TORONTO STUDENT TRANSPORTATION GROUP
Public
Agenda
February 16th, 2018 80 Sheppard Ave E Executive Meeting Room – 3rd Floor 12:00PM – 2:00PM
Jo-Ann Davis Jennifer Arp Maia Puccetti Carlene Jackson
Blank
I. Call to order II. Roll call
III. Approval of the Agenda (pg. 3)
IV. Approval of Minutes (pg. 4-6) V. Student Transportation Working Group Minutes VI. General Manager – Verbal Updates VII. New business - actionable A. Ombudsman Office Update Report (pg. 7-15) B. TSTG 2018-2019 Draft Budget (pg. 16-19) C. TCDSB Bell Time Change for 2018-2019 (pg. 20-23) VIII. New business – informational TSTG Annual Report (pg. 24-55) IX. Communications From Switzer-Carty Transportation (pg. 56-57) From OASBO (pg. 58-59)
X. Pending Items (pg. 60-61) XI. Date of Next Meeting Friday May 18th, 2018 (12:00PM – 2:00PM) XII. Adjournment
XIII. Glossary (pg. 62-63)
3 Toronto Student Transportation Group Committee Meeting
Thursday December 7th, 2017 80 Sheppard Ave E, 3rd Floor Executive Meeting Room
Present S. Cary-Meagher J. Davis (t) C. Jackson A. Sangiorgio (t)
Staff K. Hodgkinson G. Green (t) Z. McGroarty R. Bird J. Volek C. Snider
The meeting was called to order at 12:32PM
Roll Call was taken by today’s chair C. Jackson
Moved by S. Cary-Meagher that the agenda be approved.
Carried
Moved by A. Sangiorgio that the minutes as presented be approved.
Carried
Moved by A. Sangiorgio that the minutes from the student Transportation Working Group be received.
Carried
Moved by A. Sangiorgio that the report titled ‘Transportation Inclement Weather Protocol’ be amended with direction to staff:
1. That the updated inclement weather protocol be approved.
1 | Page
4 2. That each Board will follow up with staff to ensure that the protocol is communicated to all Superintendents, Principals, and Teachers.
3. That if service is cancelled that all Principals and Trustees continue to receive direct notification.
Carried
Moved by S. Cary-Meagher that the report titled ‘TSTG Transportation Breakdown’ be approved as amended with direction to staff:
1. That the School Boards review the data associated with the cost and impact to transported students and consider revisions to their transportation policy that more closely reflects services consistent with Ministry Transportation Grants.
2. That the TSTG write to the Ministry of Education again outlining the findings of the optimization project and ask for immediate financial assistance to offset the difference between the current shortfall and the cost associated with transporting students in Toronto given the basic services as highlighted in this optimization project.
3. That the Ministry be asked to provide a Provincial policy standard for student transportation.
Carried
Moved by S.Cary Meagher that the Communication titled “Separate Legal Entity’ be received with direction to staff:
1. Bring back the environmental scan so that the committee can review the document and decide on actions to address consortium HR issues.
Carried
Moved by A. Sangiorgio that the Communication titled ‘Winter protocol, accident reporting, carrier meeting’ be received with direction to staff:
1. That the Operations Committee minutes be brought back to the TSTG for review.
2 | Page
5
J. Davis moved for adjournment at 2:25pm.
Carried
______Co-Chair Secretary ______Date
3 | Page
6
TO: TSTG GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE FEBRUARY 16TH, 2018
FROM: GENERAL MANAGER
SUBJECT: OMBUDSMAN REPORT – SIX MONTH UPDATE
Origin:
Recommendation 42 in Ombudsman report
Executive Summary
The Toronto Student Transportation Group has been working at addressing the recommendations identified by the Ontario Ombudsman and have provided an update on status of their implementation.
Comment(s):
1. On August 10th, 2017 the Ontario Ombudsman released a report titled ‘The Route of the Problem’ which was a report on the findings after an investigation into the Toronto District and Toronto Catholic District School Board’s oversight of student transportation and their response to delays and disruptions at the start of the 2016- 2017 school year.
2. The investigation was launched in September 0f 2016 in response to 49 complaints (from all over the Province of Ontario) and resulted in 42 recommendations being issued. Those recommendations were a result of 43 interviews that were conducted with industry experts and staff collecting over 20 gigabytes of documentation including 55,000 e-mails.
3. The recommendations can be broken down into 6 themes including: a, Procurement & Contracts b, Consortium Organization and Human Resources c, Technology use d, Communications e, Oversight and f, Operations.
4. Transportation staff had already put into action a number of changes based on internal review that were also included in the recommendations from Ombudsman’s report. There were also a number of items that were started after the initial draft was provided to the consortium and School Boards to confirm accuracy and to get feedback on the details within the report. Many of these actions did allow the Consortium to have a far better start-up then the previous year. Although there were delays and continue to be delays they are not attributed to a shortage of drivers but a
7
gap in the spare driver pool that fill in for drivers who are off sick or on short term leave. The school bus operators continue to provide us a weekly KPI summary of stats which clearly indicates that drivers are being recruited and trained on a weekly basis to support their operations. One ominous piece of data however, is that there are almost as many drivers leaving the school bus operators as they are able to put on the road each week.
5. Of the forty-two recommendations; ten have not been started; eleven are complete, and twenty-one are in progress. It should be noted that most of the ‘not started’ recommendations have to do with procurement and the contract and as such will be dealt with when the next competitive procurement process is activated. We are currently in year two of a six-year contract with two one year extensions.
6. Recommendation 42 required the School Boards and Consortium to provide an update report every six months until the Ombudsman Office was satisfied that adequate steps have been taken to address the issues highlighted in the report. Staff have been working to address those recommendations and have provided an update that is captured in the summary table in Appendix A.
Recommendation:
1. That the document attached in Appendix A be provided to the Ombudsman office to update them on actions taken to address recommendations in their report on student transportation in Toronto.
K. Hodgkinson General Manager
8
February 16th, 2018
Mr. Paul Dube Ombudsman Ontario 483 Bay Street, 10th Floor South Tower, Toronto, ON M5G 2C9
Dear Mr. Dube,
On behalf of the Governance Committee overseeing the Toronto Student Transportation Group for the Toronto District School Board and the Toronto Catholic District School Board, we are writing to provide the six-month update on the actions taken by our organization to address your recommendations.
The Governance Committee has recently reviewed a report prepared by the consortium on the status of the recommendations in your report. To date, eleven have been completed, twenty-one are in progress and the remaining ten recommendations will be reviewed closer to the start of the next contract cycle. The ten that have yet to be started deal with procurement and contracts and as we are in year two of a ‘six plus two’ contract these items will be addressed as we prepare for our next round of competitive procurement. A number of the completed items assisted us in improving the school bus driver situation this school year and minimize the impact to our students and families.
Some of those actions included:
The Governance Committee approved the use of a professional call centre for this year’s bussing start-up which resulted in more inquires being answered and more in a timely manner. The Governance Committee asked the General Manager to facilitate the planning and delivery of bus routes to our bus operators earlier which resulted in companies and drivers having more time to ensure driver selection, the dry running of routes, and more time for specific driver recruitment and training along with time to facilitate the movement of routes between carriers where needed. The Governance Committee asked the General Manager to ensure the delay portal has greater flexibility and more visual acuities to help the parents better understand the magnitude of delays.
Student Transportation is a large and complex logistical endeavour. The actions we take are far reaching throughout the school system and we endeavour to ensure that actions are in place to meet our stakeholders needs. We appreciate your recommendations and will do our best to implement the outstanding items in a timely fashion so that we are making every effort possible
Toronto Student Transportation Group; 2 Trethewey Drive; 2nd Floor Annex; Toronto, Ontario; M6M 4A8 9 416-394-4287; [email protected]; www.torontoschoolbus.org to improve the level of service provided to our students, families, schools, and communities we serve.
Sincerely,
Toronto Student Transportation Group; 2 Trethewey Drive; 2nd Floor Annex; Toronto, Ontario; M6M 4A8 10 416-394-4287; [email protected]; www.torontoschoolbus.org Appendix A
Ombudsman Recommendation Original Response February 2018 Update The next RFP will be in 5‐7 years (current contract is a 6 year agreement with the possibility of up to two, one year extension. TDSB agrees that we need to provide 1. The Toronto Student Transportation Group should ensure future closer geographic zones. We are going to work to consolidating Not Started‐currently in Year 2 of a 6 year contract with a 2 year extension option RFPs allow bus operators to bid for specific routes in clear geographic zones. programming/rationalizing programs which will lead to more precise zones. We will also aim to complete the RFP further in advance in order to mitigate any complications with its implementation. 2. The Toronto Student Transportation Group should consider including It is agreed that there should be increased weighting in the RFP for those with language in future RFPs prioritizing operators with experience operating in urban Toronto or related urban experience. While this was in the RFP, the increased Not Started‐currently in Year 2 of a 6 year contract with a 2 year extension option areas and with greater resources. weighting for scores will help ensure that this is prioritized more. 3. The Toronto Student Transportation Group’s governance committee It is agreed that governance and operations should meet and will meet. Further, should meet with its operations committee in early August every year to discuss the operations committee will also be doing weekly conference calls with carriers Completed in 2017 and will continue on an ongoing basis. transportation readiness and address any outstanding issues. Communications leading up to school start up and updating the governance committee. Gov staff from both boards should also be present at this meeting. committee meet in June and August. TSTG will be launching a new Transportation portal in June. Parents will be encouraged to sign up through letters home, system leaders bulletins to Principals and administrators, letters will go home, the website will provide information and post links to the portal and there will be media alerts. The portal 4. The Toronto Student Transportation Group should develop a will allow those parents who have signed up to receive updates on student In Progress. Portal update completed in 2017 and will re‐launch in Spring 2018 communication protocol that specifies how and when parents, school boards, transportation as well as specific updates if their child's bus is experiencing any for new software and other stakeholders will be notified of known or suspected service disruptions. delays. Both Boards are working together on shared messaging and launch. TSTG will also bring forward the protocol for review to governance and this will be shared through the transportation portal, website and through informing the schools to share with all parents. The operations manual will be reviewed by governance annually. A new Transportation Working Group was recently launched with representatives from both Boards (principals, SO, transportation staff), parent reps, a representative of 5. The Toronto Student Transportation Group should review its bus operators and a SEAC representative. At their most recent meeting in May, transportation operation manual to ensure that the responsibilities of all Transportation Working Group reviewed sections of Operations Manual in May 2017, the committee reviewed the roles and responsibilities section of the stakeholders are clearly established. The revised manual should delineate clear and October 2017 and will be further reviewed at upcoming spring 2018 meeting. manual. This manual, which is already in place will continue to be reviewed at responsibilities and processes for communicating transportation information. The manual is posted on our TRACS application accessible to both schools and every meeting of the Work Group and changes made and brought back to The manual should be made publically available on its website and those of the carriers and is also posted in the 'information' section on the public web site. governance. The next meeting of the working group will be in October. The Toronto District and Toronto Catholic District school boards. manual is also being updated to reflect any input from the Ombudsman's report. Governance will review the updated manual based on all input in a meeting by the end of 2017 and every year thereafter.
