of scooters on the low floor buses. Suggestions that operators should receive more thorough training on disability awareness, sensitivity as well as the securement of wheelchairs/mobility device and use of priority seating (asking riders to make seats available for those require seating). Need to look at design of transit shelters which are not always accessible problematic for some using a mobility aid. Travel/mobility training would benefit many but the cost (bus fare) may be prohibitive for some agencies/organizations training multiple clients/program participants. d) General Comments: Access to medical appointments is problematic with the BL service for a number of reasons: Difficult to make same day bookings (spontaneous travel); Sometimes don t know what time will be finished at the doctor and don t know what time to book a return trip; and Will Call return trips may result in lengthy waits. Some expressed a willingness to pay a premium fare for same-day service. Much praise for the quality of BL service, staff and drivers. Community program agency staff time is excessive in researching and coordinating client transportation. Regional travel is problematic in terms of trip bookings and the challenges in coordinating trips with multiple operators. Opportunity to coordinate county services including trip booking procedures, transfer locations, etc Bus Operator Meeting Discussed process of building schedules including drivers take their manifests and revise based on their knowledge of customer, routing, traffic conditions, etc. Expressed concern that the geocoding in scheduling algorithm is problematic (regarding trip assignments, routing, etc.) Need to address cancellation and no-show rates. May 27,

73 Need to amend eligibility application. Need to manage expectations of (some) customers (who may not understand that BL is shared ride transit). Key Observations Based on the review of existing BL processes, operations and service delivery, the following areas will be addressed in the development of conceptual alternatives for operational and service enhancements: Eligibility and certification need to amend application form and certification process to reflect broader range of functional disabilities. An amended application form will reflect the transit trip cycle getting to a bus, waiting for a bus, boarding/disembarking, ability to function independently, etc. It is important to clearly make the determination of need for door-to-door transport vs. attendant care. Booking processes and advance booking requirements have been recently amended to comply with AODA in response to initial review by consulting team assessment of service needs. Cancellation and no-show rates are unusually high. This will be addressed in amended booking policies, procedures and processes. The level of BL service as measured by trip generation rates, trips per capita and the number of peak vehicles is greater than peer averages. While positive, may also suggest an excessive amount of service being provided and validates the need to explore demand management initiatives. Ancillary observations include: Amended booking procedures may result in the lessening of total peak vehicle requirements. The calculation of BL productivity appears to be overstated as passengers (which include attendants and companions) are used for calculating trips per hour 3. Specialized transit industry best practices are moving toward advanced technologies to enhance operating performance and the customer experience. There is a need to develop a series of service/performance standards for BL services. Next Steps A Way Forward Following the completion of documenting existing conditions of BL services, attention will shift to developing conceptual alternatives to address operational and service gaps and opportunities for service enhancements. Concepts will be developed within a framework designed to: 3 Based on 2014 data - the number of trips made by registered passengers would translate to 2.37 trips per hour vs. 2.5 trips per hour including attendants and companions. May 27,

74 Preserve the integrity of BL for those persons with a disability who are unable to use accessible conventional transit; Maximize the utility of current and future investments made by the City in accessible conventional transit and accompanying infrastructure; Provide flexible mobility options with a cost-effective mix of accessible shared-ride public transportation services; Recognize the legislative guidelines of the AODA in general and the Provincial Transportation Standards (the Integrated Accessibility Standards (Ontario regulation 191/11)) specifically; and Be fiscally responsible and accountable. Brantford Lift: shared ride public transit for those unable to use accessible public transit BL provides an invaluable service for the city s elderly and disability communities. It remains imperative that there exists, however, non-discriminatory access to accessible conventional services, where available, with BL acting as a safety net for people who cannot use the conventional transit services. Philosophically, specialized transportation is not intended to be a comprehensive system of transportation for individuals with disabilities but simply a system that can provide individuals with disabilities the same public transportation service opportunities everyone else gets. May 27,

75 8 Infrastructure This chapter reviews and assesses the physical assets of the City s conventional transit service - its bus fleet, facilities (transit garage, terminals, bus stops and shelters) and vehicle maintenance practices. Fleet The transit vehicle fleet totals 31 units for BT services and 16 for the BL service as summarized in Exhibit 8-1. Three new low-floor 12.2m (40 ft.) transit buses were received in the fall of 2015 which replaced three older vehicles. Two replacement buses are on order for delivery in the fall of Within the BL fleet, 5 new vehicles were also received in 2015 replacing an equal number of older units. In addition to the buses, there are two service trucks and one supervisory vehicle. The fleet average age for the conventional (BT) fleet is approximately 7.5 years and 3.5 years for the BL fleet which are both good. Brantford has adopted a 14 year life cycle for the BT fleet and a 7 year life cycle for its BL fleet. These life cycles are reasonable although some municipalities are following slightly longer life cycles of 16 to 18 years for their conventional transit fleet. The department s capital asset plan includes the purchase of two replacement buses for the transit fleet in 2016 followed by two in 2018 and 4 in Five of the transit buses purchased in 2010 have hybrid diesel-electric drive systems intended to reduce fuel consumption and emissions. The hybrid drive system has a per vehicle cost premium of approximately $200,000 per bus over the standard clean diesel price of approximately $500,000. Buses purchased since then are mini-hybrids and feature all-electric support systems (fans, cooling system, heating/ventilation) which reduce fuel consumption and emissions but with a lower cost premium of approximately $15,000 per bus. The Hybrid buses indicate a fuel savings of approximately 19% (2.46 km/l) compared to the standard diesel buses (2.06 km/l) while the mini hybrid buses indicate a savings of approximately 7% (2.20). However, these figures are based on a limited analysis. The average kilometres operated by each conventional bus is approximately 58,000. On this basis, the fuel savings for the Hybrid system is approximately 4,991 litres or $4,100 per year (2015 average fuel price), while the mini-hybrid would save 2,205 litres or $1,830 per year. For the BL fleet, 4 replacement buses are planned for 2016 with 2 more in 2017 and 3 in The latest buses are gasoline-powered instead of diesel. May 27,

76 Exhibit 8-1: Brantford Transit Vehicle Fleet Summary Fleet# Qty Manuf. Model Year Length Seats Notes Brantford Transit OBI Orion VII m Novabus LFS m Novabus LFS m Novabus LFS m Novabus LFS m Novabus LFS HEV m 37 Hybrid Electric Novabus LFS m Novabus LFS m 33 2 wheelchair positions, mini-hybrid Novabus LFS m 33 4 wheelchair positions; min-hybrid Novabus LFS m 33 4 wheelchair positions; mini-hybrid TOTAL 31 Brantford Lift Ford E m 4 4 wheelchairs Ford E m 4 4 wheelchairs 12107,08,10 3 Ford E m 4 4 wheelchairs Ford E m 4 4 wheelchairs Ford E m 4 4 wheelchairs Crestline m 4 5 wheelchairs, gas Crestline m 4 5 wheelchairs, gas TOTAL 16 Spare Ratio The spare ratio represents the number of vehicles available for maintenance and stand-by purposes over and above the maximum number of vehicles required to provide transit service. For the conventional fleet, the ratio currently stands at 47.6%, or 10 vehicles out of the fleet of 31 over and above the maximum in-service requirement of 21 vehicles. Industry experience indicates that the transit spare ratio should be 20% to 25%. For Brantford, this would indicate 5 vehicles over maximum in-service requirements for a total fleet of 26 vehicles. On this basis, Brantford has five vehicles surplus to needs and indicates that the two buses presently on order for fall delivery may not be required subject to future route and service needs to be determined by the service plan in the next study phase. For the specialized transit fleet, vehicle usage varies extensively by time of day with a maximum of 12 vehicles required during the day, leaving 4 as spares, a 33% ratio which is also high by industry standards. Vehicle Size As discussed above, the conventional transit fleet currently is standardized on 12.2m (40 foot) buses while the specialized fleet utilizes small (7.6m), cut-away (body-on-chassis), liftequipped buses which is the most common vehicle for this service. For BT services, the City had previously purchased shorter 9.6 m (30 foot) buses but found them to be both not as durable and reliable as the 12.2 m full-size buses but also more expensive to maintain due to less durable components, which has been reported in the past to City Council. As such, the City has purchased 12.2 m buses exclusively in recent years. For a variety of reasons, over and above maintenance and reliability issues, the 12.2 m length buses offer several other important May 27,

77 advantages related to customer capacity and comfort. With increased presence of wheelchairs and large strollers, there is a greater need for more room within the bus to accommodate these items. To this end, recent bus purchases feature four wheelchair positions, instead of the usual two, primarily to provide space for large strollers. A side-benefit of this strategy is also standardizing the fleet on 12.2 m buses which reduces parts inventory and simplifies the maintenance program and time to maintain buses. For the specialized vehicle fleet, the industry is transitioning to small low-floor models in order to avoid the need for lifts which Example of a low-floor bus with ramp for increase the time required to board people in specialized transit service wheelchairs and which are a high-maintenance item. Ramps also offer a safer method for boarding people in wheelchairs. Vehicle Propulsion Options The City has purchased both clean diesel as well as hybrid diesel-electric powered buses in recent years for the conventional fleet. All buses meet the most stringent environmental standards in effect at the time of purchase. The most recent bus purchases feature electricallydriven support systems and are known as mini hybrids. Both the hybrid and mini-hybrid buses have resulted in fuel savings and reduced emissions. There are, however, alternative vehicle technologies available such as compressed natural gas (CNG) and full electric buses. The use of CNG as a bus fuel technology has seen renewed interest in the past few years due to concerns about escalating diesel fuel prices compared to very low CNG fuel costs. CNG bus technology has been in use in many cities particularly in the United States although Toronto, Waterloo and London phased out this technology in favour of clean diesel a number of years ago. Original concerns with fuel quality and engine reliability which resulted in high maintenance costs and low reliability with CNG vehicles, have largely been overcome and with low prices for CNG fuel a number of larger transit systems are considering purchasing this technology. Hamilton has recently decided to re-acquire this technology after originally deciding to change back to clean diesel technology. However, there is a cost premium of approximately $50,000 per bus along with the need to install a CNG fuelling system, which could be as high as $2.5 million depending on final design, and the need to modify the transit facility to comply with CNG building codes. Collectively, these costs can make this technology alternative difficult to justify for Brantford from a cost-effectiveness standpoint compared to the potential fuel cost savings estimated at 20% ($7,000) per year per bus. Electric bus technology, wherein the vehicle is powered by electricity from on-board batteries, is an emerging power alternative. A number of bus manufacturers are developing this technology with a Chinese company, BYD and a United States company, Proterra, demonstrating prototype vehicles. Canadian bus manufacturers, New Flyer and Nova Bus, are also developing electric vehicles, in varying design formats. Edmonton, Winnipeg and Montreal are demonstrating this technology. However, the price premium for this technology is significant with vehicles costing approximately $1.0 million, compared to $500,000 for clean diesel with mini-hybrid, and a further $250,000 to $300,000 for each re-charging station. As well, the technology and the vehicles are still relatively new and are not time-proven in regular transit service. Nevertheless, there appears to be potential with this technology and City staff should monitor progress through the Metrolinx provincial vehicle procurement program. May 27,

78 Transit Centre The transit centre, located at 400 Grand River Avenue, is the administration and vehicle maintenance base for the transit services and other city vehicles. It incorporates offices for administrative and BL dispatching and trip reservation staff as well as offices for vehicle maintenance staff, a secure area for parts inventory and 8 maintenance bays, 7 of which are equipped with vehicle hoists. There is a vehicle storage area which can accommodate all of the conventional transit fleet. The BL fleet is stored outdoors. Vehicle fuelling (diesel) and a bus wash system is also included within the building. Fuelling for gasoline vehicles is located outside. There is sufficient parking for employee and support vehicles on the property. The building dates from mid 1960s and was originally the operations and maintenance centre for the Public Utilities Commission. The building is in generally good condition although the City has included plans to undertake some refurbishment and minor expansion to it in its 5-year capital budget. Terminals There are three major transfer points, hubs or terminal locations within the transit system. One is substantial, one is less substantial and one is informal. The formal terminal/transfer points are in downtown Brantford and at the Lynden Park Mall, while the informal terminal or transfer point is situated within the Brantford Commons shopping area. From these three locations, multiple routes come together to connect the surrounding areas with these important destination points. Downtown Terminal The downtown terminal is situated off-street at 64 Darling Street west of Market Street and serves as the primary hub and transfer point for all transit routes. It incorporates 7 independent and two parallel bays for transit routes, one parallel bay for up to two intercity buses and a two-storey building. The building includes an enclosed passenger waiting area, a small operations control centre room staffed by transit inspectors on the ground floor, and an office, transit employee lunch area and washroom facilities on the second floor. The transit bus loading bays which extend north of the building are covered by a canopy. Opened in 1988, the facility brought together the operational needs of both the City s transit service and the private sector intercity highway coaches. Until 2013, the building included a coffee and doughnut sales outlet. A parcel storage area for Greyhound bus services is on the ground floor. Several studies to review the city s downtown transit terminal needs and preferred terminal site location have been conducted with the past 7 years. These studies indicated that additional space was required for transit purposes on the basis of existing transit space needs, the potential for an additional route as well as the potential extension of GO bus service to Brantford (now confirmed). In general, the facility is in need of refurbishment. A strategy to accommodate the planned GO bus service connection to the terminal will need to be formulated although it may be possible to utilize the loading area set aside for Greyhound on a shared-use basis. May 27,