Schools will be encouraged to notify TSTG if they are experiencing delays and how that is impacting them. It will remain the operators’ responsibility to notify 6. The Toronto Student Transportation Group should ensure the revised regarding specific delays to routes and reasons why and update the delay portal On‐going‐schools identify service delivery issues on a daily basis and TSTG staff transportation operation manual requires schools impacted by service in a timely manner. These delays will be fed through the Transportation parent work with them to correct it. A revision to the 'communication protocol' within disruptions to notify it about the nature of the disruption. portal so that parents have timely access to any delay information impacting their the operations manual is being developed. child. Gps is a new tool that all carriers are mandated to have in place by September 2017 and it can be used to provide specific information on delays.
Page 1 of 5 11 Appendix A
Ombudsman Recommendation Original Response February 2018 Update TSTG will continue to monitor whether operators are properly notifying schools and parents about bus delays and keep a log and contact the operator to resolve. When there is an obvious patterns, notifications will go to operators requesting 7. The Toronto Student Transportation Group should monitor whether On‐going‐Carriers are identified when they fail to provide satisfactory late bus improvement and where that does not work, the contract enforcement operators notify schools and parents about bus delays and take remedial steps notification, and all carriers have now achieved GPS compliance for their entire mechanisms will be utilized. Future RFPs will also include clearer financial against operators who consistently fail to do so. fleets so will provide real time notification when connected to new software. penalties specific to this point. In the interim, where any aspect of the contract is not be complied with, there is the opportunity to change or remove routes from operators. TSTG maintains that it is the operators' responsibility to ensure that all students are picked up and delivered to their school and to their home. The new Transportation portal will be a means to connect directly with parents, along with 8. The Toronto Student Transportation Group should ensure its new website updates and the existing bus operators’ obligations to update parents. Completed‐Carriers can now enter a range of times as long as over 2 hours. New transportation portal allows bus operators to disclose when a bus is unableto Where there is any delay, the portal will be updated accordingly with a range of software implemented for September 2018 will also have this ability service a route on a particular day. time expected for the delay. Where there is a significant delay expected, in addition to the portal being updated, the parents will also receive calls from the operator as per their contractual obligations. There are some steps that need to happen before the integrated GPS "where's my bus" type application can be utilized along with the Transportation Portal. The first step is a new software. TSTG is now at the proof of concept stage with a 9. The Toronto Student Transportation Group should expedite its In Progress‐Software has been acquired and will be in use beginning in April 2018 vendor and is looking to launch the new system in parallel with the existing initiative of using bus GPS information and software to automatically post real‐ and once successfully in place for September 2018 start up a date will be system in January, 2018 with a full launch in September 2018. Efforts are being time and accurate information about delayed and no‐show buses on its website. established for connection to GPS system made to expedite the GPS portion for parents in the 2018‐2019 school year. Currently, operators can use GPS to see delays and update the delay portal. In the coming school year, TSTG staff will also have access to the GPS portion.
A meeting was held with representatives of both Boards and the bus operators on June 8, 2017. At that meeting, operators were asked to confirm that they have On‐going‐one carrier employed a call centre to manage September 2017 volumes 10. The Toronto Student Transportation Group should ensure that bus sufficient phone and office resources to meet the demands of the coming start and recommendations have been made to others for the need for further operators comply with the service contract’s requirement to maintain a sufficient up. All operators were present in the meeting and all indicated that they now feel improvement. Discussed different communication access methods (including number of phone lines and office staff to address inquiries from the public, fully prepared to meet the demands of start up. Both Boards will be working with Skype and dedicated e‐mail accounts) for schools to ensure access to the carrier schools, and families. the operators at their regular bus operator meetings to update preparation. Both dispatch. Boards expect, and will monitor, that it will be staffed sufficiently. If there are breaches, these will be tracked and may impact routes that they serve. 11. The Toronto Student Transportation Group should ensure that its call For the first time, a professional call centre will be used, as approved by centre is adequately staffed and resourced to handle the volume of complaints governance. The Call Centre will have the capacity to handle call volumes and Completed‐implemented in August 2017 and much improved the response rate and enquiries received each year. The centre's infrastructure and staff escalate issues to staff as necessary. Service standards will be agreed upon by to call volume will remain in place for future years complement should be adaptable to unpredictable and changing complaint both Boards in the contract phase and shared. volumes. 12. The Toronto Student Transportation Group should develop call centre We agree. Will establish service standards with input from other consortia and Partially completed‐call volumes were monitored, and abandoned rate and call policies and procedures that establish minimum service standards for wait and implement by September 2017, with an aim to be a best practice leader in the lengths were tracked to create benchmarks for upcoming years. All but two days response times. service standards and timelines within the province. had no more than a three minute wait per caller. 13. The Toronto Student Transportation Group should conduct ongoing The complaints and inquiries have now been added to existing kpis that are trends analyses of complaints and inquiries received in order to address operator currently collected. These will be included for information at every governance Partially completed‐Complaints have been tracked and categorized an a trend service performance issues and identify opportunities for improvements to committee information package. Where trends exist, the contract provisions analysis is on‐going of causes of lateness processes and communication. regarding non performance will be discussed and implemented.
Page 2 of 5 12 Appendix A
Ombudsman Recommendation Original Response February 2018 Update Currently send out communication packages to all schools. Will augment this by 14. The Toronto Student Transportation Group, in combination with the provided letter in knapsacks and will be sent to parents who sign up on new In Progress ‐ Along with hard copy packages sent to new families a 'phone blast' Toronto District and Toronto Catholic District school boards, should proactively transportation portal, as well as on the website. Included in the information will will be implemented in the summer to advise all families who have transportation ensure that parents know how to access bus service information and complaint be a complaint procedure, along with a revised communication package with service how to access transportation information for the upcoming school year. procedures prior to the start of each school year. input from both Boards. 15. The Toronto Student Transportation Group, in combination with bus School bus transportation procedure will be updated to fully implement these operators and the Toronto District and Toronto Catholic District school boards, recommendations. TSTG currently maintains an issue tracking application and will In Progress‐Issue Tracker was implemented and it allows for escalating of more should create a school bus transportation complaint procedure, The procedure add additional functionality to comply with the recommendation. A formal serious issues. A dedicated 'complaint' e‐mail has been placed on the front page should: ∙ create a centralized mechanism for recording and responding complaint procedure will be developed and brought back to governance and the of the consortium website for families to access if they have transportation to complaints; ∙ include provisions for escalating serious or unresolved transportation portal, website and letters to families will also provide access to complaints. Documentation about the complaint procedure is in progress. complaints; and ∙ distinguish between requests for information about this information. bus schedules and routes, and complaints about bus service. 16. The Toronto Student Transportation Group should ensure parents and other stakeholders are provided with information about how to access the As per above (14 and 15) this will be implemented and distributed accordingly. As above will be communicated out in initial communication to families. complaint procedure each year. 17. The Toronto Student Transportation Group should establish clear steps Currently employ a safety officer. Will update the officer's role by ensuring these Not completed‐ but a target date of April 30th was established following the for evaluating the adequacy of the bus operator’s investigation, incident report, items are included in accident review process. annual audit performed at all school bus divisions. and response to safety incidents. We will ensure bus operators are required to follow requirements. We will 18. The Toronto Student Transportation Group should follow up with and monitor failure to adequately investigate, report, and respond to safety incidents, On‐going‐Safety Officer will be inspecting buses at schools between January‐June take remedial steps against operators who fail to adequately investigate, report, and ensure they are penalized in accordance with contract, such as serving notice 2018 to ensure compliance to safety standards and respond to safety incidents. for loss of routes. 19. The Toronto Student Transportation Group should document its These procedures exist and have been updated November, 2016 and have been process for identifying and responding to safety incidents in its policies and added to the operations manual in May, 2017 and will be shared with Completed‐May 2017 procedures. governance. 20. The Toronto Student Transportation Group should ensure future This is in the current contract and part of annual training and we will work with service contracts require that bus operators provide drivers with both initial and the operators to ensure that this is even more robust. We will also be asking Completed ‐ Next contract not available for another 4 years but this stipulation ongoing annual training about the procedures and importance of the “Purple operators to put notifications in buses (if this is not acceptable, then in their has already been communicated to carriers to actively follow now. Equals Parent” program and the requirement to provide door‐to‐door manuals) reminding re: purple equals parent. transportation for students with special needs. 21. The Toronto Student Transportation Group should carefully consider Carriers are required to comply. We investigate any issue where this transpires enforcing contractual penalties against operators with bus drivers that and where determined problem is driver’s responsibility we will be seeking On‐going‐most recent penalty was assessed in January 2018 consistently or egregiously fail to adhere to the “Purple Equals Parent” program remediation based on level of culpability, will enforce penalties including loss of requirement. routes or removal of driver from route or company. 22. The Toronto Student Transportation Group should consider adding provisions to future service contracts allowing it to penalize operators that This will be added to next contract based on legal and procurement input and Not Started‐currently in Year 2 of a 6 year contract with a 2 year extension option contravene the transportation policy for students with special needs, such as the we will also use existing levers of contract to implement to operators. requirement for door‐to‐door transportation. TSTG requires operators to confirm that they are aware of the conditions placed 23. The Toronto Student Transportation Group should ensure that bus upon them contractually when subcontracting. Part of that is to only use vendors operators who subcontract work to taxi companies comply with the service On‐going ‐Meeting scheduled with primary supplier of taxi services Beck Taxi on of record, who are screened through the vendor recruitment process. TSTG will contract’s requirements, including that they provide instruction and training to February21/18 also provide training materials to vendors to share with their drivers and have taxi drivers before they begin picking up students. taxi operators sign off that they will implement this.