79 Depending on recommended changes to the transit route network and service levels as a result of the current study, additional bays may not be required at the terminal as indicated in the 2009 Transit Terminal/Parking Structure study report. Lynden Park Mall The transit stop at the Lynden Park Mall serves as a transfer point for the four routes which operate into the mall. Located near the southeast entrance to the mall, the transfer point consists of a concrete platform with space for two transit buses on either side, two shelters and some limited customer amenities. Bus access to this terminal is at times difficult as they must travel a significant distance on the mall s internal roadway to reach the transfer point. During busy shopping periods, delays to buses and transit service occur. However, with the Mall owner recently announcing plans to double the size of the mall and expressing interest in improving the transit facility, now is an excellent time for City staff to work with the mall owner to develop an improved terminal or transfer point as well as the choice of location which would provide enhanced customer amenities and identity, washroom facilities for bus operators and improved access to the terminal location from the surrounding road network. Brantford Commons The Brantford Commons area is a box store development with an internal road network and stores located around the road network. Three routes travel east-west through the development between King George Road and Francis Street/Royal Oak Drive providing links from the King George corridor and the surrounding neighbourhoods providing an opportunity for users to transfer between routes. Travel through the Commons area for transit buses can be problematic during busy shopping periods due to traffic volumes, given the layout of the internal street network and location of the stores, resulting in delays to transit service. There is one stop location with two stops and two shelters (one in each travel direction) within the development. The shelters incorporate a transit route map inside. The one stop location, at the Dollar Tree store provides limited access to this important shopping area. As well, the location of the shelter on the east side makes it difficult for transit users to see approaching buses and for prospective transit users to identify the presence of the shelter. The shelter should be relocated to a more prominent position. An additional stop and shelters and related customer amenities should be added to improve access to this important shopping area. Bus Stops and Shelters Bus Stops There are approximately 462 bus stops within the city. Bus stops are a core component of any fixed route transit service. They serve three important functions by: 1. Advertising to users where bus services exist; 2. Indicating where users should position themselves to access the transit service; and 3. Designating the spot where the bus operator is to stop the vehicle. May 27,

80 Thus, careful attention must be given to stop placement. Locations for stops are determined by Transit staff in consultation with the Transportation department and are then installed by Traffic staff. There is a delicate balance between having too many or too few bus stops. Bus stops are how users access transit so convenient and regular stop spacing is important. The indiscriminant placement of stops or the installation of too many stops will impede transit service and negatively affect the environmental efficiency of the transit service by increasing the number of times buses must stop and start. In turn, this can result in buses having to accelerate faster and stop more quickly in order to maintain schedules which results in more fuel consumption. This characteristic also negatively impacts users and bus operators who experience an uncomfortable ride. Generally industry guidelines suggest stops should be spaced every 250 to 300 metres, although this spacing is highly dependent on site specific considerations. Previous analysis of stop locations indicated that there were opportunities to reduce the number of stops as well as co-locate stops with traffic stop signs and signals instead of separate locations, a process which Transit staff have been pursuing. The more often buses stop and start, the more fuel they consume. Therefore, assessing opportunities to reduce the requirement for buses to stop would also reduce the transit system s environmental impact. A previous review of the number and location of traffic control devices (stop signs and traffic lights) along bus routes was undertaken to identify where bus stops could be moved closer to the traffic control device. This would avoid the bus stopping twice in a short space (once for the bus stop and once for the traffic control device). The City of Brantford data on the location of stop signs along bus routes, and which roads were controlled by the stop sign found that 26% of bus stops were within 100m of a stop sign that affects the bus. Most (19%) were within 25m of the stop sign, implying the bus could stop once for both the bus stop and the stop sign. The remaining bus stops were between 25m and 100m of the stop sign, which implies that buses will stop twice, once for the bus stop and once for the stop sign. There are about 60 bus stops where this occurs, and these bus stops should be considered for moving closer to the relevant stop sign. Exhibit 8-2: Bus Stop Spacing Analysis Existing stop spacing Revised stop spacing 120 Number of stops Stop spacing (metres) May 27,

81 Based on analysis conducted in 2011 Traffic signal location data was also provided, and a similar examination carried out. It was found that 27% were within 100m of a traffic signal, but only 6% were within 25m of the traffic signal. Most (around 200 stops) were between 25m and 100m from the traffic signal. Traffic signals generally occur at significant intersections, where nearby bus stops will generate above-average boardings and alightings. This in turn means there is a high probability that the bus would have to stop twice, once for the bus stop and once for the traffic signal. (The delay from stopping to pick-up passengers will increase the chance the bus will encounter a red light). There are a significant number of stops where this occurs and relocating them closer to the traffic signals could yield considerable benefits. Together, bus stop location, spacing and traffic control sign location analysis indicates the potential to both reduce the number of bus stops as well as to better co-ordinate the location of bus stops and traffic stop signs and thereby reduce the overall requirement for buses to stop unnecessarily. This approach would have the benefit of improving the ride quality for transit users as well as potentially improving the fuel efficiency of the transit buses. With regard to stop placement at intersections, while there are pros and cons of nearside and far side, industry experience and analysis generally favours a nearside placement for four reasons: Safety users are protected by traffic signals, where they exist; the bus operator has better view of intending passengers since they are more likely to approach the bus from the front as opposed to the rear; users are less likely to cross the road behind the bus away from an intersection; stopping far side is unexpected after clearing an intersection and thus could lead to rear-end accidents; Convenience at intersections, the bus need only stop once; users can more readily transfer to a connecting bus with signal protection; Time saving the bus can make use of the stop phase to board passengers; and Curb space the bus stop area can take advantage of an existing right turn lane or the intersection for its departure compared to a far side stop. Independent of a preference for a far side or a near side stop placement, the actual stop location must take into account various factors such as the location of the travel destination and available curb and sidewalk space for stopping and boarding. Mid-block locations are also common and occur where a travel origin/destination is between intersections. In the final location selection, the stop sign should be precisely installed and be readily identifiable. May 27,

82 Bus Stop Signs Brantford has several different bus stop designs in place with a newer design having been adopted several years ago to include route and time information and a customer contact number. However, most stops appear to be in generally poor or faded condition. Some signs are single-sided facing in one direction (towards on-coming traffic). They should be double-sided in order to be readily visible from any direction so that intending users can locate the bus stop sign from any direction or side of the street. To further enhance the distinctiveness of the bus stop sign, it should be of a different size to differentiate it from standard traffic and parking signage and distinctive design and colour. Recent signs have improved upon the older design. Further, the bus stop area should be designated and protected by No Stopping/Parking signage and a supporting City by-law to prevent parking of private vehicles and allow buses to fully access the stop and promote users safety. A cursory observation of Brantford s bus stops indicate that many signs and poles are damaged and an inconsistent approach to stop location and sign placement with signs mounted together with other information signage. Bus stop signs should be on their own pole at the required specific location. Priority should be given to updating and maintaining the bus stop signage. The City has a multi-year program to make all bus stop locations accessible for mobility devices as required by AODA with the installation of concrete pads and creation of accessible pathways to a sidewalk or roadway and curb cuts Shelters There are 65 shelters located at bus stops throughout the city. All shelters are now owned by the City having been assumed from the former shelter advertising contractor and most, therefore, have space for advertising. The majority of shelters are of a uniform size, 1.5 m (ft.) x 3.3m (10ft) with an advertising panel at one end and one opening. Some shelters, particularly at the transfer point locations, include a transit system route map and schedule information. The former shelter contractor continues to handle the sale of advertising on shelters until June The City is reviewing the best approach to handle the sale of advertising space in shelters. With 65 shelters and some 462 bus stop locations, this represents a shelter/bus stop ratio of approximately 14% which is a low ratio. In order to increase the attractiveness of using transit, the number of shelters should be increased and a specific target ratio established. The shelter/stop ratio in many other cities is 20% and most cities are targeting a higher ratio of 30% to 40%. For Brantford, a target shelter/bus stop ratio of 25% or higher is desirable. The City does not currently have a program for purchasing additional shelters or replacing the existing shelters and has previously relied on the shelter advertising contractor to provide shelters. Also, a majority of the shelters are now over 15 years of age and are in need of physical repair and repainting. Brantford does not have shelter installation guidelines or a process and criteria for evaluating requested locations as a basis for prioritizing requests. Shelters have, in the past, been located largely to suit the needs of the previous shelter advertising contractor. Together with a formal May 27,

83 shelter installation policy and program within a target shelter coverage ratio, criteria should be developed to include such factors as trip generators, transfer points, exposed locations (where there is no natural shelter from the weather) and, secondarily, locations such as seniors residences, health care facilities and recreational facilities. For bus stop benches, there is the ability to install additional benches under the existing bench contract. Installation of more benches should be considered with an installation target percentage of 10% of non-shelter locations (in addition to the provision of a bench at each shelter location) so that together with the shelter program, 30% to 40% of bus stops would have some form of customer amenity. As part of a shelter installation policy and program, shelters will need to comply with the AODA Built Environment accessibility standards. The design standards prepared by the Ontario Public Transit Association provide appropriate guidelines including the size and specification of concrete pads with tactile surfaces, links to sidewalks for accessible pathways, and curb cuts. Vehicle Maintenance A high level review of the transit vehicle maintenance program and staffing level was undertaken to identify if the staffing level was appropriate. The Fleet Services and Transit division maintains both the conventional and specialized transit vehicles as well as approximately 20% of the rest of the City s vehicle fleet. Maintenance on the transit fleet as well as the City s Hydro Power vehicles are undertaken at the Transit Centre. There are 28 staff within the Fleet section including 14 mechanics. Of these 14, the equivalent of 7 mechanics are utilized to maintain the transit fleet although the staff are not specifically dedicated to transit vehicle maintenance. All maintenance staff may be assigned to work on any vehicle within the City fleet. A body-repair person serves part-time as a leadhand. Staff are responsible for ensuring that the fleet is maintained according to vehicle manufacturer s guidelines and provincial standards. All maintenance work including major mechanical repairs but not including major body repairs is undertaken in-house. Heavy duty repairs such as major body overhauls, engine, transmission and differential overhauls are contracted out which is prudent considering the small size of the Brantford operation. The Division staff have also undertaken work for other agencies such as the Boys and Girls Club vehicle in recent years Transit Vehicle Maintenance Program Maintenance work is undertaken Monday to Friday on a 24-hour basis with varying shift times as well as on a reduced-shift basis on Saturdays and Sundays. The majority of the work occurs during the daytime on weekdays with lower levels of work occurring on the afternoon, evening and weekend shifts. The maintenance program is preventative in nature, that is, it is designed to prevent component or system failures and maximize the availability of the vehicles. It is distance-based and consists of two types of inspection procedures an A inspection performed every 10,000 kilometres including an oil change, and an MTO inspection conducted semi-annually. Transmission and differential oils are changed if oil analysis indicates a deterioration. The maintenance approach is consistent with industry practice. Repairs occasioned through inservice breakdowns and change-offs, or from bus operator reports, are then scheduled as required or, if appropriate, coordinated with regularly scheduled A inspections. Repair work is to be recorded on a manually-generated, numbered work order which includes the date, activity, labour hours and parts used. These documents are then filed by vehicle and regular summaries of vehicle and fleet maintenance costs produced. While there is electronic May 27,

84 filing and recording of the work orders, not all work orders have been consistently entered into the system. The Fleet Manager has recently arranged for one of the Systems Analysts to ensure full documentation. For recording in-service vehicle defects, the bus operator completes a pre-inspection/defect sheet during the circle check, which is numbered and, if repairs are required, the pre-inspection sheet number is then transferred to a work order for tracking purposes and repairs are performed Servicing and Cleaning The transit fleet presents a very positive image and an appearance of being well-maintained and clean. All buses are fuelled and cleaned each evening. Cleaning includes exterior washing, sweeping, mopping, fluid checks, farebox emptying and other related duties Fleet Maintenance Performance Measurement While statistical data is available through various records available to the Fleet Manager, there is no regular summary or critical analysis of maintenance work or vehicle performance data prepared to indicate the performance of the Fleet section. There is no on-going critical analysis of staff utilization. Maintenance work which is to be recorded on work orders is not consistently recorded. As a result, there is no comparative data available documenting fleet maintenance performance. For example, a key indicator and measure of how well a transit fleet is maintained is the incidence or number of change-offs or road calls (the requirement for buses to be replaced in service) due to a maintenance-related issue. General industry guidelines suggest a minimum rate of 7,500 kilometres between change-offs with some transit systems achieving up to 15,000 kms. Information regarding the number of change-offs in 2015 was gathered from both maintenance and operations staff with very different results. Operations records change-offs as this can have an impact on transit service delivery. Maintenance should also be tracking change-offs and analyzing the number, type and recurrence of change-offs as method of assessing its own performance. Operations and maintenance staff do not routinely share change-off information nor does Maintenance regularly and consistently report back to Operations regarding vehicle maintenance issues and there were significant differences between maintenance and operations regarding the number and reasons for vehicle change-offs. Maintenance staff advised that change-offs were tracked through an account number and the mechanic s timesheet and tracked by accounting. This is an unusual approach to tracking this important indicator. The process used by operations where all vehicle change-offs are recorded daily is the preferred process. Based on Operations records, the number of kilometres between change-offs due to mechanical defects indicates a rate of 5,487, well below the industry guideline. Reviewing, analyzing and responding to vehicle change-offs, particularly any trends with repeat change-offs should be a priority activity with the Division s Systems Analysts with regular (weekly or daily if required) feedback provided to the operations staff on vehicle issues. As well, quality checks by maintenance supervisory staff of work undertaken should be a regular activity in order to maximize vehicle availability, ensure staff productivity and, particularly, minimize potential disruptions to transit service through change-offs and road-calls (on road maintenance requirements). May 27,

85 8.5.4 Staffing As noted above, the Fleet Services section has a staff of 28 who are utilized to maintain all City vehicles. Of the 28 staff, the equivalent of 13 full time positions are required for transit vehicle maintenance and servicing including 7 mechanics, 1 body-repair person, and 5 full and part-time general service and night servicing staff all under the general direction of a Service Coordinator who reports to the Manager of Fleet. These are the resources indicated in the annual CUTA statistical reports and in the City s summary of employee assignments. The body-repair person also serves part-time as a Lead-Hand ( Charge Person ) in the absence of the Service Coordinator. The senior maintenance person on duty in the evenings and on weekends serves as the responsible person and provides a level of supervision although without authority to discipline. Two systems analyst and two stock inventory positions, one of whom handles the transit inventory, support the fleet maintenance activities. In terms of staff resources used to maintain the transit fleet of 47 vehicles, a key indicator is the number of vehicles per mechanic. Industry guidelines suggest 6 to 7 vehicles per mechanic depending on fleet mix and the level of work undertaken in house. With the equivalent of 7 mechanics available to maintain the transit fleet, the ratio of transit vehicles to staff is approximately 6.7 to 1, which is within the general transit industry guideline. However, when the conventional transit fleet is adjusted for the high spare ratio and reduced to 26 vehicles (a 25% spare ratio), the vehicle/mechanic ratio declines to 6 which is comparable to the industry experience. Further, since the 16 BL buses require less maintenance effort than the conventional buses given their less complex systems and significantly lower accumulated annual kilometres (~25,000 versus ~55,000), the 6:1 ratio and number of staff resources should be sufficient to effectively maintain the transit fleet. In view of the staffing level and issues related to vehicle maintenance performance and changeoffs, a more in-depth review of staffing arrangements, work practices including quality checks and analysis of vehicle performance and maintenance is warranted. May 27,

86 9 Technology For the Technology review, Transit stakeholders were interviewed and existing processes and technologies inventoried. The findings from this onsite assessment are summarized in this section along with an analysis of Transit needs and gaps. The following objectives directed this Technology Review, and will direct the future Strategic Plan. These include: Security: As identified in the Request for Proposals, options for increasing the security of staff and customers is a high priority. Scheduling: As identified in the Request for Proposals, Transit currently uses their scheduling software for only limited organizational benefit. This study will examine issues and suggest actions for more effective use of Sched21 scheduling software. System Integration: Transit s onboard and central systems (see Exhibit 9-1) are not completely integrated with each other for the purposes of sharing collected data and reducing the number of external interfaces to the system. There is significant opportunity to transfer more information between systems to support planning, security, and operations management tasks. As technology becomes more pervasive within Transit s operations, systems integration will minimize and mitigate the effects of human error, reduce labour cost, and standardize the user experience. Ease of Use and Maintenance: Transit experiences some general challenges with user proficiency and vendor support for existing systems. Maintenance staff and supervisors require more access to tools and information to troubleshoot issues quickly. Improved Customer Service: Transit would like to provide customers with better access to current operational status information and more reliable service. Further, Transit would like to use more technology to increase the use of the fixed route service by existing specialized transit customers. On December 9, 2015, an information gathering meeting was held with Transit stakeholders, primarily the Manager, Transit Operations as well as representatives from Maintenance and Operations. Discussions included the current state of transit technology deployment and use, gaps, operational needs, and issues faced. Issues identified included current technology, as well as operations in general that technology could help address. In general, Transit articulated improved scheduling capabilities and ease of use/maintenance for current and future technologies as primary concerns. It was further identified that since Brantford has a significant number of visually impaired residents, there may be important opportunity to address the community s needs through use of accessible technologies. The next section assesses the current state of technology deployment and use in place. Technology Current State The following list summarizes the technologies currently in use. This list excludes standard offthe-shelf hardware (e.g., personal computers). Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) System (Strategic Mapping, Inc.) May 27,

87 Automatic Stop Announcement (ASA) System (Strategic Mapping, Inc.) Smart Fare System (BEA Transit Solutions) Sched21 Scheduling Software (Enghouse) Onboard Camera System (Seon) Destination Signs (Luminator) Portable Radios (Kenwood) Mapping layers for any geocoded data or user interfaces are provided in ESRI format and ingested by the AVL and ASA systems. Systems that are managed by other City department are excluded from the analysis. Exhibit 9-1 below graphically describes the current system architecture in place. All components of the system architecture are categorized into one of four categories as follows: Travellers: These are technologies that provide information directly to travellers using the system. Centres: These technologies are located in a fixed location and are generally used to coordinate the activities of other technologies, as well as aggregate data from and disseminate data to devices in the field and onboard vehicles. Onboard: These technologies are found onboard the vehicle and typically collect data generated by various onboard sensors or other inputs and communicate this information back to the central systems at fixed intervals via cellular data, private radio, or Wireless Local Area Networks (WLAN). Field: These technologies are not located in a fixed location, much like onboard technologies, except that they are not associated with a particular vehicle asset. As can be seen from the legend, there are three ways data can be communicated from system to system: Wireless Communication: Data is communicated over WLAN, Cellular data, or through a control channel on the City of Brantford s Harris EDACS radio system. Wired Communication: Data is communicated over a direct wired link from one device or system to another. Most commonly, this is accomplished using either an Ethernet or a serial connection. Manual Entry: Data is not automatically transferred from one device or system to another and requires manual intervention to transfer data between devices or systems. May 27,

88 Exhibit 9-1: System Architecture Travellers Centres NextBus Schedule/Roster Spreadsheet Strategic Mapping ASA Software Module (Web-based) Strategic Mapping AVL Voice Radio Console WLAN Gateway Data Communication Software Cellular Gateway Voice Comm. Field Vehicles Mobile Radio (Kenwood) Voice Radio WLAN Card Cellular Card GPS Antenna LEGEND: System Component Information flows Destination Signs Seon Cameras Operator Handset BEA Electronic Fareboxes Strategic Mapping AVL Strategic Mapping ASA Equipment Wireless data transmission Wired data transmission Manual input Fixed Route Vehicle The following sections articulate the capabilities of each technology and how these are currently in use. Automatic Vehicle Location System The Automatic Vehicle Location System, or AVL, provided and supported by Strategic Mapping has two major components: onboard system, and central system. The onboard system is integrated with the electronic farebox, provided by BEA. Operators log in to the electronic farebox at present to identify their work, and this work assignment is passed by the farebox to the AVL system. This onboard system is connected to antennas for GPS, cellular data communications, and WLAN bulk data communications. It is also connected to the onboard automatic stop announcement system. The AVL system continually monitors the position of the vehicle and transmits this data, along with the associated operator and work assignment, over cellular data at specified intervals to the AVL server, which is hosted remotely by Strategic Mapping. The AVL locations are used onboard to trigger stop announcements as the vehicle approaches each stop, based on the route being travelled. The central system provides a web-based interface which assists with managing service by providing a dynamic map interface showing the location and work assignment of vehicles equipped with the onboard system. Using this system, inspectors can identify vehicles that are May 27,

89 late, early, or off-route, and initiate a call through the radio system to coordinate the recovery of service. Further, the central system supports a playback function which allows investigating past movements of vehicles, in support of investigations or responding to complaints after the fact. Automatic Stop Announcement System The Automatic Stop Announcement System, or ASA, was also provided by Strategic Mapping. This system displays the next stop along the current route on an interior passenger-facing LED sign at the front of the vehicle, as well as announcing the next stop name over the onboard PA speakers. The system does this by, based on the work assignment provided from the farebox login, using the AVL locations to trigger stop announcements as the vehicle approaches each stop on the current route. Each next stop announcements includes displaying defined text and playing a defined audio file. The ASA system currently provides next stop information to riders onboard the vehicle, in accordance with AODA regulations. Currently, the vehicles do not provide route and direction audio announcements outside the vehicle when the doors are opened. Under AODA, the ASA system must be extended to include this exterior audio announcements information by Smart Fare System The Smart Fare system was provided by BEA Transit Solutions, and also acts as the operator interface for both the ASA and AVL. The Smart Fare system model is BETUSA 1.0 and was implemented in The system supports many kinds of fare payment, including stored value, monthly passes, 10/20/30 ride cards, and semester passes for high school, college, and university students. The central system provides a monthly cash report, which does not always reconcile completely with the actual cash count. There is an opportunity to reduce issues related to cash fares through improved reporting. Ridership by fare type, and ridership by route reports are also available through the fare system. While the onboard operator interface is integrated with the Strategic Mapping AVL, this integration does not currently record the location of boardings and alightings with fare payment transactions, and there is an opportunity to develop this interface to support planning. Maintenance of the smart fare system has been challenging for Transit. Units have historically required frequent restart and specialized maintenance. Scheduling Software The Scheduling Software in place was provided by Enghouse Transportation and is known by its product name Sched21. Sched21 is a fixed route scheduling suite that provides the ability to map routes, timepoints, and stops, and even extract distances between stops. Custom reports can be developed to address schedule efficiency relative to various Key Performance Indicators, and the configuration management tools allow adjusting a wide range of parameters to conform with union rules and work practices. Sched21 also uses an industry-standard database, which would permit AVL or fare data to be ingested by or delivered by the system to create overall data sets useful for planning purposes. The scheduling software is in minimal use for a number of reasons. These include limited user training, and insufficient use by trained personnel to remain proficient. Security Systems Security was identified in the study terms of reference as an area of interest. During discussions with Transit staff, no specific concern was identified except for the issue of uncontrolled access to the operations centre yard. The onboard security system consists of six cameras on each vehicle, connected to a digital video recorder (DVR). The video recorded from these cameras is not up-loadable over the garage WLAN, but rather requires that DVR hard drives be manually extracted. Only one viewer terminal inside the office has the software permissions to view the May 27,

90 hard drive video files, limited to the Manager or Senior. Inspector. Videos are viewed for complaint response and by police request only, and can be exported to.mov or.avi formats. Facility security at the transit centre on Grand River Avenue includes a number of security cameras inside and outside the building. These cameras are hardwired, with video stored on a computer in the Sr. Inspector s office. Gates to the facility are open and unlocked during regular operating hours, with no proximity card, pass code or other secured entry method required to access the premises. Bus Destination Signs The destination signs on buses are Luminator products and are not interfaced with any components in the existing vehicle s onboard system. Bus operators change the displayed route/destination by inputting a code number on the operator compartment destination sign keypad (ODK), which are programmed using the proprietary ODK protocol. Portable Radios The portable radios were provided by Kenwood, and operate over the City of Brantford Harris EDACS trunked radio protocol, in full-duplex mode. Better Use of Technology Transit has an opportunity to use its existing technology to realize some additional benefits, as well as to serve as the foundation for a technology enhancement program that addresses needs expressed by customers, operations, maintenance, and security. In particular, this section builds on the issues identified by stakeholders about existing technologies, as well as gaps relative to needs as experienced by users under the current architecture. In these tables, while the need represents why an improvement is needed, which relates to the benefit opportunity, the user gap represents what needs to be done to improve on the existing situation to help address the need. Needs identified are broken down into four functional areas: customer, operational, maintenance, and security. In addition, a priority level is allocated according to stakeholder input. Each priority is defined as either Low, Medium, or High priority. Customer User Gaps Current Needs Priority Mobile Applications or other emerging technologies to provide additional information to customers regarding fares, schedules, realtime Improved passenger information, especially for Medium special needs passengers using fixed route service. arrivals, trip planning, etc. Onboard announcement system does not currently support system-wide PR announcements or ad-hoc announcements to alert passengers to temporary service changes or other operational challenges. Currently no practice or medium for communicating short-term changes in operational status to customers. Transport providers at the Transit terminal operate on divergent systems. There is an opportunity to lead effort for integrated ticketing solutions with GO/VIA/Greyhound. General Transit Feed Specification Real Time is not implemented Improved communication regarding outages, detours, special services, etc. Real-time service disruptions are not available to customers in real-time. Integrated ticketing solutions with GO/VIA/Greyhound to allow tourists or other arrivals to transfer to and from Brantford Transit on an integrated fare. More options for customers to consume realtime information. Medium Medium Low Low May 27,