Page 3 of 5 13 Appendix A
Ombudsman Recommendation Original Response February 2018 Update 24. When deciding whether to approve an operator’s request to This is consistent with current expectations though TSTG will also send a letter subcontract work to a taxi, the Toronto Student Transportation Group should On‐going and agenda item for February 14/18 meeting with the school bus reinforcing this expectation and will also include more robust language in future ensure that the taxi is being used as a last resort and that the same taxi driver will operators. RFPs that it is our expectation that taxis are used as a last resort. service the route whenever possible. Current standard turnaround time is 72 hours from the time application is 25. The Toronto Student Transportation Group, the Toronto District, and received until it is put on the road. This is marginally longer in Sept when set On‐going‐Answering Plus is scheduled to provide a mass call out to parents at the the Toronto Catholic District school boards should ensure that parents and dates are used to minimize disruption to routes. The consortium informs end of August 2018 to confirm p/u and drop off times. New software will have schools are provided adequate and reasonable notice before they modify schools/operators and they inform parents. Parent are informed by the end of the ability to e‐mail parents notifications of route changes and times prior to students’ pickup or drop‐off times. school day prior to the service starting. Efforts will be made to provide greater implementation on the road. notice where possible. TDSB’s contingency program was developed in September 2016 and will 26. The Toronto District and Toronto Catholic District school boards should continue for every school start up and all principals will be notified prior to school proactively develop and implement contingency staffing plans to ensure start up each year. The program provides lists of staff who are available for short On‐going. The School Boards are reviewing with their HR staff to confirm what adequate student supervision if and when transportation disruptions occur. The term relief where additional supervision is required and notices go out to schools resources are available to the schools. plans should include clear protocols regarding emergency staff assignments to as to how to get reimbursed for these additional costs. In the 2016 start‐up, supervise students stranded as a result of service disruptions. these additional costs were approximately $50,000 in additional staffing. 27. The Toronto Student Transportation Group should draft terms of This has been completed at May, 2017 Transportation Work Group. Terms Completed 2017 reference to guide the advisory group’s work. attached. 28. The Toronto Student Transportation Group should post minutes of the Once approved by the committee, they will be posted on the TSTG website and Completed 2017 advisory group’s meetings on its website. website of both Boards. 29. To minimize the possibility for future transportation disruptions, the Consultation to take place with tstg and then GM to meet with governance to Toronto District and Toronto Catholic District school boards should consult with In Progress ‐ reports are brought forward to TSTG Governance prior to the discuss how these changes will impact on operations. Governance committee will management from the Toronto Student Transportation Group before making implementation of any new service or operational standard. discuss creating program change deadlines for significant program changes. decisions affecting student transportation. 30. The Toronto District and Toronto Catholic District school boards should Both boards have implemented new timelines for data verification forms and provide student transportation information to the Toronto Student routes will be issued to companies 3 weeks earlier than past years. Operators Completed‐provided routes one month earlier beginning in July 2017 Transportation Group as early as possible to enable an earlier start to the route indicated that this will be a significant improvement for them at the June 8, 2017 planning process. operator meeting. 31. The Toronto Student Transportation Group’s governance committee Any significant changes to optimization implementation will be approved by On‐going‐Optimization was completed in November 2017 and results presented should provide prior approval for any requested route optimizations occurring governance. in December 7/17 report outside the typical route planning process. 32. The Toronto Student Transportation Group’s governance committee should consult with Transportation Group and school board management Agreed. On Going‐Optimization was completed after start up so did not impact operations regarding the impact of requested route optimizations before granting approval for the optimization. Measures have been taken to provide final routes earlier and therefore will not 33. The Toronto Student Transportation Group should ensure that any need to provide mock routes. Mock routes were done due to the new RFP and mock routes issued to assist operators in early driver recruitment reflect the this will not be an annual process and will review and improve for next RFP Not Started‐currently in Year 2 of a 6 year contract with a 2 year extension option areas and schools where operators will be assigned routes. process to narrow down geographical zones to provide greater focus on the area in any future rfp. 34. The Toronto Student Transportation Group should ensure that all bus We agree. Requirement is to do dry runs. Going forward we will follow up in a routes can be realistically completed in the time allotted. Dry runs shouldbemore timely manner prior to school start up to ensure dry runs have been On‐going‐currently a contractual requirement which is audited by staff in April completed under expected route and traffic conditions to confirm routes can be completed and report back to governance that this has been done and that annually completed on schedule. operators are in compliance.
Page 4 of 5 14 Appendix A
Ombudsman Recommendation Original Response February 2018 Update 35. The Toronto Student Transportation Group should develop a comprehensive policy for student transportation requests. The policy should: Governance committee will set out guidelines for when and how requests will be ∙ Set out a process and firm deadline for submitting requests; approved and that will also outline the responsibilities for all parties. The Boards Not completed‐Transportation policies and practices are scheduled for review at ∙ Establish clear responsibilities for the Transportation Group, boards, will make the final approval of their own policies and will incorporate the the TSTG during the 2018‐2019 school year. and parents; and ∙ Provide for exceptional or compassionate requisite accommodation requirements as per best practice and case law. circumstances in which late transportation requests will be accommodated. At the weekly operator conference calls in the summer, TSTG will be actively determining if any operator is having a challenge meeting their obligations and On‐going‐routes have been removed from operators failing to service them 36. The Toronto Student Transportation Group should take an active role where bus operators are having any difficulty, TSTG will work with operators to properly and given to other operators multiple times in the 2017‐18 school year. matching open routes with drivers interested in those routes. match. TDSB, through TSTG has also worked closely with the operators to provide Changed the planning process to maintain existing routes with existing carriers job fair venues for recruitment over the summer through the Employment were possible to minimize disruption. Ontario network of employment assisted services. On‐going‐as indicated above routes have been removed. Contract requires 37. The Toronto Student Transportation Group should ensure bus Operators provide weekly updates and they will report on in house staff, training carriers to provide weekly KPI data so that the consortium can identify any carrier operators are contractually obligated to provide information about open routes program, drivers and spares and any uncovered routes that may have operational issues and address before it becomes a more and unassigned drivers to allow it to facilitate the matching process. significant problem. 38. The Toronto Student Transportation Group and the Toronto District and Toronto Catholic District school boards should work together to remove Governance committee is reviewing organizational models that will best work for Not completed‐Meeting held in January 2018 between HR departments of both barriers that prevent Transportation Group staff from working as a cohesive the team and also working closely on teambuilding and engaging the team. boards to open discussions around setting up an independent consortium team. 39. The Toronto Student Transportation Group and the Toronto District A new call centre is being implemented. A new software is in the process of being Not completed‐ but the initial meetings have begun and some resources have and Toronto Catholic District school boards should ensure that Transportation selected and governance will ask in each annual plan for a list of any needed been made available to be shared between the staff members. Group staff have access to the same resources and technology. resources in order to fulfill its mandate. 40. The Toronto Student Transportation Group should ensure that staff Governance committee is reviewing organizational models to ensure a better Not completed‐Meeting held in January 2018 between HR departments of both employment and reporting responsibilities are independent of the school board structure to meet the needs of the service that is offered. boards to open discussions around setting up an independent consortium that administratively employs them. 41. The Toronto Student Transportation Group should modify its policies Not completed‐Meeting held in January 2018 between HR departments of both and procedures to reflect the revised organizational structure and staff Governance committee is reviewing organizational models. boards to open discussions around setting up an independent consortium employment responsibilities. 42. The Toronto District and Toronto Catholic District school boards, as well as the Toronto Student Transportation Group, should report back to my Office in six months’ time on their progress in implementing my Agree. Completed recommendations, and at six‐month intervals thereafter until such time asIam satisfied that adequate steps have been taken to address them.
Page 5 of 5 15
TO: TSTG GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE FEBRUARY 16TH, 2018
FROM: GENERAL MANAGER
SUBJECT: TSTG 2018-2019 DRAFT BUDGET
Origin:
Budget Submission
Executive Summary
The Toronto Student Transportation Group is proposing a 2.0% increase for the consortium budget for the 2018-2019 school year. The increase is primarily a result in contractual rate increases for contracted carriers and increases to cover the changeover to the PRESTO card used in the transit system. The TSTG will continue to run a deficit as expenditure far exceeds Grant revenue in the neighbourhood of $24M.
Comment(s):
1. The Toronto Student Transportation Group has created a consolidated budget statement for review by the Governance Committee. Once approved the budget will be circulated to the School Boards for their review and final approval. The budget is attached as Appendix A while a breakdown by each Board is attached as Appendix B.
2. The most significant factor in rising costs is the contractual obligation to modify rates for the operators. The contract dictates that each year the rates will be modified based on 85% of the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for Toronto each August. The average CPI increase over the last six years (last year was a contract year so no CPI is used) was 1.9%. For the purpose of the 2018-2019 budget a 2% increase was used in the budget to determine contracted costs which translates into more than $1.9M in additional expenditure.