91 Operations User Gaps Current Needs Priority Comprehensive training suite including work Transit is not satisfied with their use of High instructions, a tutorial, and a Sched21 sandbox Sched21. There is a desire to leverage the so users can learn without damaging the data. software to optimize service, and there is significant opportunity to support this initiative through training and work instruction development. External Announcement system to meet AODA compliance. No external announcement system currently in use High Upgrade or replacement of BEA farebox system. Better access to City s Asset Management System. Current deployment of BEA fareboxes misses an opportunity to record fare paid and location data to leverage for service planning. Improved asset management inventory, especially shelters/stops/benches. Medium Medium Schedule optimization and connection protection mechanism to reduce transfer times. Integrated and unified on-board architecture. Unified reporting system for time-tracking and sick time would support Transit s needs and reduce manual effort. Developing reports for CUTA, Statistics Canada and others should be automatic. Transfer times at off-peak periods can exceed an hour in certain circumstances, reducing the attractiveness of transit at off-peak times. Future deployments of fareboxes and AVL will have two separate MDTs resulting in missed opportunities for integration. Multiple MDT s also increase risk of missed log-ins and vehicle out of service hours. Significant manual effort to track operator time. Opportunity to utilize and focus resources on managing service. Manual reporting to CUTA or Statistics Canada requires significant manual effort. Medium Medium Medium Low Need a method for automatically notifying spare board operators of their work, such as an IVR or web portal. Automatic communication with spare board operators would reduce effort spent to manage this communication. Low Vehicle Maintenance User Gaps Current Needs Priority Upgrade or replacement of fare system and integration with co-located systems. Better, more convenient ways for customers to reload or purchase smart-cards, including revisiting the fare system strategy. Maintenance and inspectors experience frequent maintenance requirements including manual reset for farebox and connected devices. Ticket kiosk at Transit terminal is difficult to use and perceived as unreliable Medium Medium Security Needs User Gaps Current Needs Priority Proximity card controlled entry with No secure entry to garage during regular Medium intercom to prevent unauthorized access operating hours. Doors remain open. May 27,

92 10 Accessibility/AODA Compliance To address accessibility issues and particularly the requirements of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) in general and the Provincial Transportation Standards (the Integrated Accessibility Standards (Ontario regulation 191/11)) specifically, the City has a staff person responsible for its corporate accessibility plan. The Integrated Accessibility Standards (Ontario regulation 191/11)) provides standards in order to achieve accessibility for Ontarians with disabilities with respect to goods, services, facilities, accommodation, employment, buildings, structures, and premises on or before January 1, The Minister responsible for the AODA has established a process to develop and implement the accessibility standards necessary to achieving the purposes of the Act. Within this process, standards development committees have been established by the Minister to develop proposed accessibility standards. Standards developed under the Act include: Customer Service Information and Communication Employment Transportation Built Environment The following table presents select elements of the Integrated Accessibility Standards specific to both fixed-route and specialized transit and an indication of status relating to compliance. Exhibit 10-1: Brantford Accessibility/AODA Compliance Summary AODA / Integrated Accessibility Standard / Requirement Training: Including safe operation of accessibility equipment; transportable mobility aid securement systems; boarding and alighting assistance procedures; etc. Accessibility public transportation policy and planning Preparation of an accessible public transportation plan; maintain in consultation with a local accessible public transit advisory committee; identify and report actual results against performance measures; etc. Type of service Deliver accessible origin to destination services considering the functional limitations of passengers Time of service BL provides the same hours and days of service as provided by fixed route public transit in the same catchment area Area of service Specialized public transit service area be the same catchment area as the fixed route transit catchment service area Brantford Transit / Brantford Lift Current Status Regarding Compliance Compliant Compliant (required to update annually) Compliant Compliant Compliant May 27,

93 AODA / Integrated Accessibility Standard / Requirement Reservations Accept trip bookings between the opening of the booking period the previous day and 3 hours prior to the published close of the booking period the previous day. Pick-up times Where possible and practical notify eligible passengers of pick up delays. Fares Same base fare structure for all public transit services within a jurisdiction. Same fare media options. Personal care attendant fares Shall not charge a fare to personal care attendants, recognized by the transportation provider, accompanying a passenger with a disability. Trip restrictions Not restrict the number of trips an eligible passenger is provided or any operational practices that limits the availability of service. Eligibility Shall provide specialized transit services to individuals with disabilities that prevents them from using fixed route public transit temporarily or permanently. Consider eligible unconditionally (unable to used fixed route), temporarily, or conditionally (environmental or physical barriers limits ability to consistently use fixed route transit). Eligibility process Make eligibility application information available in accessible formats. Consider an applicant provisionally eligible if an eligibility determination has not been made within 7 calendar days following submission of the completed application. Establish an independent appeal process for eligibility decisions that are unfavourable to the applicant with a final decision rendered within 14 calendar days upon receipt of an appeal. Visitor service Make specialized transit services available to visitors. Consider as eligible, visitors who provide confirmation that they are eligible for specialized transit in the jurisdiction in which they reside or meet the eligibility requirements of the host jurisdiction. Companions May allow companions to travel with an eligible passenger if space is available and will not result in the denial of service to other eligible persons. Brantford Transit / Brantford Lift Current Status Regarding Compliance Compliant Compliant Compliant same cash fare Compliant Compliant Non-compliant as current eligibility is based on physical limitations 4 only Compliant Compliant Compliant Compliant Compliant 4 Current eligibility includes physically unable to use Brantford Transit the ability to walk a distance of 175 metres. May 27,

94 AODA / Integrated Accessibility Standard / Requirement On board announcements of stops and connections (fixed-route) Operator audibly announces (manual or electronic means) next major stops. General Responsibilities (fixed-route) (a) deploy lifting devices, ramps or portable bridge plates upon the request of a person with a disability; (b) ensure that adequate time is provided to persons with disabilities to safely board, be secured and deboard transportation vehicles and that assistance be provided, upon request, for these activities; (c) assist with safe and careful storage of mobility aids or mobility assistive devices used by persons with disabilities; and (d) allow a person with a disability to travel with a medical aid. Transit Stops Shall ensure that persons with disabilities are able to board or disembark at the closest available safe location, as determined by the operator that is not an official stop, if the official stop is not accessible and the safe location is along the same transit route. Brantford Transit / Brantford Lift Current Status Regarding Compliance Compliant Compliant Compliant Upgrading stops to be accessible for mobility devices. Accessible Transit Stops ensure stops are accessible for mobility devices with accessible pathways. Courtesy Seating (fixed-route) Service Disruptions (fixed-route) Where a route or scheduled service is temporarily changed and the change is known in advance of the commencement of the trip, conventional transportation service providers shall, (a) make available alternate accessible arrangements to transfer persons with disabilities to their route destination where alternate arrangements for persons without disabilities are inaccessible; and (b) ensure information on alternate arrangements is communicated in a manner that takes into account the person s disability. In progress. Long term plan Compliant Compliant Buses: Requirements for Grab Bars, hand-holds, floors and carpeted Surfaces Allocated Mobility Aid Spaces Stop-Requests and Emergency Response Controls Lighting Features, Signage, Lifting Devices, Indicators and Alarms Compliant per requirements all vehicles manufactured on or after January 1, 2013 May 27,

95 11 Marketing and Customer Service There continues to be an increased awareness of and focus on customer service and marketing in public transit. Similar to other products and services, an effective brand, persuasive marketing, and responsive customer service helps transit organizations attract new customers and retain current ones. As a key mobility option, transit must be integrated into the community and be seen as an attractive mobility choice for residents and visitors alike. The purpose of this section of the report is to review the City s existing transit customer service, information and marketing initiatives and identify opportunities for improvement. Resources Brantford has limited customer service and marketing resources for its transit services. Primary activities are the provision of fixed route and schedule information, BL user guidelines, fare information, telephone and support for customer queries and information about special service offerings e.g. Canada Day Shuttle. Transit operators provide the majority of customer service as they greet customers, answer questions and represent the system in a professional and courteous manner. Inspectors at the Downtown Transit terminal back up the frontline as they monitor operations, and respond to customer questions in person and by phone. Staff selling fare products at the transit kiosk provide a third information channel. The manager of transit operations and the senior Inspector provide ongoing support for outreach and customer service functions and manage any escalated customer issues. The City completed a rationalization of the marketing/communications (MarCom) function in early In the course of the reorganization one contract Communications position was eliminated and all marketing and communications functions were pulled back to a centralized communications department reporting to the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO). The new centralized department has three positions: Manager Communications (reports to CAO), Marketing Coordinator and Senior Graphic Designer (both reporting to the Manager Communications). The Marketing Coordinator dedicates approximately 10% of time to Transit-specific MarCom focused primarily on digital support (website, social media). Previously, the person had been 100% dedicated to transit. One additional MarCom resource remains in Parks & Recreation in support of program marketing for that department. Similar to many small municipalities, Brantford has a small discretionary marketing budget for transit. The annual budget of about $14,850 is used for printing of system maps and print ads. Customer Information The City provides a range of transit information to its customers through a variety of distribution channels. The main pieces of information regularly communicated to customers include: Route and schedule Fares Service disruption and updates Temporary out-of-service notices posted online and stop specific Detour notices posted online and on vehicle New fare products, service features and services posted online and operator handouts Complaints and commendations May 27,

96 The following sections summarize how this information is currently communicated to customers through various distribution channels Printed Materials Large Transit Map Since 2009, the City has produced a single city map for both the Transit and Parks and Recreation and Tourism departments that includes the transit network. An updated version was issued for 2015/2016. Route Maps Single route maps are available for each transit route, both online and in print. These maps include the route s map, timetables and a diagram showing the Downtown Terminal bus bay assignments. The design for these single route maps is dated. However the new communications team is considering a design refresh Signage and Notices The traffic department is responsible for the installation of all signage within the City including bus stop signs. There is an informal policy currently in place is to consult with Communications prior to designing or replacing signage. Much of the transit system s bus stop signage is dated and some is in poor repair. There is inconsistent use of fonts and colours and in places signs are installed on other existing posts with non-transit signs. This detracts from the clarity and visibility of important transit information particularly bus stops When bus stops have been damaged, are being relocated or when new signs are being installed due to route changes, Transit provides temporary signage to inform users. Service related signs are posted within the terminal building and at individual route stops Onboard As needed, Operators provide handouts to communicate new fare products, service features and/or services to customers. Service related signage on board the buses is posted and maintained by maintenance staff. This includes temporary service notices, detour notices and other announcements. At times these signs are not current; a regular protocol to remove postings on expiry should be considered. Brantford Transit has implemented an automated Next Stop call-out system on its fleet (both audio and visual) as required by Ontario Human Rights and the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA). This has been well received. There are plans to introduce an exterior speaker on buses in 2017 which will announce the route and destination In Person Transit provides route and schedule information and answers to customer inquiries in person, , via the transit-specific Twitter account (@CityBtfdTransit), and by telephone. The main telephone line ( ) provides a connection to the Downtown Transit Terminal Office, where either inspectors or terminal staff can assist customers. The Transit Kiosk located at the Downtown Transit Terminal is the only location customers can purchase fare products and get customer information in person. The kiosk is open Monday to Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. and 3:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Saturday from 8:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m., and closed on Sundays. May 27,

97 Customers may submit transit-related inquiries, customer service complaints and commendations via The Transit Operations Manager responds to all s. This channel is not used for transit service updates due to inclement weather or such related issues. Customers are encouraged to call Transit directly for real-time information. Transit operators also provide front-line in-person customer information on-board vehicles both through one-on-one customer conversations and handouts for new fare products, new service features and services. Administrative staff and their contact information are listed as a customer information source on the City s website, including the Transit Operations Manager, Transit Inspector currently on duty and Marketing Coordinator Online Brantford s transit website accessed from the City s website ( is the main channel for customer information. The website features service and fare information including: Transit route and schedule information The joint Parks and Recreation/Tourism city map and Transit route map Brantford Lift information Next Bus Program information and website link Service updates, newsletters, and news releases Fare information, including B-Card Smart Card information Charter and rental information Frequently asked questions Contact information, including telephone, , and mailing address Brantford also maintains a mailing list for distribution of Brantford Transit news by . Residents can opt in for updates on the website. Transit Newsletters provide updates on recent route and service changes, schedule changes, upcoming events and other transit news. The website also provides a link to a customer feedback and request for information form through the City s MyBrantford.ca portal. The City currently has an RFP in market for re-design of the corporate website. This re-design will extend to the Transit web pages. Current Initiatives Since 2012, Transit has implemented a number of initiatives aimed at improving customer service and information, safety and security, and service delivery. These include: The Next Bus program that provides real time travel information. This service has been well received by customers. The telephone channel is averaging around 30,000 calls per month and web lookups are averaging 7 9,000 hits per month; this is a good level of uptake for this type of service. An onboard call-out system provides a voice announcement and digital display for each approaching bus stop. In addition to the above initiatives, Transit is considering the following future initiatives: The City is considering partnering with Google Transit and is currently reviewing program contracts to determine if the program would be a good fit for Transit. This would be a positive addition for Transit customers. May 27,

98 The City s IT department is investigating the potential for involvement with an app for cab companies and transit agencies called The Ride (gettherideapp.com). An exterior call-out system is planned for all buses which will partner nicely with the recently installed onboard next stop call-out system. The Communications Department recently put out an RFP for a new Communications Strategy. A consultant has been selected with a plan to be delivered to council in May This process included consultation with GM s, senior management, City Council and the general public. The City currently has an RFP in market for a redesign of the corporate website. While the website works in its current form, a modern facelift would be a positive advancement for both the City and its Transit services. Best Practices System Scan Branding and Corporate Image The branding of a transit system is the way in which transit s role within a community is defined or perceived. More than a name, word mark, or logo, a complete brand extends to the overall image the City wants to convey to its existing and potential transit customers and residents. Recent trends in transit branding have shifted the image of transit from a utilitarian public service to an attractive lifestyle choice. The lifestyle theme was spearheaded by the Canadian Urban Transit Association s wherever life takes you campaign, adopted by many cities and transit systems across the country. In recent years, other themes in transit branding have included: A focus on the value and affordability of transit, particularly in the face of increasing auto ownership costs. Convenience and time savings. Environmental responsibility and sustainability. Social interaction and community building. Recent transit rebranding efforts have also reflected an increasing awareness and demand for good design and aesthetics, particularly as the key choice transit market shifts towards the younger, more discriminating demographic. Brantford s public transit identity is dated. The current brand, logo, and livery were developed in the mid-1990s and there is a lack of consistency in application of the logo across vehicles, bus stop signs and print materials. The current branding and corporate colours were extended to Brantford Lift when direct responsibility for the service was recently taken over by the City. There has been internal discussion around updating the Brantford Transit logo, word mark and brand within the past few years. However, it was determined that any brand refresh for the City or its transit service needs to be mapped to service improvements or change, in other words, it should not be seen as a graphics exercise. The City has a graphics standards manual that is adhered to through all corporate, print and digital communications and branding. However, there are no documented graphics standards for Transit. Social Media Social media is a key communication channel for organizations of all types, including the city s transit service. In fact, given the high public profile and level of daily transit use, social media May 27,

99 has become an area of significant growth in activity. Regardless of whether or not a city makes a concerted effort to establish a presence on these networks, the transit service is present either through ongoing conversation or through groups and accounts set up by irate customers or supportive transit enthusiasts. While establishing a presence on social media may invite criticism, it also opens a direct communication channel with customers and provides an opportunity to balance the online conversation. The City s Transit services have a dedicated Twitter account (@CityBtfdTransit), which is used primarily to provide updates and notices of special services (e.g. Christmas Light Tours and other annual campaigns), real-time weather updates and detour information. Tweets on this account are infrequent and do not encourage conversation or engagement with followers, primarily due to a lack of staff resources. There are no other social media accounts dedicated to the City s Transit services. In stark contrast, in view of the highly public profile of transit in general compared to other services, the City has active social media accounts on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and LinkedIn for other City activities. These accounts post content more frequently than Transit platforms and take an active approach in encouraging conversation and engagement with followers, a key metric in successful social media community building. Features Analysis The table below provides a summary of various customer service or information features and their implementation status at four peer systems in Ontario. This comparison demonstrates that Brantford has continued to make progress implementing the most recent industry best practices. Unfortunately, a lack of awareness of many of these features amongst Brantford residents may be perpetuating the perception that the system is old fashioned. Exhibit 11-1: Customer Service and Information Features for Peer Systems Feature Brantford Kingston Thunder Bay Guelph Niagara Falls GPS on vehicles Onboard security cameras Smart card fare technology Accessible buses Bike racks on buses Automated audio and video stop announcements Online trip planning Social media presence Real-time next vehicle arrival (NextBus) (Twitter only) Municipal presence (Google Transit /NextBus) Municipal presence May 27,

100 Evaluation The following section evaluates the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats relating to customer service, information, and marketing of the City s Transit services. This evaluation will provide the basis for a customer service and marketing strategy to follow in the subsequent phase of this study Strengths The City has made significant investments to build one of the newest fleets of fully accessible buses in Ontario and continues to improve the onboard offerings. In addition to the GPS systems, onboard cameras, and B-Card fare collection, the City recently introduced an onboard next stop announcement call-out system and is planning an exterior call-out system. This collection of service enhancements has modernized the fleet with the tools needed to create a safe and convenient transportation choice. The City s Transit workforce of bus operators, inspectors and maintenance and administrative staff are a definite strength of the organization. Employees generally understand customer needs. The professionalism and courtesy of operators has been recognized through commendations, survey results, and customer feedback. The City offers a limited number of transit outreach programs to familiarize key customer segments with the service and vehicle features. These include: seniors, secondary students and post-secondary students. The annual Seniors Fair provides an opportunity for seniors to experience the transit system and modern features of the transit vehicles and includes a guided city tour aboard transit buses, both conventional and specialized. The tour includes the library, recreation centres, the airport and the Downtown Terminal. School tours for secondary students promote the transit system, environmental and health benefits associated with transit use, and career opportunities with the City. Technology has provided a number of opportunities to increase service quality. The Next Bus program, launched in 2012, allows customers to track busses in real-time via phone, smart phone or any web browser. Considerations are being given to joining the Google Transit Partner Program, which allows customers to access real-time travel data on Google Maps. In addition, the City s IT department is investigating the potential for involvement with an app for cab companies and transit agencies called The Ride Weaknesses Poor on-time performance and service reliability is an ongoing concern for the City s conventional transit service. While it s not an issue controlled by marketing or customer service, poor on-time performance negatively impacts customer experience and therefor the attractiveness of the service. A major constraint factor is the two bridge crossings that create choke points on bus routes. In addition, run times have not been adjusted since the fleet was converted to 100% low floor vehicles. Additional schedule time is required to take into account the kneeling function of buses, the rise in senior population (slower boarding times) and use of buses by people using mobility devices. The City s transit identity as represented on its transit buses and print materials is dated. The current brand, logo, and livery were developed in the mid 1990s, and a refresh would be a positive enhancement to the entire system. As noted previously, transit systems across the continent have realized significant value in undergoing a brand refresh and projecting a more contemporary image to raise the profile of transit and attract users. May 27,

101 There are no customer service metrics currently in place or being tracked. Transit considers the addition of customer satisfaction tracking highly desirable for its conventional service operation. In contrast, all complaints received regarding the specialized service are tracked. There is no formal system in place to track customer feedback, nor a specific policy for responding. The MyBrantford.ca portal has standardized forms for feedback but the majority of customer communications occurs via , telephone, or in-person. The transit operations manager makes a personal call back for route or driver complaints and typically can immediately resolve 99% of issues; any complaints involving transit operators must be made in writing. Going forward it may be possible to migrate this responsibility to the Senior Inspector. While Transit information is found on the City s website, it does not appear that the City owns the domain names associated with Brantford Transit or Brantford Lift. Should the City wish to expand its social presence it would be best to own these URL in order to pre-empt their use by unsanctioned parties External Opportunities There are several marketing opportunities available for the City to increase ridership. Developing and implementing a strong marketing and customer service strategy and actions focused on key market segments, in conjunction with thoughtful system redesign, and dedication of needed resources remains the most important opportunity to capitalize on. Overall, the transit service, particularly the conventional service, demonstrates lack of investment, care, PRIDE or priority website, route map, bus stop/corporate image, lack of marketing resources. The market segment with the most growth potential continues to be the post-secondary student market. Students are more likely to support public transit and its initiatives than other segments of the population. Leveraging this support to creating a positive partnership to strengthen transit s image in the community is a significant opportunity. Expansion of the outreach program to seniors with the addition of an awareness program is an opportunity to attract new seniors and introduce them to the new features of the system that make using transit easier (next stop announcements, kneeling buses). Digital media continues to grow in prevalence and importance, providing new communication channels to reach and connect with customers. While the City s Transit services have a Twitter channel to provide service updates and notices of special services, a larger digital strategy would help connect the brand with Brantford residents in new and exciting ways. For example, utilizing Facebook to promote customer stories and staff commendations, or digital videos much like the City s Shaping Our Future Mission Possible to announce the launch of the Community Strategic Plan, would extend the reach of Brantford Transit. A heightened focus on climate change and the associated impacts from human behaviours presents an opportunity to market public transit as an alternative transportation mode. Canadians are increasingly looking to reduce their environmental impact by modifying lifestyle behaviours, and increasing their use of public transit provides an excellent opportunity to do so. Taking advantage of under-utilized initiatives already in place is another potential approach for the City s transit services. For example, the B-Card can only be used to load set increments of rides or monthly passes. Shifting to a loyalty program that rewards frequent riders through additional discounts can be more effective from a marketing standpoint to attract riders Threats After the recent rationalization of the City s marketing/communications functions, a centralized communications department was created, a contract communication position was eliminated and May 27,

102 the Marketing Coordinator s focus on Transit was reduced from 100% to 10%. This strain on resource availability limits the scope and size of transit-specific projects. Transit had a 5% decline in ridership in 2015 over There are a variety of factors potentially playing into this decline, including the economic downturn, lower gas prices, and milder weather due to climate change, which has correlated to an increase in walking and biking. Poor on-time performance and service reliability issues are an ongoing concern. Next Steps Following completion of the customer survey, and taking into account any operational changes identified by the technical team s activities, a number of strategies to enhance the City s Transit outreach programs will be identified. Thereafter, a marketing and communications plan will address core activities and support for new service recommendations; including action steps, an implementation timetable and a budget summary. May 27,

103 12 Organizational Review As noted in previous sections, the city s transit services are managed and delivered by the Fleet and Transit Services division within the City s Public Works Commission department. There are a total of 104 full and part-time employees associated with the delivery of the transit services; 67 for BT, 19 for BL and 18 for vehicle and facility maintenance. The division is overseen by a Director, Fleet and Transit Services, who reports to the General Manager, Public Works. The director is responsible for the delivery and performance of the transit services, as well as management and performance of the City s vehicle fleet. The director provides overall administrative and policy development and direction to the division staff and on transit matters to City Council through the General Manager and City Manager. The director also liaises with other senior City staff and the Mayor and members of Council. Of the two responsibilities within the division, fleet and transit, the most significant in terms of public presence, budget and staffing, are the two transit services. The division s organization chart and position descriptions have not been updated to reflect current conditions while the staffing summaries contained inconsistencies in terms of employee numbers and titles. However, Exhibit 12-1 presents the division organization structure and staffing levels associated with delivering the transit services as defined through discussions with division staff. Exhibit 12-1: Fleet and Transit Services Division Organization Structure General Manager Public Works Director, Fleet & Transit Services (1) Manager, Transit (1) Manager, Fleet (1) Scheduling Office Supervisor (1) Senior Transit Inspector (1) Kiosk Clerks (3 PT) Vehicle Operator Trainer (1) Systems Analysts (1) Stock Inventory (1) Service Coordinators (1) Administrative Assistant / Dispatcher (1) Dispatcher (1 FT, 1.5 PT) Transit Inspectors (6) Lead Hand (1) BL Bus Operators (10 FT, 4.5 PT) BT Bus Operators (43 FT, 13 PT) Transit Mechanics (7) Night Service Person (2 FT, 3 PT) Within the Fleet and Transit Services division, there are two sub-divisions or sections: one for Fleet Maintenance and one for Transit Operations, each overseen by a manager. The Fleet section is responsible for planning, managing and maintaining all City vehicles including the transit fleet. Note, in the organization structure exhibit, the maintenance staff positions and staffing levels pertain only to those required to maintain the transit vehicles, not all City vehicles. May 27,

104 The Transit Operations section is responsible for the delivery of the conventional and specialized transit services. The Manager, Transit Operations has a wide range of responsibilities associated with delivery of the transit services including management of the transit terminal, analysis and planning of the transit services, responding to customer enquiries, administration of contracts for advertising and installation of bus shelters and benches. Transit Operations Within the transit operations section of the division, three positions report to the Manager, Transit Operations: the Senior Transit Inspector, the Scheduling Office Supervisor and the Kiosk Clerks. The Senior Inspector has responsibility for directing the work of the Transit Inspectors and initial coaching, mentoring, guidance and discipline of the bus operator groups, both BT and BL. The Senior Inspector also assists the Manager in various areas and acts for the Manager when the manager is absent. Broadly, the two transit services are managed as one although there are two separate employee groups due to two separate collective agreements within Amalgamated Transit Union Local 685 and dedicated staff for the specific needs of the specialized transit operation (trip reservation and dispatching). While Brantford s transit services may be small in comparison to those in larger cities, the same functions and responsibilities apply, although less effort may be involved. Nevertheless, the range and complexities exist. In general terms, the key functions handled by the division include executive management and administration, operations (on-road delivery of service), maintenance (fleet and facilities) and revenue handling (fare collection, fare media sales and distribution), planning, and customer service and communications. The operations and maintenance functions continue to dominate within the transit organizations, as required by the nature of the service provided, but greater emphasis is being placed on planning and customer service. The various tasks associated with these functional groupings are: Executive Management and Administration Consultation with transit stakeholders including members of Council Internal city liaison Policy, best practices development and administration Media and professional contacts Strategic planning Personnel planning, development and management Budget development and administration Industry liaison and research Asset planning and management Service level agreements, contracts and administration Labour relations, collective agreement administration, negotiations Specialized transit oversight Fare policy development and management Employee training, driver training (operations and maintenance employees) Accident and incident investigation, risk management Data collection and analysis May 27,