3. The TTC is planning on moving to the new PRESTO fare system by the end of 2018 and at a minimum there will be a financial pressure to supply cards to eligible students at a cost, it is expected, to be $6 per card. Current school relocations at St John the Evangelist and new relocations for September 2018 at Davisville PS will continue to add pressures to the transportation budget. Growth and congestion are other factors which impacts our ability to minimize additional resources having to be added into the system.
16
4. In regards to revenue the consortium has two primary sources. One is the transportation GSN while the other is Fuel escalation/de-escalation formula used to flow through funding for fuel. The Transportation Grant is based on a pre-1998 value and has been modified through the years based on cost of living adjustments. The projected transportation Grant received by both School Boards for the 2018-2019 school year will not meet the needs of the student population at both Boards based on current policies.
5. The Ministry fuel escalation/de-escalation formula was introduced a few years ago. The intent was to provide a more stable flow of fuel funding for transportation. Previously, the Ministry would make one time funding announcements when fuel prices escalated and normally prorated the funds to each of the school Boards. The new process at least provides some short term stability to fuel but the Ministry modifies the base rate each year making it near impossible to predict future fuel revenue. Fuel prices have been on the rise and it is expected that fuel will add a pressure to the transportation budget again this year after a few years of lower cost fuel.
6. At this time the only avenue available to the Consortium and School Boards to address the financial imbalance is to cut services. As highlighted in the previous report on the breakdown of transportation costs; even if all transportation services were cut with the exception of those that meet the distance criteria and those with services for students with special needs, the consortium would still have a $12M deficit.
Recommendation:
1. That the TSTG draft 2018-2019 budget be approved.
2. That the General Manger provides each member Board with a copy of the budget in format and content as prescribed by each School Board.
K. Hodgkinson General Manager
17 Appendix A
Transportation Element TSTG Variance (Plan to Draft) Variance (Actual to Draft) Draft Plan YTD Actual 2017‐2018 2017‐2018 2016‐2017 $ % $ % Planning and Administration$ 3,535,361 $ 3,466,040 $ 2,865,592 $ 69,321 2.00%$ 669,769 23.37% Regular Transportation (Non‐transit)$ 19,557,517 $ 19,174,036 $ 18,931,933 $ 383,481 2.00%$ 625,584 3.30% French Immersion transportation (Non‐transit)$ 8,220,856 $ 8,059,663 $ 7,486,304 $ 161,193 2.00%$ 734,552 9.81% Gifted Program Transportation (Non‐transit)$ 2,322,612 $ 2,277,071 $ 2,053,635 $ 45,541 2.00%$ 268,978 13.10% Magnet Program Transportation (Non‐transit)$ 1,553,262 $ 1,522,806 $ 1,542,750 $ 30,456 2.00%$ 10,512 0.68% Special Transportation Needs (Non‐transit)$ 47,330,862 $ 46,402,806 $ 45,057,698 $ 928,056 2.00%$ 2,273,163 5.05% Transportation ‐ Wheelchair Accessible Vehicles (Non‐transit)$ 8,551,162 $ 8,383,492 $ 7,590,943 $ 167,670 2.00%$ 960,220 12.65% Public Transit Passes$ 4,342,977 $ 4,257,821 $ 3,596,828 $ 85,156 2.00%$ 746,150 20.74% Mobility Accessible Public Transit$ ‐ ‐$ ‐$ $ ‐ $ ‐ Section 23 transportation $ 2,664,900 $ 2,612,647 $ 2,913,398 $ 52,253 2.00% ‐$ 248,498 ‐8.53% Summer school transportation $ 1,040,807 $ 1,020,399 $ 928,790 $ 20,408 2.00%$ 112,017 12.06% Late‐bussing, Field Trips, and School to School Transportation $ 549,250 $ 538,480 $ 485,188 $ 10,770 2.00%$ 64,062 13.20% Board and lodging $ ‐ ‐$ ‐$ $ ‐ $ ‐ Rider Safety Program $ 172,799 $ 169,411 $ 84,097 $ 3,388 2.00%$ 88,702 105.48% Other $ ‐ ‐$ ‐$ $ ‐ $ ‐ SubTotal $ 99,842,366 $ 97,884,672 $ 93,537,155 $ 1,957,693 2.00% $ 6,305,211 6.74% One Time Costs $ 1,250,410 $ 1,020,867 $ 833,464 $ 229,543 22.49%$ 416,946 50.03% Total Calculated $ 101,092,776 $ 98,905,539 $ 94,370,619 $ 2,187,236 2.21%$ 6,722,156 7.12% Total $ 101,380,136 $ 98,905,537 $ 94,370,619 $ 2,474,598 2.50%$ 7,009,516 7.43%
Transportation Grant $ 77,358,466 $ 75,841,633 $ 74,346,764 $ 1,516,833 2.00%$ 3,011,702 4.05% Fuel Escalation/De‐Escaltion $ ‐ ‐$ $ ‐ Total Grant $ 77,358,466 $ 75,841,633 $ 74,346,764 $ 1,516,833 2.00%$ 3,011,702 4.05%
Difference ‐$ 24,021,670 ‐$ 23,063,904 ‐$ 20,023,855 $ 957,766 $ 20,981,621
18 Appendix B
Transportation Element TDSB Variance (Plan to Draft) TCDSB Variance (Plan to Draft) Draft Revised Draft YTD Actual Draft Revised Draft YTD Actual 2018‐2019 2017‐2019 2016‐2017 $ % 2018‐2019 2017‐2019 2016‐2017 $ % Planning and Administration$ 1,868,066.76 $ 1,831,438.00 $ 1,477,044.51 $ 36,629 2.00%$ 1,667,294.04 $ 1,634,602.00 $ 1,388,547.00 $ 32,692 2.00% Regular Transportation (Non‐transit)$ 6,951,344.87 $ 6,815,043.99 $ 6,690,397.58 $ 136,301 2.00%$ 12,606,172.15 $ 12,358,992 $ 12,241,535.00 $ 247,180 2.00% French Immersion transportation (Non‐transit) $ 8,220,856.33 $ 8,059,663.07 $ 7,486,304.16 $ 161,193 2.00%$ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ Gifted Program Transportation (Non‐transit)$ 2,322,612.26 $ 2,277,070.85 $ 2,053,634.62 $ 45,541 2.00%$ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ Magnet Program Transportation (Non‐transit) $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 1,553,261.98 $ 1,522,805.86 $ 1,542,750.00 $ 30,456 2.00% Special Transportation Needs (Non‐transit)$ 32,152,989.07 $ 31,522,538.30 $ 30,754,804.38 $ 630,451 2.00%$ 15,177,872.78 $ 14,880,267.44 $ 14,302,894.00 $ 297,605 2.00% Transportation ‐ Wheelchair Accessible Vehicles (Non‐transit) $ 7,299,348.07 $ 7,156,223.60 $ 6,448,372.68 $ 143,124 2.00%$ 1,251,814.14 $ 1,227,268.77 $ 1,142,570.00 $ 24,545 2.00% Public Transit Passes $ 2,885,424.96 $ 2,828,848.00 $ 2,669,930.57 $ 56,577 2.00%$ 1,457,552.46 $ 1,428,973.00 $ 926,897.00 $ 28,579 2.00% Mobility Accessible Public Transit $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ Section 23 transportation$ 1,852,295.45 $ 1,815,975.94 $ 2,139,931.36 $ 36,320 2.00%$ 812,604.43 $ 796,671.01 $ 773,467.00 $ 15,933 2.00% Summer school transportation$ 620,109.03 $ 607,950.03 $ 548,340.00 $ 12,159 2.00%$ 420,697.86 $ 412,448.89 $ 380,450.00 $ 8,249 2.00% Late‐bussing, Field Trips, and School to School Transportation $ 463,090.60 $ 454,010.39 $ 432,567.00 $ ‐ 2.00%$ 86,159.12 $ 84,469.73 $ 52,621.00 $ ‐ 2.00% Board and lodging $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ Rider Safety Program$ 78,030.00 $ 76,500.00 $ 41,060.00 $ 1,530 2.00%$ 94,769.22 $ 92,911.00 $ 43,037.00 $ 1,858 2.00% Other $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ SubTotal$ 64,714,167.41 $ 63,445,262.17 $ 60,742,386.86 $ 1,268,905 2.00%$ 35,128,198.20 $ 34,439,410.00 $ 32,794,768.00 $ 688,788 2.00% One Time Costs$ 696,000.00 $ 315,078.13 $ 308,337.27 $ 380,922 120.90%$ 554,410.00 $ 705,789.00 $ 525,127.00 ‐$ 151,379 ‐21.45% Total Calculated$ 65,410,167.41 $ 63,760,340.30 $ 61,050,724.13 $ 1,649,827 2.59%$ 35,682,608.20 $ 35,145,199.00 $ 33,319,895.00 $ 537,409 1.53% Total Entered$ 65,697,527.41 $ 63,760,339.30 $ 61,050,724.13 $ 1,937,188 3.04%$ 35,682,608.20 $ 35,145,198.00 $ 33,319,895.00 $ 537,410 1.53% $ 24,428,081.00 $ 24,428,081.00 $ 23,818,331.00 0.00% Transportation Grant$ 52,441,822.02 $ 51,413,551.00 $ 50,528,433.00 $ 1,028,271 2.00%$ 24,916,643.64 $24,428,082.00$ 23,818,331.00 $ 488,562 2.00% Fuel Escalation/De‐Escaltion $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ Total Grant$ 52,441,822.02 $ 51,413,551.00 $ 50,528,433.00 $ 1,028,271 2.00%$ 24,916,644 $ 24,428,082 $ 23,818,331 $ 488,562 2.00%
Difference‐$ 13,255,705 ‐$ 12,346,788 ‐$ 10,522,291 ‐$ 10,765,965 ‐$ 10,717,116 ‐$ 9,501,564
19
TO: TSTG GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE FEBRUARY 16TH, 2018
FROM: GENERAL MANAGER
SUBJECT: BELL TIME OPTIMIZATION FOR INTERNATIONAL LANGUAGES
Origin:
TCDSB Request
Executive Summary
TSTG staff undertook a bell time optimization as a means to identify what the impact would be to the system in the event the TCDSB reduced their school day with the elimination of programming for international languages. The change to the bell times for 45 TCDSB schools resulted in a net zero change to the system and no additional costs to the system.
Comment(s):
1. The TCDSB and TDSB have been sharing buses since 1994 in various capacities. Through the co-terminus relationship the Boards have saved millions of dollars through transportation efficiencies. These efficiencies have primarily been achieved through the intermixing of students and buses which translated into fewer buses on the road.
2. The TCDSB underwent a bell time optimization in 1996 which generated savings for the Board around $1.2M. Changes to bell times are often difficult to achieve as local communities structure their day around these bell times and change forces them to modify their own day. In some cases this works well for some families while others it is the opposite. In 2012 the TCDSB undertook a study that identified that staggering of bell times was actually less cost effective for the TCDSB system. Bell times were collapsed down to two sets of times for all schools which cost the TCDSB $1.6M in additional transportation expenditure but saved over $2M in human resources costs.
3. The TCDSB has requested that the TSTG review the impact of reducing the school day at 45 TCDSB schools that currently offer international languages. Currently all schools with international languages start at 8:30AM and end at 3:30PM. For this analysis the TSTG identified the TCDSB international language schools that would be best suited to move to either an 8:30AM and 3:00PM school day or a 9:00AM and 3:30PM school day. A summary of the suggested start and end times for these schools is attached as Appendix A. Some schools in Appendix A were not assigned new bell times. These are schools that do not have regular transportation and as such
20
the program hours can be selected by the school or School Board that best meet their needs since they do not impact the transportation solution.
4. Using the new bell times as highlighted in Appendix A, new route optimizations were performed. Transportation management software is used to perform an optimization of bus runs based on the bell times supplied in order to generate a new routing solution. In this instance the system generated 444 bus routes, down four buses from the initial solution of 448 bus routes.
5. The transportation for students with special needs is a more manual process and as such the transportation planning unit was asked to estimate the impact of changing bell times on the special needs population. Since many of the bell times associated with students with special needs are not consistent with the regular bell times at the schools we identified high volume schools to look at what the impact of changing bell times may generate. Based on this sample staff did not feel any significant changes would be generated. To be cautious, however, we negated the decrease on the big bus routes with a possible increase on the mini bus fleet.
6. With the change in bell times there is some impact to schools and communities at both the TCDSB and TDSB. This change is primarily around the pick-up and drop off time of the students at schools and bus stop locations. All bus stops will remain the same but the time that the bus may arrive or depart may change for the 2018-2019 school year. For those students utilizing service on the large capacity buses the change will be no more 30 minutes at maximum. Most students will only see a change to their bus times at one time of the day or the other and likely in the 5-10- minute range.
7. In order to ensure that the routes can be designed and ready for distribution it is important that families and schools return transportation verification forms to the TSTG in a timely manner. The TSTG will also need confirmation of all bell times by the end of March so that the system can be set up and information available to schools and families in a timely manner. The TSTG will be utilizing a ‘phone blast’ over the summer to advise all transported families that the transportation information is available and that it can be accessed via three methods; one – logging on to the parent portal and signing up to receive notification of transportation changes and delays for their children; two – contacting the transportation office to confirm the information; three- contacting the school the week before school starts to access the information. The TSTG will also be starting a bi-annual student transportation newsletter which for the inaugural release will be distributed in paper copy to all families currently on transportation. Subsequent letters will be available electronically for families that are signed up on the portal. The newsletter will also highlight the timelines and requirements to register for the portal and what to expect for the 2018-2019 school year in terms of student transportation.
21
Recommendation:
1. That pending approval of the change in bell times for TCDSB schools by the TCDSB that the TSTG implement the new bell times and associated school bus routes for the 2018- 2019 school year.
K. Hodgkinson General Manager
22 Appendix A
Current Bell Times Proposed Bell Times Code School Name sclocation To Bell Frm Bell #Bus To Bell Frm Bell 0409 BLESSED MARGHERITA OF CITTA DI CASTELLO 108 SPENVALLEY DR 8:30 AM 3:30 PM 0 0318 D'ARCY MCGEE CATHOLIC SCHOOL 20 BANSLEY AVE 8:30 AM 3:30 PM 1 9:00 AM 3:30 PM 0281 IMMACULATE CONCEPTION CATHOLIC SCHOOL 23 COMAY ROAD 8:30 AM 3:30 PM 4 8:30 AM 3:00 PM 0413 JOSYF CARDINAL SLIPYJ CATHOLIC SCHOOL 35 W DEANE PARK DR 8:30 AM 3:30 PM 15 9:00 AM 3:30 PM 0399 MSGR JOHN CORRIGAN CATHOLIC SCHOOL 100 ROYALCREST ROAD 8:30 AM 3:30 PM 2 8:30 AM 3:00 PM 0347 POPE FRANCIS CATHOLIC SCHOOL 319 OSSINGTON AVE 8:30 AM 3:30 PM 1 8:30 AM 3:00 PM 0362 REGINA MUNDI CATHOLIC SCHOOL 70 PLAYFAIR AVE 8:30 AM 3:30 PM 0 0326 ST ALPHONSUS CATHOLIC SCHOOL 60 ATLAS AVE 8:30 AM 3:30 PM 2 8:30 AM 3:00 PM 0410 ST ANDRE CATHOLIC SCHOOL 36 YVONNE AVE 8:30 AM 3:30 PM 8 8:30 AM 3:00 PM 0361 ST ANGELA CATHOLIC SCHOOL 220 MOUNT OLIVE DR 8:30 AM 3:30 PM 6 9:00 AM 3:30 PM 0210 ST ANTHONY CATHOLIC SCHOOL 663 GLADSTONE AVE 8:30 AM 3:30 PM 1 8:30 AM 3:00 PM 0261 ST BERNARD CATHOLIC SCHOOL 12 DUCKWORTH ST 8:30 AM 3:30 PM 5 9:00 AM 3:30 PM 0235 ST BRIGID CATHOLIC SCHOOL 318 WOLVERLEIGH BLVD 8:30 AM 3:30 PM 4 9:00 AM 3:30 PM 0250 ST CHARLES CATHOLIC SCHOOL 50 CORK AVE 8:30 AM 3:30 PM 3 9:00 AM 3:30 PM 0214 ST CLARE CATHOLIC SCHOOL 124 NORTHCLIFFE BLVD 8:30 AM 3:30 PM 1 9:00 AM 3:30 PM 0396 ST CONRAD CATHOLIC SCHOOL 5 EXBURY ROAD 8:30 AM 3:30 PM 5 8:30 AM 3:00 PM 0384 ST DEMETRIUS CATHOLIC SCHOOL 52 RICHVIEW ROAD 8:30 AM 3:30 PM 10 9:00 AM 3:30 PM 0358 ST FIDELIS CATHOLIC SCHOOL 9 BANNERMAN ST 8:30 AM 3:30 PM 3 8:30 AM 3:00 PM 0366 ST FRANCIS DE SALES CATHOLIC SCHOOL 333 FIRGROVE CRES 8:30 AM 3:30 PM 2 8:30 AM 3:00 PM 0206 ST FRANCIS OF ASSISI CATHOLIC SCHOOL 80 CLINTON ST 8:30 AM 3:30 PM 0 0271 ST FRANCIS XAVIER CATHOLIC SCHOOL 53 GRACEFIELD AVE 8:30 AM 3:30 PM 5 9:00 AM 3:30 PM 0208 ST HELEN CATHOLIC SCHOOL 1196 COLLEGE ST TO 8:30 AM 3:30 PM 0 0365 ST IGNATIUS OF LOYOLA CATHOLIC SCHOOL 2350 MCCOWAN ROAD 8:30 AM 3:30 PM 2 8:30 AM 3:00 PM 0296 ST JANE FRANCES CATHOLIC SCHOOL 2745 JANE ST 8:30 AM 3:30 PM 3 8:30 AM 3:00 PM 0294 ST JEROME CATHOLIC SCHOOL 111 SHARPECROFT BLVD 8:30 AM 3:30 PM 5 9:00 AM 3:30 PM 0305 ST JOHN BOSCO CATHOLIC SCHOOL 75 HOLMESDALE ROAD 8:30 AM 3:30 PM 2 8:30 AM 3:00 PM 0392 ST JOHN VIANNEY CATHOLIC SCHOOL 105 THISTLE DOWN BLVD 8:30 AM 3:30 PM 4 9:00 AM 3:30 PM 0291 ST JOSAPHAT CATHOLIC SCHOOL 85 FORTY FIRST ST 8:30 AM 3:30 PM 10 9:00 AM 3:30 PM 0279 ST JUDE CATHOLIC SCHOOL 3251 WESTON ROAD 8:30 AM 3:30 PM 4 8:30 AM 3:00 PM 0344 ST MARTHA CATHOLIC SCHOOL 130 NORTHOVER ST 8:30 AM 3:30 PM 0 0228 ST MARY OF THE ANGELS CATHOLIC SCHOOL 1477 DUFFERIN ST 8:30 AM 3:30 PM 0 0240 ST MATTHEW CATHOLIC SCHOOL 18 LAVENDER ROAD 8:30 AM 3:30 PM 4 9:00 AM 3:30 PM 0379 ST MAURICE CATHOLIC SCHOOL 45 KINGSVIEW BLVD 8:30 AM 3:30 PM 0 0217 ST MICHAEL CHOIR JR 67 BOND ST 8:30 AM 3:30 PM 0 0309 ST NORBERT CATHOLIC SCHOOL 60 MANIZA ROAD 8:30 AM 3:30 PM 3 8:30 AM 3:00 PM 0283 ST PASCHAL BAYLON CATHOLIC SCHOOL 15 ST PASCHAL CT 8:30 AM 3:30 PM 8 8:30 AM 3:00 PM 0285 ST RAPHAEL CATHOLIC SCHOOL 3 GADE DR 8:30 AM 3:30 PM 4 9:00 AM 3:30 PM 0297 ST ROBERT CATHOLIC SCHOOL 70 BAINBRIDGE AVE 8:30 AM 3:30 PM 7 9:00 AM 3:30 PM 0320 ST ROCH CATHOLIC SCHOOL 174 DUNCANWOODS DR 8:30 AM 3:30 PM 2 9:00 AM 3:30 PM 0354 ST SEBASTIAN CATHOLIC SCHOOL 63 WALLACE AVE 8:30 AM 3:30 PM 0 0383 ST SIMON CATHOLIC SCHOOL 20 WALLASEY AVE 8:30 AM 3:30 PM 4 9:00 AM 3:30 PM 0313 ST WILFRID CATHOLIC SCHOOL 1685 FINCH AVE W 8:30 AM 3:30 PM 8 8:30 AM 3:00 PM 0371 STELLA MARIS CATHOLIC SCHOOL 31 ASCOT AVE 8:30 AM 3:30 PM 0 0398 STS COSMAS AND DAMIAN CATHOLIC SCHOOL 111 DANESBURY AVE 8:30 AM 3:30 PM 0 0397 VENERABLE JOHN MERLINI CATHOLIC SCHOOL 19 EMILY AVE 8:30 AM 3:30 PM 3 8:30 AM 3:00 PM
23
2016-
2017
Toronto Student Transportation
Group
Annual Report
Prepared by the Toronto Student
Transportation Group.