105 Operations Planning and review of transit service (routes) Scheduling of transit services Development of bus driver work schedules and work selection On-road supervision and service management Special events Response to service interruptions and delays Monitoring of bus operator performance Work and vehicle assignments Location of bus stops and shelters Maintenance Fleet maintenance Facilities (garage, shelters, terminals) maintenance and custodial Development and application of maintenance programs Research and development, analysis Contract administration for vehicle and facility services Vehicle specifications and procurement Asset planning and management Revenue Handling Fare revenue counting and reconciliation Fare media sales and administration Planning Route planning Analysis of system (route and service) performance Management of capital and special projects Review and input on development plans Customer Service and Communications Customer service and communications Marketing and promotion As currently structured, the Fleet and Transit Services division has no separate administrative, planning or customer service support resources for the transit operation. Instead, these responsibilities fall to the Transit Operations Manager or are provided, to a very limited degree, However, with the significant focus and priority on managing the workforce and ensuring transit service is delivered on a daily basis, Unusually, the driver trainer position, which has responsibility for training bus operators as well as other staff who drive City vehicles, is included within the Fleet section reporting to the Manager, Fleet. This is an operations-related function, not a Fleet-related function. In discussions with City staff, it was noted that the majority of the position s work and responsibilities pertain to transit. May 27,

106 Staffing The transit operations section has a staff of 86 full-time and part-time people. Six Inspectors supervise the bus operators and transit operations which include dispatch functions (assigning work, assigning buses to runs). They direct service by responding to service delays, customer enquiries, accidents and incidents and provide support to the bus operators. The Inspectors report to the Senior Inspector and provide advice to both the Senior Inspector and the Manager, Transit Operations regarding transit operations. Notably, within the division, there is no administrative support for the Director or the Manager, Transit Operations nor for service planning, ridership analysis and overall system performance assessment. These functions fall to the Director and Manager although they have limited time available to effectively focus on these areas. For example, the transit section has a bus operator and runcutting software package, Sched21, which the Manager, Transit Operations has been trained on. However, the Manager does not have time to utilize the technology given the position s primary focus on service delivery and personnel management. At the same time, it is not usually the responsibility or function of the Transit Operations Manager to do bus operator/runcutting. This is typically the responsibility of a planner/scheduler position. While statistical summaries of transit ridership and miscellaneous summaries of daily transit operations issues are maintained, there is similarly little time available within the existing transit staff group to focus on pro-active planning or to investigate recurring transit service issues except on an exception basis. As such, there is no defined service planning and analysis resource or on-going activity. With a growing city and a need for the transit service to keep pace with changing needs, there should be a service planning and analysis resource within the division. Similarly, customer service and marketing support is limited. The Transit Inspectors and Kiosk Clerks are the main resource for customer interface (apart from the bus operators) but this is limited to responding to information requests. There is limited pro-active marketing and promotion of the transit services. While there is a City corporate section available, it must serve a wide range of city needs leaving limited time for transit matters. As social media activity increases and considering growth within the city and corresponding changing needs of transit, more resources are required. These should be made available within the Fleet and Transit Service division, potentially combined with a service planning resource. Peer Review of Organization The existing organization and staffing level of Brantford s transit operations section is comparable to similar size municipal transit services in Ontario with the following exceptions: No direct responsibility for or staffing to provide customer service and marketing No administrative support A selected review of Brantford s transit peers indicates the following staffing levels within the operations section. The transit section s staffing levels with respect to the supervision of on-road transit operations supervision are comparable to Brantford s peers, although, in comparison to its peers, Brantford operates a longer span of service Monday to Saturday. May 27,

107 Exhibit 12-2: Operations Staffing within Peer Transit Systems BRANTFORD* NIAGARA FALLS THUNDER BAY* LETHBRIDGE* RED DEER* Population 97,499 80, ,000 93,000 98,505 Revenue Hours 76,149 79, , , ,880 Span of Service (days/hours) Buses in Service (max) Bus Operators (FT/PT) 7/ / / / / Inspectors Dispatchers None None None None None Admin Support No Yes Yes Yes Yes Planning/Analysis No No Yes Yes Yes Customer Service/Marketing *Combined conventional and specialized services No Yes Yes Yes Yes Distribution of Responsibilities As noted at the outset of this section, the delivery of transit services is the dominant responsibility within the Fleet and Transit Services division. In this regard, there are three key personnel resources available: the Director, the Manager of Transit Operations and the Senior Inspector. The Manager of Transit Operations carries a significant level of responsibility within the division and with it, a high work load extending to attending council meetings, interaction with members of Council, attending public meetings, responding to customer enquiries as well as managing many aspects of the day to operation of the transit system, all of which present a significant challenge to the Manager s time resources. The primary focus of the Manager, Transit Operations, is handling employee issues including mentoring, coaching and disciplining. These areas have important implications on the operational success of the transit service on an on-going basis. Some of the Manager s responsibilities, such as contract administration, bus stop and shelter locating, marketing and communications, driver scheduling as well as public and council interface, detract from the core function of delivering the transit services and the associated high level of effort on managing the human resource element and would be more effectively handled by a support staff position. As presently staffed, the transit division is operations-oriented meaning resources are focussed on ensuring the transit services are delivered each day. In contrast, the division is not staffed to for planning and analyzing the transit services or to provide needed public outreach, communications and promotion. In order to position the division to meet the transit mandate specified in the Transportation Master Plan, and recognizing the future growth of the city and integration within the Greater Toronto Area, a realignment (shifting or delegation) of responsibilities between the Director and Manager of Transit Operations as well as the Senior Inspector, and new staff resources would assist in reducing the high work load on the Manager and help to more effectively manage the two transit operations. In this regard, the following areas of responsibility should be considered for re-assignment or delegation: May 27,

108 Public/Council Interface to the Director Administration of Contracts (shelters, etc.) to the Director Bus Stop and Shelter Location to the Senior Inspector Driver Scheduling to a new position to include planning and service analysis Marketing and Customer Information to a new position to include planning and service analysis together with the City s corporate marketing resource Management Reporting The Fleet and Transit Services division does collect, maintain and have access to a number of data sources technologies, including the electronic fareboxes, automated vehicle location system and similar technologies. Ridership statistics are compiled on a monthly basis as are details regarding service-related issues (delays, accidents, incidents, vehicle change-offs, missed trips, customer feedback) but there is no regular summary produced or analysis undertaken or pro-active planning related to transit service and route adjustments. The reason is the lack of administrative and planning resources as noted above. Regular reports which presents the transit systems (both conventional and specialized) performance in a consistent manner should be prepared. They would assist in the overall management of the service as well as form the basis for providing senior City staff and City Council with regular updates and overviews on how the transit services are performing. This information report could then be utilize to identify needed improvements and changes based on proactive analysis, employee and customer feedback. Conclusion The Transit and Fleet Services division would benefit from having a dedicated resource (staff position) for service planning, runcutting/scheduling, and customer service and marketing. Responsibilities within the Transit section of the division should be realigned between the Director, Manager Transit Operations and the Senior Inspector to reduce the work load on the Manager and help focus on the Manager s core responsibility of service delivery. Consideration should be given to removing the Vehicle Operator Trainer position from the Fleet section and positioning it as a resource for the transit operations section as well as for other vehicle training needs reporting to the Director. Regular reports on the performance of the transit service should be prepared for internal reference and review and made available to senior City staff as well as City Council and members of the public. Revise the name of the division to Transit and Fleet Services to reflect the primary importance of the transit services as the division s primary mandate. May 27,

109 13 Demographic and Travel Trends Population and Employment The City of Brantford was home to approximately 94,000 residents and 45,000 jobs in Since 1991, population has grown by approximately 16%, while total employment has grown by 15%. Per the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, growth in Brantford is expected accelerate over the coming decades. By 2026, the horizon year for this study, Brantford s population is forecast to grow by more than 32,000 from 2011 levels equivalent to adding a third of the existing population in 15 years. Total employment is also poised to growth substantially, reaching 60,000 jobs by Historical and projected population and employment are shown in Exhibit Exhibit 13-1: City of Brantford Projected Population and Employment Growth Year Historic Population Population Growth Employment Employment Growth ,000 39, ,760 +2,760 38, ,420 +1,660 41,360 +3, ,190 +3,770 44,810 +3, ,650 +3,460 45,000* +190* Projected , ,350 49,000 +4, , ,000 55,000 +6, , ,000 60,000 +5, , ,000 67,000 +7, , ,000 72,000 +5, , ,000 79,000 +7,000 *Note: 2011 Employment numbers are projected and not actual. Source: Census of Canada, Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, Hemson Consulting. There is limited vacant land available within the current city limits to accommodate this new growth. The southwest of the city adjacent Shellard Lane will accommodate the majority of short-term population growth, with additional pockets of development occurring in the southeast (north of Colborne Street E. and west of Garden Avenue) and in the northwest (south of Hardy Road). Employment growth is forecast to occur predominantly in the northwest industrial area, where, for example, Ferrero is planning to double production in the near-term. There are also opportunities for intensification within Brantford s existing built-up area. In 2012, the City s Intensification Strategy identified the potential for up to 10,000 residential units to be located in designated areas. These areas include the downtown, and along major arteries such as King George Road, West Street, Park Road North, Henry Street, and Lynden Road. However, on the basis of past trends, it is unlikely that these areas will see significant growth within the horizon of this plan. The majority of medium- to long-term growth will most likely be directed to new lands opened by an expansion to Brantford s municipal boundary. According to a memorandum of understanding signed between the City and Brant County in January 2016, approximately 1,600 hectares of developable land will be transferred to the City to accommodate future growth. The majority of May 27,

110 this land is located north of the current boundary between Powerline Road and Governor s Road, with a smaller parcel located in the southwest between Phelps Road and the current municipal boundary. If the land transfer proceeds as planned, development could start within a period of 5 7 years and would therefore have to be considered for transit service within the 10- year vision horizon of this plan. Demographic Trends In line with national trends, Brantford continues to experience an aging demographic. Since 1996, the portion of the population below the age of 24 has dropped by 4%, while that of ages 40 and above has risen by 8%. While seniors aged 64 and over make up 15% of Brantford s population in 2011, they are under-represented making up only 4% of transit riders, according to 2011 CUTA statistics. As the age of Brantford s population continues to trend upwards, there is growing opportunity to better service an older demographic. Historic demographic trends for Brantford are summarized in Exhibit Exhibit 13-2: City of Brantford Demographics Trends Travel Trends According to the Transportation Tomorrow Survey, approximately 4,700 daily trips originating in Brantford were made by transit in 2011 a 2.3% share of total trips. Compared to 2006, this represents a roughly 10% increase in transit trips and a 0.3 percentage point increase in transit mode share. The vast majority (90%+) of transit trips originating in Brantford also end within the City s boundary, with fewer than 500 destined for other municipalities (predominantly in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area). An increasing proportion of trips originating in Brantford are destined for outside of the city. In 2006, approximately 42,700 of 213,200 (20%) of trip origins were destined outside the city; by 2011, this had increased to 21.6%. Amongst home-based work trips, the out-commuting trend is even more pronounced. During the period, out-commuting trips have grown from 30.3% to 33.8% of total trips originating in Brantford. A similar growth in out-bound trips is seen for home-based school trips, rising from 10.9% to 14.8% of total trips. Such travel patterns are not conveniently served by transit, with less than 1% of commuters using transit for such outbound trips. If these trends continue, there may be downward pressure on transit ridership. A summary of trip making trends taken from the 2006 and 2011 Transportation Tomorrow Surveys is shown in Exhibit May 27,