Providing Student Transportation Services for the Toronto District School Board and the Toronto Catholic District School Board
November 2017
24 Blank
25 General Managers Report
It is with pleasure that I provide this annual report on the activities of the Toronto Student Transportation Group over the past school year. This report summarizes the activities and plans that the transportation consortium has undertaken over the past school year. The summary of data, activities, challenges, and successes is reflective of the joint transportation unit that has been supplying transportation services to the Boards for over a decade.
The Toronto Boards have been competitively procuring student transportation services for over two decades but nothing prepared us for the start of the 2016-2017 school year. A massive school bus driver shortage caused mayhem for thousands of students not only in the city of Toronto but across the province. Delays of over an hour and some buses not showing up altogether created significant service issues for many of our families. Some families endured several months of uncertainty in terms of what service the school bus companies were able to provide. Despite seeking out other service providers there were no school bus operators willing to take on any work in Toronto. This left some companies having to use ‘limousine’ service for some students to ensure they met their contractual obligations.
The consortium was also warned that there was a potential for a physical school bus shortage as well since school bus manufactures may not be able to deliver all the new units that were required in Toronto for school start. Luckily, this was mitigated to avoid any further service related issues for our families. Many families were impacted, however, by a freak afternoon snow storm that brought Toronto traffic to stand still. Traffic delays and accidents held up buses with a couple of routes not delivering students home till near 10:00PM.
To further complicate the start of the new school year there was roof work on the transportation building during the summer that disrupted the normal planning routines for transportation staff. Due to the strong asphalt smell all staff had to relocate their work space to other facilities. This dispersion of staff made it difficult to get the planning work completed in a timely manner and ready for the school bus operators to collect their school bus routes for September. All of these events led to a very challenging start-up and school year.
This report highlights some of the issues, challenges, and successes that the Toronto Student Transportation Group has experienced over the past school year.
Sincerely,
Kevin Hodgkinson General Manger
26 Mission and Vision Statement
Mission Statement
Service: To facilitate the provision of safe, secure, and consistently on-time delivery of student transportation services for those students entrusted in our care.
Cost Effective: To provide adequate, equitable, and fair services to those members that actively look for the best means to achieve cost effective transportation solutions.
Accountable: To provide effective, efficient, and accountable solutions that meets the needs of our stakeholders.
Vision Statement
Communications: To actively pursue initiatives that will maximize the level of service provided to our stakeholders.
Responsibility: To actively pursue economic, environmental, and social initiatives that will allow us to lead the way in meeting public demand.
Human Resources: To actively pursue programming and training that will assist staff in delivering a level of service that exceeds our shareholder’s expectations.
27
Contents INTRODUCTION ...... 6 History ...... 6 A Look Back ...... 7 Driver Shortage ...... 7 Strike Averted ...... 8 Ombudsman Investigation ...... 9 A Look Ahead ...... 10 Technology - Coming of Age ...... 10 New Funding? ...... 10 Taxi Review ...... 11 Student Transportation Services ...... 12 Financial ...... 12 Programming ...... 15 Special Education ...... 15 Operations ...... 17 Level of Service ...... 17 Operators ...... 19 Fuel ...... 20 Operator KPI ...... 21 TSTG KPI ...... 24 Transportation Planning ...... 26 Bell Times ...... 26 Change Summary ...... 28 Safety ...... 29 School Bus Safety Program ...... 29 Accident Statistics ...... 30 Incidents ...... 32
28 Toronto Student Transportation Group, Annual Report (2016-2017) Page 6 of 32
INTRODUCTION
The Toronto Student Transportation Group (TSTG) is a consortium formed to manage and facilitate the student transportation services for the Toronto Catholic District School Board (TCDSB) & Toronto District School Board (TDSB). The TSTG provides transportation services for approximately 49,000 students in more than 800 schools and centres throughout the City of Toronto. Six different school bus operators provide more than 1750 vehicles to provide transportation services for students with a budget of just over $90,000,000.
The consortium is physically located at 2 Trethewey Dr with a staff of 28 individuals responsible for the operation, planning, technology, and safety of transported students.
History
The TDSB & TCDSB have been sharing transportation services since 1995. Laidlaw Planning Services was originally hired to implement a computerized routing solution that optimized the TCDSB regular home to school fleet and integrate the TCDSB and North York School Boards special education routes. These two routing solutions removed over 100 buses from the road and saved the Boards over $3.2M in transportation expenditure. Over the next eight years the former cities making up the current City of Toronto were systematically introduced into the combined routing solution removing an additional 38 buses from the system.
In 1998 the key planning staff from Laidlaw was recruited to form the nucleus of shared transportation services provided by the Boards. The introduction of new staff was complemented by an introduction of an upgraded transportation planning management software from Education Logistics. With staff and technology in place the Boards had the key component to managing and maintaining transportation services. Transportation staff from both Boards relocated in 2005 to the TDSB’s Trethewey facility where the operations, planning, technology, and safety units work together to facilitate and deliver transportation services. In September of 2011 the two School Boards signed a membership agreement officially creating the ‘Toronto Student Transportation Group’.
29 Toronto Student Transportation Group, Annual Report (2016-2017) Page 7 of 32
A Look Back
The 2016 -2017 school year provided the Toronto Student Transportation Group with a number of challenges that not only provided obstacles but opportunities to understand and improve the way we do business.
Driver Shortage
With new contracts in hand and a considerable increase to the rates provided to our carriers the last thing the TSTG expected was a significant driver shortage to start the new school year. Up to a week prior to school starting all companies had indicated sufficient drivers for all routes allocated to their divisions. This quickly changed once the routes were distributed and companies started to indicate that drivers were not accepting some of the routes that were assigned to their divisions resulting in a 100 driver shortfall. Many carriers indicated that the ‘mock routes’ they received back in March did not match up with the routes received in August causing drivers to leave and look at other employers.
The TSTG worked with carriers to facilitate the swapping of bus runs between carriers to reduce that number down to 60 prior to school start. The 60 was consistent with previous years in terms of shortages as all companies have a pool of spare drivers to draw on to fill in for these ‘open’ routes and when drivers are off sick. The difference this year was that those 60 open routes were concentrated with three carriers and not evenly distributed through all 12 carriers providing service.
The first week invariably was stressful for schools and families dealing with buses that were extremely late or did not show up at all. Meetings with the three carriers that week resulted in action plans to remove buses from these carriers as well as have them option taxi service were application and sub contract with other travel operators to minimize disruption. The TSTG also ‘re-routed’ some routes to get some of these students into school on time while minimizing the disruptions for others and creating a stable time schedule for those families if they were unable to get their children to school on time themselves.
The majority of the delays lasted several months for some students. Minor delays continued into the Christmas break. The TSTG attempted to seek out other school bus providers who would have been able to come in and provide service but there were no takers that could do so in a timely manner. As the school bus driver shortage impacted many of the surrounding School Boards as well there was a significant drain on applicants wanting to become school bus
30 Toronto Student Transportation Group,
Annual Report (2016-2017) Page 8 of 32
drivers. Even with ten applicants coming into a training program, many companies were finding that only one or two would end up being a viable school bus driver. In a weeks span it was not uncommon to see three new drivers being hired but two drivers quitting that same week. Whether due to other employment or the current work environment there has been a constant exodus of drivers from the school bus driving pool. The new transportation contract also saw two new carriers enter the marketplace while many long standing drivers with established carriers who lost work decided to leave the marketplace rather than seek employment with different operators.
Strike Averted
Common in the School bus industry is the fact that many school bus operations have unionized drivers. For the past two decades it seems that new contracts with unionized staff were dealt with in timely and equitable manner for all parties. In recent years there seems to be a rise in the number of contract negotiations that have required the need to invoke a call for a ‘no board’ report starting a clock on when negotiations need to be resolved before the unionized members can go on strike. Even more frustrating for parents and schools is the fact that these negotiations recently have went to the 11th hour or beyond creating a very small window to communicate with stakeholders.
In the summer of 2016, First Student Canada advised the TSTG that their unionized drivers at their Markham branch had applied for conciliation. This started an 81-day clock to continue meetings and hopefully come to an agreement before the October 15th, 2016 deadline. The company also indicated the union would provide 72 hours notice ahead of time should they opt to go on strike once the 81-day clock has run out. This school bus division provided service for over 8000 students at 88 schools throughout the city of Toronto. No viable back up plan to mitigate the service disruption was available given the large number of buses operated by this carrier and the fact that no other carriers in the area had any available drivers to perform the work.
Both the union and company negotiated past the 81-day mark but not seeing sufficient progress being made the union advised the company that they would strike on November 3, 2016 if a deal was not completed. Midnight on November 2nd, 20176 came and went without an agreement but the two parties were still at the table negotiating. Finally, in the wee hours
31 Toronto Student Transportation Group,
Annual Report (2016-2017) Page 9 of 32
of the morning the two sides finally came to a tentative agreement avoiding any legal action. This did, however, cause a major rush to communicate out the decision to waiting students and parents early in the morning on whether service would be running that day or not. In the end both sides came to an amiable solution with a contract lasting for several more years.
Ombudsman Investigation
As noted above the severe school bus shortage had caught the attention of the Ontario Ombudsman who recently took ownership of oversight over publically funded School Boards. A number of complaints about school bus delays and service issues from parents around the GTA prompted the Ontario Ombudsman to start an investigation. The investigation was specific to the Toronto Boards even though the school bus driver shortage was identified to be a province wide problem. Through their investigation they documented 127 complaints, conducted 43 interviews, collected over 20+ gigabytes of data including over 55,000 e-mails and generated 42 recommendations.
Those forty-two recommendations can be broken down into six themes as follows: 1 Procurement and Contracts, 2 Consortium Organization and Human Resources, 3 Technology, 4 Communications, 5 Oversight, and 6 Operations. The School Boards accepted all 42 recommendations and the TSTG is working currently on addressing those issues. Some of those issues were already identified through the consortiums own review process of the challenges experienced throughout the start of the school year in 2016 and new procedures and timelines put in place to address for the 2017-2018 school year. The school bus operators who escaped the wrath of the Ombudsman have also committed to doing things differently to ensure they are able to deliver the services that they have contracted for. This included improving communication technologies and having more resources available to deal with schools and the public. They also committed more resources to ensure that there is a steady stream of applicants coming into their offices to support their pool of available drivers. The consortium will be providing an update to the Ontario Ombudsman every 6 months until they are confident that the issues identified in the report have been addressed and resources put in place to minimize future service delivery failures.
32 Toronto Student Transportation Group,
Annual Report (2016-2017) Page 10 of 32
A Look Ahead
While successfully transporting over 49,000 students to and from school safely each and every day for another year we look ahead to the challenges and opportunities that the upcoming school years will hold for us.
Technology - Coming of Age
With a significant transportation deficit, it is always difficult to go to leadership to ask for more money to improve services. Technology in the school bus industry has been expanding rapidly in the last few years and the Toronto Boards have been ‘late to the party’ to get the tools in place to not only help support the effective and efficient routing of school buses but the means to better communicate with our stakeholders.
GeoRef systems was awarded the contract to provide technology to replace older transportation management software. The new software is designed with more tools to allow staff to make better use of their time and provide logistical support for the planning team to ensure that our student’s transportation needs are being met. Along with that, additional communication tools will be launched to provide schools and parents better access to the buses that are servicing their schools. School bus delay notifications will no longer be isolated to e-mail but expanded to include text messages, RSS feeds, and applications to better communicate delays and service announcements to our school communities and families.
New Funding?
That last formal funding formula used in Ontario was in 1998 and all funding for student transportation to date has flowed from that base. The Ministry attempted to launch a new funding formula in the mid 2000’s but was cancelled after the first year of phasing in the new model. The Ministry then moved to effectiveness and efficiency reviews to act as a mechanism to fund deficit gaps. The funding of student transportation has been highlighted in both the 2000 and 2014 Auditor General’s
33 Toronto Student Transportation Group,
Annual Report (2016-2017) Page 11 of 32
recommendations in regards to Student Transportation Services.
After the new contracts with operators in the 2016-2017 school year the transportation deficit in Toronto has doubled and stands now at over $10M. Since there is no policy standard provided by the Ministry of Education the local School Boards are required to set their own transportation policies and use the funding received as they see fit. Both School Boards have had to take funds from other non-classroom funding envelopes to support the transportation level of service that each Board feels their stakeholders demand.
The Ministry of Education has indicated recently that they are pursuing a new funding model and that they will be working with stakeholders to develop a new formula.
Taxi Review
One of the recommendations coming out of the Ombudsman report was to ensure better oversight of how taxi service is utilized in the course of student transportation services. Taxi service will be utilized for a couple of different reasons. One, a student does not live near the school and travel by any other means but a direct route would cause the student to be on the bus for more than an hour. In circumstances like these the consortium will specifically assign the student to the taxi and that will be their primary mode of transportation for the duration of service to that locations. Second, is when school bus operators are struggling with driver recruitment and require a short term solution to ensure students are transported to and from school. In cases like this the companies are to follow the protocols around using taxi service which includes: no primary aged students should be transported via taxi (grade JK to gred3), non- verbal students should not be placed in taxi’s, and that all taxi use must be pre-approved by the parent in order for the student to use the taxi.
The primary area of concern with the utilization of taxis by school bus operators, is the rational employed and timing of their usage. Until recently, the consortium relied on the school bus operator to manage their subcontract to the taxi company and ensure that service was delivered as expected. In order to ensure that the consortium has better oversight of taxi use we anticipate direct meetings with the taxi companies to review what information has been provided to them from the school bus operator and how they ensure that their drivers are meeting the needs of the students. This ongoing practice will help support our students to ensure safe and timely delivery of student transportation services.
34 Toronto Student Transportation Group, Annual Report (2016-2017) Page 12 of 32
Student Transportation Services Financial
The Toronto Student Transportation Group currently spends about $95,000,000 on transportation services for the TCDSB and TDSB. The Ministry of Education provided a transportation Grant in 2016- 2017 of approximately $23,800,000 for the TCDSB and $50,500,000 for the TDSB. A breakdown of the transportation budget along with a historical summary of the Transportation Grant and Expenditure is displayed below:
1. Historical Transportation Grant vs. Expenditure
TCDSB
$35,000,000.00 $30,000,000.00 $25,000,000.00 $20,000,000.00 $15,000,000.00 Grant $10,000,000.00 $5,000,000.00 $-
TDSB
$70,000,000.00 $60,000,000.00 $50,000,000.00 $40,000,000.00 $30,000,000.00 Grant $20,000,000.00 $10,000,000.00 $-
35 Toronto Student Transportation Group,
Annual Report (2016-2017) Page 13 of 32
2. Transportation Expenditure by Area
TCDSB Summer School Rider Safety Public Transit 2016-2017 Provincial 3% 1% Section 23 Program school Alternative 2% 0% 0% Transportation Planning WC Transportation & admin 4% Services 0% 4%
Regular AM/PM Special 37% Transportation Needs 44%
Magnet Gifted Program French Immersion Program 0% 0% 5%
TDSB Alternative Rider Safety 2016-2017 Provincial Planning & admin Transportation Program school 2% Section 23 Services 0% 0% Summer School 4% 1% 1% Public Transit 4% Regular AM/PM Wheelchair 11% French 11% Immersion Magnet 12% Program 0% Special Transportation Needs Gifted Program 51% 3%
36 Toronto Student Transportation Group,
Annual Report (2016-2017) Page 14 of 32
3. Historical Summary of Transportation Expenditure 2012 - 2017
TCDSB TCDSB Historical Expenditure By Service Area
Provincial school Section 23 Rider Safety Program Alternative Transportation Services Summer School Public Transit WC Transportation Special Transportation Needs Gifted Program Magnet Program French Immersion Regular AM/PM Planning & admin
2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017
TDSB TDSB Historical Expenditure By Service Area
Provincial school Section 23 Rider Safety Program Alternative Transportation Services Summer School Public Transit Wheelchair Special Transportation Needs Gifted Program Magnet Program French Immersion Regular AM/PM Planning & admin
2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017
37 Toronto Student Transportation Group,
Annual Report (2016-2017) Page 15 of 32
Programming
The TSTG services a large and dynamic student population within the City of Toronto. A majority of funding dollars is directed towards the student transportation services for students with special needs. Unique needs, geography, and modified program hours are just some of the factors impacting the delivery of transportation services for special needs students. French Immersion, Gifted, and specialized withdrawal programs also contribute to the complexity involved in transporting students.
Special Education
Transportation for special needs students has continued to grow from year to year. Given the geographic diverseness of this student population there is a significant expenditure required to ensure the safe and timely delivery of these students to their program locations. The following graph shows the percentage of students receiving transportation by program.
4. Transportation of special needs students by programming type
Special Needs Programming By Type 2016-2017
Special Needs Section 23 3% Physical Disability 3% Behavioural 7% 7% Autism 7%
Mild Disability Developmental 19% Delayed 23% Multiple Exceptionality 9% Learning Disability 11%
Deaf & Hard of Diagnostic Hearing 4% 2% Language Disability 5%
38 Toronto Student Transportation Group,
Annual Report (2016-2017) Page 16 of 32
5. Breakdown of Sped routes by Area
TOTAL NUMBER OF ROUTES BY AREA/PLANNER 2016-2017
250 213 204 194 195 200 188 164 150
100
50 Number Number of Routes
0 North West Central West South West North East Central East South East Area
6. Ride times for Students with Special Needs
Ride Time for Students with Special Needs - One Way
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800 # # of students 600
400
200
0 <10 10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 >90 Series1 800 1569 1665 1476 1130 730 342 105 22 5
39 Toronto Student Transportation Group, Annual Report (2016-2017) Page 17 of 32
Operations
The transportation operations unit is responsible for the on-road delivery of transportation services. Staff facilitates the communication of planning changes, monitors school bus operations, evaluate operator qualifications and performance, and resolve operational problems. Operational staff uses a number of resources to help monitor the integrity of the transportation system and our performance.