111 Exhibit 13-3: Total Daily Trips from Brantford Destination Region Total External 42, % 44, % GRAND TOTAL 213,200 4, % 205,700 4, % Source: 2006 and 2011 TTS Exhibit 13-4: Ridership Outlook All Trips Ridership Outlook Transit ridership is a function of many variables, including service area population/employment, demographics, the quality of transit service, the quantity of transit service, the competitiveness of other travel modes (predominantly car), local auto ownership, as well as regional tastes and preferences. It is, therefore, not surprising that there are numerous methods available to forecast ridership, ranging from simple trend analysis to full-fledged multi-modal travel forecasting models. For the purposes of this report, ridership is forecast on the basis of service utilization, that is, the number of annual riders is calculated on the basis of an assumed number of annual rides per capita. This is useful because the forecast is independent of the service plans that are to be developed as part of the next phase of work. It should, however, be noted that in reality, future ridership will depend on the service provided for riders, along with a whole host of other factors. These forecasts are therefore reflective of the ridership that could be achieved under different service utilization scenarios for the purpose of programming service improvements. Three such scenarios were applied as a part of this outlook: Current utilization: This scenario assumes that transit service will continue to be utilized at the current rate of 16.4 riders/capita (2014) and, as such, represents a business-as-usual scenario for ridership growth. Incremental utilization: This scenario assumes that service utilization is at the mid-point between Brantford s current level and the level of its peers. Per the Peer Review conducted in chapter 4 this stood at 21.8 riders/capita in Peer utilization: This scenario assumes that utilization matches the average level of Brantford s peers which was approximately 27.2 riders/capita in These utilization levels are applied to Brantford s 2021 and 2026 population forecasts to calculate estimates of annual ridership in the medium- and long-term. This is illustrated in Exhibit Rides Per Capita Transit Trips Transit Mode Share All Trips Transit Trips 2021 Population 2021 Ridership 2026 Population Transit Mode Share Internal Intra-Municipal 170,500 3, % 161,300 4, % External Brant 20, % 19, % Hamilton 9, % 11, % Waterloo 4, % 4, % Other 8, % 9, % 2026 Ridership Current Utilization ,000 1,869, ,000 2,066,400 Incremental Utilization ,000 2,485, ,000 2,746,800 Peer Utilization ,000 3,100, ,000 3,427,200 May 27,

112 As Brantford s population is forecast to increase substantially in the coming years, it is not surprising that all three scenarios show growth over and above the current ridership level of 1,521,000 (2015). Even under the Current Utilization scenario, ridership is estimated to increase by more than 20% above current levels by 2021, and more than 35% by 2026 on the strength of projected population growth. For these increases to be realized, however, the characteristics of Brantford s population and employment base will have to remain relatively consistent and the quality and level of transit service improved significantly to maintain market share. In reality, it is highly unlikely to see the magnitude of ridership growth predicted by the Peer Utilization scenario in the short term. To reach a level of 3,427,200 rides by 2026, annual growth would have to increase by nearly 200,000 rides per year, which will be difficult to achieve in a city the size of Brantford especially given the current ridership characteristics and attitudes towards transit. As such, a more measured approach to future ridership estimation is being carried forward. Over the first five years of the plan, service utilization will be assumed to stay at the current rate of 16.4 rides per capita, meaning that ridership will reach 1,869,000 by 2021 based on an estimated population of 114,000. After this period of ridership building and potential improvements to service (to be confirmed as part of the 10-year plan), service utilization is assumed to increase to the level of the Incremental Scenario, or 2,746,800 by 2026 based on an increasing rides per capita rate to reach 21.8 by This is consistent with the City s TMP ridership forecast, which set a target of 3,000,000 annual riders by Exhibit 13-5: Ridership Forecasts May 27,

113 14 Needs and Opportunities Based on the foregoing review of Brantford s transit services and needs, the City s approach to and investment in its public transit services has been ambivalent over the years. This is evidenced by the conventional system s performance compared to its peers low service levels, low ridership, and low City investment. The transit route network has remained static for over 10 years while the city has continued to grow. On the one hand, the City has invested in new buses to renew the fleet and intelligent technology while on the other hand it has not invested in improved service levels or needed route network changes to improve the attractiveness and convenience of taking transit. It has also not invested in staff resources to be able to effectively plan, monitor, evaluate and manage the transit services. There are also opportunities to improve bus operator scheduling with the availability of the technology but no resources to review and improve productivity. There are also more buses in the transit fleet than is necessary. With a new TMP that establishes goals and objectives for transit, and with the city continuing to growth, there is a strong need to invest in transit to meet the city s future needs. In order to ensure that they do, the following are the needs and opportunities for improvement. Policies and Service Standards Adopt a new Vision, Mission Statement and Service Standards Follow the TMP transit goals and objectives as basis for future transit improvements Market Research/Stakeholder Consultation Strong support for transit. Average awareness of how to use transit, indicates need for more communications and customer information. High percentage of captive riders. Reflects low service levels and limited usefulness of existing services. Key destinations: Downtown Lynden Park Mall Brantford Commons Northwest Industrial area Hospital Strong potential to increase transit use with service and route network improvements. Conventional transit improvement priorities: Re-structure routes to improve directness/reduce circuitous routes Evening service routes and frequencies (improve to same as daytime) Sunday service routes and frequencies Improve service to Northwest Industrial area More frequent service Service to new areas Improve on-time performance May 27,

114 Brantford Transit Overview and Assessment Poor on-time performance Circuitous, indirect routes Inconvenient, separate evening and Sunday route network Unattractive service levels evenings and Sundays Opportunity to revise bus operator work schedules to improve efficiency Brantford Lift Overview and Assessment Eligibility and certification amend application form and certification process to reflect broader range of functional disabilities. An amended application form will reflect the transit trip cycle getting to a bus, waiting for a bus, boarding/disembarking, ability to function independently, etc. Important to clearly make the determination of need for door-to-door transport vs. attendant care. Cancellation and no-show rates are unusually high. Address through amended booking policies, procedures and processes. Ancillary observations include: Amended booking procedures may result in the lessening of total peak vehicle requirements. Calculation of BL productivity appears to be overstated as passengers (which include attendants and companions) are used for calculating trips per hour. Specialized transit industry best practices are moving toward advanced technologies to enhance operating performance and the customer experience. Develop service/performance standards for BL service. Infrastructure Buses: Reduce spare ratio and fleet size of both fleets Consider low-floor buses for BL fleet Stops: Update image and replace signs Continue to co-locate stops Adjust stop spacing to remove unneeded stops Shelters: Increase number of shelters to improve attractiveness and of taking transit Terminals: Downtown terminal update, refurbish. Consider GO Transit needs Upgrade transit user amenities and relocate Lynden Park Mall terminal together with Mall Owner s re-development plans Upgrade transit user amenities at Brantford Commons Vehicle Maintenance Introduce fleet analysis process Review and analyze reasons for high change-off rate Introduce quality checks of maintenance work May 27,

115 Review maintenance staff productivity Technology Resource needed to fully implement existing technologies such as bus operator scheduling as well as pursue new technologies. Opportunity to use technologies to increase the accessibility of fixed route transit for current specialized transit customers. Mobile applications or other emerging technologies to provide additional information to customers for improved communication regarding outages, detours, special services, etc. No process or medium for communicating short-term changes in operational status to customers. Real-time service disruptions are not available to customers in realtime. Opportunity to lead effort to provide integrated ticketing solutions with GO/VIA/Greyhound at transit terminal. General Transit Feed Specification Real Time is not implemented. More options for customers to consume real-time information. External stop announcement system to meet AODA compliance (planned for 2017). Upgrade or replace BEA fare collection system. Current fareboxes do not provide ability to record fare paid and reconcile with AVL for location data to leverage data for service planning. Better access to City Asset Management System to improve asset management inventory, especially shelters/stops/benches. Integrated and unified on-board data architecture with single MDT. Unified and automated reporting system for time-tracking and sick time. Need a method for automatically notifying spare board operators of their work, such as an Interactive Voice Response (IVR) system or web portal Better, more convenient ways for customers to reload or purchase smart-cards, including revisiting the fare system strategy. Proximity card controlled entry to prevent unauthorized access to operations facility. Accessibility/AODA Compliance Eligibility Non-compliant. Current eligibility is based on physical limitations only Marketing and Customer Service The current brand, logo, and livery were developed in the mid-1990s and a refresh would be a positive enhancement to the entire system. There are no customer service metrics currently in place or being tracked. Transit considers the addition of customer satisfaction tracking highly desirable for its conventional service operation. In contrast, all complaints received regarding the specialized service are tracked. There is no formal system in place to track customer feedback, nor a specific policy for responding. The MyBrantford.ca portal has standardized forms for feedback but the majority of customer communications occurs via , telephone, or in-person. Migrate this responsibility to the Senior Inspector. May 27,

116 While Transit information is found on the City s website, it does not appear that the City owns the domain names associated with Brantford Transit or Brantford Lift. The City should own these order to pre-empt their use by unsanctioned parties. There are marketing opportunities available for the City to increase ridership. Developing and implementing a strong marketing and customer service strategy and actions focused on key market segments, in conjunction with thoughtful system redesign, and dedication of needed resources remains the most important opportunity to capitalize on. The market segment with the most growth potential continues to be the postsecondary student market. Students are more likely to support public transit and its initiatives than other segments of the population. Leveraging this support to creating a positive partnership to strengthen transit s image in the community is a significant opportunity. A larger digital strategy would help connect the brand with Brantford residents in new and exciting ways. Expand the B-Card to a loyalty program that rewards frequent riders through additional discounts can be more effective to attract riders. Provide additional marketing and communications resources. Recent changes to centralize the City s corporate communications has significantly reduced the available resources. Organization Re-position Vehicle Operator Trainer position within division to reflect operations role. Add transit service planning, analysis and scheduling resource. Adopt maintenance performance analysis process and regular reports. Add additional marketing and communications resource. Introduce regular system performance reports and analysis. Demographic and Travel Trends City poised to grow by 22,000 people and 11,000 jobs between 2016 and An increasing percentage of residents are travelling outside of Brantford for work, which could place downward pressure on ridership. Transit service utilization is forecast to remain below the level of Brantford s Peers within the life of this plan, but ridership will continue to increase with population growth. Next Steps Prepare 5 and 10 Year service plans based on the result of Phase 1 and the findings and conclusions in this report for the conventional and specialized transit services. May 27,

117 Appendix A Peer Review Technical Memorandum May 27, 2016

118 IBI GROUP 7th Floor 55 St. Clair Avenue West Toronto ON M4V 2Y7 Canada tel fax ibigroup.com Memorandum To/Attention Mike Bradley, Director of Fleet and Transit Services Date March 18, 2016 From Chris Prentice Project No TO / BST cc E. van der Made, D. Allen, D. Forsey, B. Hollingworth Subject Peer Review - Brantford Transit This memorandum presents a review of transit services in nine Canadian municipalities which are considered peers of Brantford in terms or both urban population and transit system size. The peer systems are: Thunder Bay, Niagara Falls, Kingston, Sault Ste. Marie, Peterborough, and Sarnia, Ontario; Red Deer and Lethbridge, Alberta; and Saint John, New Brunswick. Most of the data presented is for 2014 sourced from the CUTA Transit Fact Book. To supplement the Canadian peer information, the US National Transit Database (NTD) was reviewed and one property selected, Everett Transit in Washington State, which was a close match to Brantford in many respects, including operating statistics and ridership. Beyond CUTA and NTD reported statistics, data was added from other sources along with independent estimates of other characteristics of the peer systems to develop a fuller picture of their relative performance. These values are shown in italics in the tables. In several cases it was necessary to adjust the transit service area reported because it reflected the area of an entire municipality or region without consideration as to how much of that area was either settled or served by transit. Objectives of Peer Review The objectives of this peer review are to understand what is being done in comparable municipalities and see how Brantford compares. The comparisons may inform the development of performance standards for Brantford Transit as well as the service plan strategy. The information is presented in sections representing different aspects of, or viewpoints on, the peer systems. The peer data are presented in two tables: Exhibit 1 with system characteristics, and Exhibit 2 with performance indicators. Values for Brantford Transit are included in each table in boldface. Average or median values are shown. Each narrative section contains observations on the data in these tables which will contribute to the development of performance standards. In this memorandum, the focus is placed on the performance measures which are computed so as to make the comparisons among peer systems more useful by compensating for the differences in system size or other characteristics. Service Area, Network, and System As can be seen from the section of Exhibit 1 describing the peer systems service areas, they are generally comparable in terms of population, area, and population density. For system size IBI Group is a group of firms providing professional services and is affiliated with IBI Group Architects

119 IBI GROUP MEMORANDUM 2 Mike Bradley, Director of Fleet and Transit Services March 18, 2016 and network extent, Brantford was within the range of its peers in terms of number of routes operated, network route kilometres (NRK, the total length of unduplicated route in the network), and population per NRK. Brantford s service intensity (the number of revenue vehicle kilometres (RVK) operated per NRK), was lower than the peer systems for which this statistic could be evaluated especially considering that the span of service (hours of weekday service offered) is slightly longer. This was due to Brantford having separate daytime and evening route networks with large one-way loop routes forming the evening service coverage. The large evening loop routes, while covering a majority of the city, offer limited quality service. This factor and the relative compactness and density of Brantford s service area contributed to the system operating fewer revenue vehicle kilometres (RVK) than many of its peers. Operating Fleet Brantford was comparable to most of the peer system fleets in terms of composition and operating standard 12-metre buses. Sarnia was the exception, being predominantly operated by 9-metre buses although this city is transitioning to 12-metre buses. Brantford s average vehicle age was about a year less than the median of its peers at 7 years. However, at 36.4%, Brantford s spare ratio (ratio of active vehicles to vehicles operated in maximum service) is high although many in the peer group had similarly high spare ratios, for reasons unknown. Industry experience generally indicates an optimum spare ratio for a medium size city with a generally common fleet of 20% to a maximum of 25%. Labour Force/Staffing Brantford s transit labour force was not unusual in terms of its composition (full-time versus parttime) among its peers. The number of employees equates to 3.3 per peak vehicle compared to 2.9 for the peer group. Productivity, in terms of revenue-vehicle hours per FTE, was lower than the peer group by 11% at 1,022 versus 1,189. The top wage rate was typical of the peer group in Ontario. The lower level of productivity would tend to indicate some inefficiency in work assignments. Ridership and Operating Revenue For annual revenue boardings and ridership, Brantford Transit was well below the peer group average. A measure that provides additional insight into the extent of system usage is the number of person-kilometres (PK) delivered by the system. This statistic counts each kilometre travelled by each passenger so that a transit system with a long average trip may be found to provide more PKs than a system with higher boardings and a very short average trip. Unlike the US Federal Transit Administration s NTD where reporting passenger-miles is required, all Canadian systems do not report PK to CUTA. For this memorandum, the average trip length for Brantford was estimated from the ride check data collected in 2011 and applied to the reported 2014 revenue boardings. By the PK measure, Brantford Transit is closer to the centre of its peer group. The relatively long average trip length in Brantford may to some extent be a result of its circuitous route structure. Both Everett and Thunder Bay, for instance, have service areas that extend further north-south than east-west, while several peer systems that are more symmetrical exhibit an average trip length of 4-5 kilometres. The reason for Sarnia s very long reported average trip length is not apparent.

120 IBI GROUP MEMORANDUM 3 Mike Bradley, Director of Fleet and Transit Services March 18, 2016 Brantford s passenger revenues are toward the lower end of the peer group, which is consistent with its ridership level. In contrast, Brantford s average fare is significantly higher than the peer group which indicates generally higher levels of revenue recovery per trip or passenger and, particularly, limited reduced fare categories or extensive use of monthly passes. Monthly pass use is accurate as Brantford records each pass uses rather than using a pre-determined number of rides per month for each pass. On a per-pk basis, Brantford Transit was the median for the peer range of fare revenues. Operating Costs In terms of operating costs, Brantford s cost per revenue-hour is significantly higher than its peers by approximately 20%. The primary areas of difference were higher costs for Vehicle Maintenance and Plant and Premises contrasted by the lowest reported cost for general administration. To understand the reasons for the comparatively higher operating cost per hour, a detailed review of Brantford s transit operating budget was undertaken which revealed that Brantford follows a general full cost accounting method wherein costs from other city departments and services which support the transit operation are included in the transit budget. This practice is not typically followed in other municipalities and would explain a large portion of the operating cost differential compared to the peer group. This approach (full cost accounting), however, has the effect of overstating the cost to operate Brantford s transit operation compared to Brantford s peers. It further emphasizes that Brantford s municipal investment rate of $49.79 (2014), already the lowest among Brantford s peers, is actually even lower than the peer group. This approach also affects benchmark performance measures such as cost recovery. For example, whereas Brantford s 33.7% cost recovery level for 2014 was higher than the peer level (30.4%), the level is actually higher still if measured on a comparative operating cost basis. With respect to the municipal contribution, outside Ontario where there is no provincial operating contribution from fuel taxes, peer municipalities are left to support a higher share of net operating costs and this is indicated in the peer summary. Performance Indicators (Agency) Exhibit 2 shows a group of indicators broadly indicative of the quality of service delivery, with a view towards productivity and efficiency. The average Brantford Transit fleet vehicle in 2014 operated about the median number of revenue km for the peer group, and operated about the median number of revenue hours per full time employee equivalent. Brantford was the lowest of the Canadian peers in terms of vehicle hours per bus operated in maximum service reflecting its reduced evening route configuration; in this respect it was somewhat similar to Everett Transit, which has a rather limited span of service. In terms of unit operating costs, Brantford was above the median in terms of revenue boardings, but was the median property when considered in terms of cost per passenger-kilometre. Considering the components of operating cost relative to the operating statistics most closely associated with them: Vehicle operations and vehicle maintenance costs per RVH were high, especially compared to Ontario peer properties;

121 IBI GROUP MEMORANDUM 4 Mike Bradley, Director of Fleet and Transit Services March 18, 2016 Vehicle maintenance costs per RVK were somewhat higher than the median, but in line with several other peer agencies; Non-vehicle maintenance costs per passenger were the highest in the group; and General & administrative costs per passenger-km were the lowest of the values that were available. Brantford s transit operating cost recovery from fares was close to the median for its Canadian peers. On a per-passenger basis, Brantford Transit s net operating cost (total operating cost less far revenues) was higher than the peer median, but Brantford was the median property in terms of net operating costs per passenger-km. On a per-capita basis, Brantford was lower than the peer group median, and after applying the province of Ontario s contribution from fuel taxes, came a close second to Sarnia on having the lowest municipal contribution per capita. Brantford s average operating speed was among the highest in the peer group which could contribute to poor on-time performance. Performance Indicators (Community) A second set of performance indicators shown in Exhibit 2 are indicative of what might be the community s assessment of each system in terms of efficiency and environmental benefits. Non-renewable megajoules (MJ) of energy per RVH indicates the amount of energy from nonrenewable sources consumed per kilometer of revenue vehicle operation. All the peer systems are operated by diesel buses burning fuels containing 37.9 MJ per litre. Brantford was near the median for the peer systems operating 12-metre buses with conventional diesel propulsion. Sarnia operates 9-metres buses which consume less fuel. Lethbridge Transit operates a significant number of 12-metre diesel hybrid buses, which are more fuel-efficient than conventional diesels. In terms of the most prevalent measure of productivity, revenue passengers per service hour, Brantford was just below the median for the peer group. On the basis of passenger-km per service hour, it compared more favourably because of it long average trip length. In terms of traffic density (PK per NRK), Brantford was better than the median for the peers for which this statistic could be estimated. The average passenger occupancy of an operating Brantford Transit bus was 7.4, which was better than the median for the peer group. On the basis of annual passengers per capita, Brantford is second lowest within the peer group. General Conclusions Allowing for the size and nature of the community it serves, and depending on the perspective taken (cost, performance, ridership), Brantford s conventional transit service indicates mixed performance characteristics compared to its peers. Overall, Brantford Transit performs poorly (below) in 15 of the 25 categories compared to its peer group as indicated by the colour coding. It performs better in 7 categories and average in 3 categories. The following are the key conclusions from the peer analysis: The system operating cost per revenue-hour ($120.23) is significantly higher (+20%) although this may be attributable to the City s full cost accounting method of cost-allocation compared to the peer group;

122 IBI GROUP MEMORANDUM 5 Mike Bradley, Director of Fleet and Transit Services March 18, 2016 The amount of transit service as measured by revenue-vehicle kilometres and revenue-hours is significantly lower (-25%); Ridership is lower in total (-25%) and on a per capita basis (-30%); The average fare is significantly higher ($1.92 versus $1.34) than the peer group. This indicates generally higher fare levels as well as good revenue on a per passenger basis possibly as a result of fewer discounted fares compared to the peer group; The Net Operating Cost and Municipal Contribution per capita are significantly below the peer group by 25% to 30%. This reflects the lower level of transit service provided and higher contribution of provincial gas tax directed towards the operating cost. Given Brantford s full cost accounting approach to budgeting, Brantford s net operating cost and municipal contribution levels can be considered even lower than the peer group on a comparative cost basis; Employee productivity (RVH per FTE employee) is lower by approximately 11%; The vehicle spare ratio (36.4%) is high. While comparable to the peer group, general industry experience indicates a rate of 20 to 25% depending on fleet mix; Brantford Transit s average trip length and average speed is higher (+10%). The high average speed can indicate difficulty in maintaining schedule adherence.

123 IBI GROUP MEMORANDUM 6 Mike Bradley, Director of Fleet and Transit Services March 18, 2016 Exhibit 1. Peer System Characteristics

124 IBI GROUP MEMORANDUM 7 Mike Bradley, Director of Fleet and Transit Services March 18, 2016 Exhibit 2. Peer System Performance Indicators Agency (Reporting Year) Brantford Transit (2014) Thunder Bay Transit (2014) Thunder Bay, ON Niagara Falls Transit (2014) Niagara Falls, ON Kingston Transit (2014) Everett Transit (2013) Red Deer Transit (2014) Sarnia Transit (2014) Kingston, ON Everett, WA Red Deer, AB Sarnia, ON Peterborough Transit (2014) Peterborough. ON Sault Ste. Marie Transit (2014) Sault Ste Marie, ON Saint John Transit (2014) Saint John, NB Lethbridge Transit (2014) Lethbridge, AB Urban Area Brantford, ON Performance Indicators (Agency) RVK per Active Vehicle 56,857 65,310 73,734 69,274 39,330 51,376 56,836 44,677 67,070 53,853 54,353 55,595 RVK per capita RVH per VOMS 3,461 4,688 3,807 4,283 3,121 3,509 4,607 3,301 4,942 3,018 3,963 3,885 RVH per FTE Employee 1,022 1, , ,257 1,382 1,279 1,128 1,173 1,205 1,189 RVH per capita Total Direct Operating Cost per passenger $5.71 $4.20 $3.73 $4.29 $8.64 $4.09 $4.43 $3.26 $4.21 $4.58 $9.15 $4.25 Total Direct Operating Cost per passenger-km $0.72 $0.60 #N/A $1.01 $1.14 #N/A $0.56 $0.72 $0.97 #N/A #N/A $0.85 Total Direct Operating Cost per RVH $ $ $97.81 $91.13 $ $ $81.74 $88.70 $99.11 $ $ $ Total Direct Operating Cost per RVK $5.37 $5.06 $3.93 $4.47 $6.97 $5.51 $4.32 $4.85 $4.60 $4.74 $4.87 $4.80 Transportation Operations per RVH $62.02 $49.99 $55.21 $56.81 $62.38 $59.81 $49.78 $57.94 $51.25 $50.51 $58.23 $56.01 Vehicle Maintenance Cost per RVK $0.95 $0.99 $0.96 $0.72 $0.85 $1.27 $0.51 $0.59 $0.84 $1.05 $0.83 $0.84 Plant and Other Maintenance Cost per passenger $0.97 $0.23 $0.11 $0.15 $0.42 $0.15 $0.19 $0.17 $0.29 $0.34 $0.77 $0.21 General & Administrative Cost per passenger-km $0.01 $0.08 #N/A $0.02 $0.29 #N/A $0.07 $0.02 $0.06 #N/A #N/A $0.07 Operating Cost Recovery Ratio 33.7% 33.2% 29.6% 33.3% 11.2% 31.2% 27.3% 43.4% 28.7% 41.3% 25.8% 30.4% Net Operating Cost per passenger $3.79 $2.81 $2.63 $2.86 $7.67 $2.81 $3.22 $1.84 $3.00 $2.68 $6.79 $2.84 Net Operating Cost per passenger-km $0.48 $0.40 #N/A $0.68 $1.01 #N/A $0.41 $0.41 $0.69 #N/A #N/A $0.48 Net Operating Cost per capita $62.28 $97.32 $68.79 $ $ $ $57.48 $76.62 $84.91 $50.18 $88.70 $86.81 Municipal Contribution per capita $49.79 $90.30 $69.26 $ $ $ $46.92 $58.29 $70.01 $44.88 $86.68 $78.34 Average Operating Speed (RVK/RVH) Performance Indicators (Community) Non-renewable MJ per RVK Passengers per RSH Passenger-km per RSH #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A Average bus occupancy (PK/RVK) #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 6.4 Passengers per capita Passenger-km per capita #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 147 PERFORMANCE RATING Better Average Below Average of (Selected) Peers

125 IBI GROUP MEMORANDUM 8 Mike Bradley, Director of Fleet and Transit Services March 18, 2016 Appendix A Transit System Maps

126 IBI GROUP MEMORANDUM 9 Mike Bradley, Director of Fleet and Transit Services March 18, 2016 Appendix A-1 Niagara Falls

127 IBI GROUP MEMORANDUM 10 Mike Bradley, Director of Fleet and Transit Services March 18, 2016 Appendix A-2 Kingston

128 IBI GROUP MEMORANDUM 11 Mike Bradley, Director of Fleet and Transit Services March 18, 2016 Appendix A-3 Everett, WA

129 IBI GROUP MEMORANDUM 12 Mike Bradley, Director of Fleet and Transit Services March 18, 2016 Appendix A-4 Red Deer

130 IBI GROUP MEMORANDUM 13 Mike Bradley, Director of Fleet and Transit Services March 18, 2016 Appendix A-5 Thunder Bay

131 IBI GROUP MEMORANDUM 14 Mike Bradley, Director of Fleet and Transit Services March 18, 2016 Appendix A-6 Sault Ste. Marie

132 IBI GROUP MEMORANDUM 15 Mike Bradley, Director of Fleet and Transit Services March 18, 2016 Appendix A-7 Lethbridge