Level of Service
As part of the Consortiums annual review of routes, statistics are collected that identify trends in terms of how well services are provided. The most direct information is from schools and parents through surveys but there are also indicators that can be used to better understand service levels.
7. GIS Mapping of student distribution
One of the challenges when creating school bus routes is the fact that some student populations are dispersed throughout the city. This leads to extended ride times for students and impacts the consortiums ability to maximize the use of the bus.
40 Toronto Student Transportation Group,
Annual Report (2016-2017) Page 18 of 32
8. Service Level Indicators
For large capacity buses the routing methodology that provides the most cost effective solution given the geography and student density is the coupling of runs. This means that bus runs will service one school community and then proceed out again to service another school community. This maximizes the use of the bus while improving the level of service for students.
BB Run Length
350 300 250 200 150
# of # Buses 100 50 0 1-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 60+ Run Time in Minutes
BB Run End Time (PM)
250
200
150
100 # of # Buses
50
0 <3:00PM 3:00-3:14 3:15-3:29 3:30-3:44 3:45-3:59 4:00-4:14 4:15-4:29 4:30-4:44 4:45-5:00 Run End Time
41 Toronto Student Transportation Group,
Annual Report (2016-2017) Page 19 of 32
Operators
The Toronto Student Transportation Group secures transportation through a competitive procurement process. The 2016-2017 school year was the first year of a new contract with a term of six years plus one year options. The following chart highlights the number of Operators by division that are providing service for the TSTG. 9. Breakdown of contracted fleet
Fleet Composition 2016-2017 Mini Van 10% WC Accessible Mini Vbus Full School Bus 4% WC 25% Accessible BB 0% Mini School Bus 61%
Fleet Composition by Carrier
WAT TDSB Fleet Switzer-Carty Stock Sharp McCluskey First Student Attridge
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Mini Van Mini School Bus WC Accessible Mini Bus WC Accessible BB Full School Bus
42 Toronto Student Transportation Group,
Annual Report (2016-2017) Page 20 of 32
Fuel
One of the most volatile and unpredictable elements to funding transportation services is the costing for fuel. Both gas and diesel type vehicles using various engines with different fuel economy travelling varying distances generate different costs to be funded. Although the trend over the last 5 years has shown a slow and steady increase the yearly variances have been dramatic. Specifically, the fuel prices from January of 2016 are trending higher after a steady decrease the previous two years. The following chart highlights the fuel costs over the years.
10. Fuel Trend over the last 16 years
Fuel Trend 1.6000 1.4000 1.2000 1.0000 0.8000 0.6000 0.4000 0.2000 0.0000 Jul Jul Jul Jul Jul Jul Jul Jul Jul Jul Jul Jul Mar Mar Mar Mar Mar Mar Mar Mar Mar Mar Mar Mar Nov Sep Nov Sep Nov Sep Nov Sep Nov Sep Nov Sep Nov Sep Nov Sep Nov Sep Nov Sep Nov Sep Nov May May May May May May May May May May May May Jan-06 Jan-07 Jan-08 Jan-09 Jan-10 Jan-11 Jan-12 Jan-13 Jan-14 Jan-15 Jan-16 Jan-17 Sep-05
Fuel Trend 2016-2017 1.2
1
0.8
0.6
FUEL COST 0.4
0.2
0 Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan-17 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug MONTH
43 Toronto Student Transportation Group, Annual Report (2016-2017) Page 21 of 32
Operator KPI
As a means to monitor school bus operator performance a key performance indicator package is submitted by the operators to the Consortium each week. The statistics provide an overview of how well operations are proceeding at each individual division. In cases like below where ‘open coverage’ is positive the department is aware of operational deficiencies at the division and can take steps to address the situation.
1. Key Performance Indicators used to track Operator contract compliance and performance
Open Routes and Open Coverage provide us a snapshot view of our Operators ability to provide the service they have been contracted to provide. Although Open Routes refers to how many routes do not have a permanent driver the Operators are able to use spare drivers, as required by the contract, to cover off routes that are open due to driver illness or on a leave. Open Coverage is indicative of how well an Operator can provide services since it shows how many routes are run without a driver since the spare complement and driver book-off exceed the company’s ability to cover the route. Anything positive in this area indicates a concern that the TSTG would need to address with the Operator. In these cases, some options include the removal of bus routes from an operator and/or additional financial penalties to ensure that service is provided as contracted or that the Boards receive remuneration for services that are not rendered.
Items highlighted in Orange and Blue indicated values that fell outside a standard deviation either above or below the average. Consortium staff use the information collected from the ‘Key performance Indicators’ to work with the carriers to address those concerns or where in a positive situation try to transfer the best practices to those carriers that may have struggled in these particular areas.
44 Toronto Student Transportation Group,
Annual Report (2016-2017) Page 22 of 32
Weekly Operator Status FX AT FM MC SH SC SN ST SW TD FT WA Sys Avg
Total Number of Routes Servicing Toronto (AM/PM) 15 236 66 123 140 255 180 217 141 15 140 247 147.9 Total Number of Routes Servicing Toronto (Noon) 0 29 0 26 12 10 4 6 0 0 6 31 10.3 Grand Total Of Routes (Sum of two above) 15 265 65 149 152 265 184 223 141 15 146 278 158.1 Open Routes - Yellow 0.0 16.6 0 3.0 2.5 4.3 5.8 5.9 2.6 0.0 0.4 2.2 3.6 Open Routes - Wheelchair 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.8 0.4 Open Routes - Mini Van 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.0 Open Routes - (please specify each individual route below) 0.0 16.1 0 3.0 2.5 7.0 5.8 5.9 2.7 0.0 1.6 3.2 4.0 Open Routes (percentage of AM/PM routes) 0.0% 6.8% 0.0% 2.5% 1.8% 2.7% 3.2% 2.7% 1.9% 0.0% 1.1% 1.3% 2.0% Number of drivers in training this week 1.3 5.6 2.1 4.5 8.9 5.8 5.5 7.8 3.4 0 1.9 4.2 4.2 Number of additional licensed drivers this week 0.3 1.6 0.4 0.6 1.5 0.9 1.2 1.1 1.3 0 0.8 1.5 0.9 Number of drivers who have left company this week 0.1 1.1 0.0 0.4 0.7 0.6 1.6 1.0 0.5 0 0.8 1.4 0.7 Driver Turnover Accumulated 4 44 0 12 28 21 58 37 19 0 31 56 Driver Turnover weekly (percentage of am/pm routes) 0.7% 0.5% 0.0% 0.3% 0.5% 0.2% 0.9% 0.4% 0.3% 0.0% 0.6% 0.6% 0.4% Driver Turnover Accumulated Annual % 26.8% 18.7% 0.0% 9.7% 20.0% 8.2% 32.2% 17.1% 13.5% 0.0% 22.1% 22.7% 15.9% Number of Collisions 0.1 0.8 0.5 0.0 0.7 0.4 0.9 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.7 0.4 0.4 Number of Collisions - Accumulated 2 30 19 0 28 18 34 2 16 3 26 15 Number of Collisions reported in TRACS 2 45 18 14 30 38 49 10 13 3 28 27 Collisions (as a percentage of am/pm routes) 0.5% 0.3% 0.7% 0.0% 0.5% 0.2% 0.5% 0.02% 0.3% 1.0% 0.5% 0.2% 0.4% Number of 'Missing Students' Reported 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Number of 'Returned Students' (no supervision at stop) 0.3 2.0 13.4 0.0 12.4 0.0 0.9 0.1 5.6 0.1 0.2 0.2 2.9 Number of 'Incidents' (other then bill157) 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.1 1.1 0.2 Number of 'Bill 157 Incidents' 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Number of Late Routes - Weather/traffic related 2.2 24.4 15.7 0.8 16.4 18.2 19.6 24.7 4.2 0 15.5 4.6 12.2 Number of Late Routes - Operational related 0.2 32.9 2.7 0.3 10.7 20.1 6.5 10.5 1.2 0 6.0 5.2 8.0 Number of Late Routes - Planning related 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.5 1.7 1.1 0.2 0 0.7 1.7 0.7 Number of Late Routes - School related 0.2 4.5 5.5 0.0 5.7 4.2 4.1 1.3 1.4 0 2.8 0.6 2.5 Late Routes (as a percentage of am/pm routes) 16.0% 24.3% 27.8% 0.9% 19.4% 16.4% 15.4% 16.8% 3.9% 0.0% 15.8% 4.6% 13.4% Number of Breakdowns 0.5 3.8 2.0 0.1 1.6 8.0 4.2 6.9 0.3 0 5.2 0.8 2.8 Number of Breakdowns - Accumulated 18 142 78 2 61 312 161 261 11 0 181 31 Number of Breakdowns (percentage of am/pm routes) 3.2% 1.6% 3.0% 0.1% 1.1% 3.1% 2.4% 3.2% 0.2% 0.0% 3.7% 0.3% 1.8% Number of spare drivers 2.0 4.9 4.0 8.0 4.4 10.6 12.0 11.0 4.4 2.7 10.3 17.6 7.6 Number of routes covered by taxi/subcontract 0.0 16.2 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.4 0.0 0.0 3.7 0 0.0 4.3 2.2 Number of other available drivers (only days when spare < routes) 0.0 3.3 15.6 0.0 0.0 10.2 0.0 16.4 5.0 0 2.0 0.7 4.4 Number of Split Routes Am 0.0 17.1 0.0 0.1 1.1 19.8 9.3 15.2 2.2 0 0.5 2.8 5.7 Number of Split Routes Pm 0.0 15.5 0.0 0.1 2.2 23.9 8.0 17.2 3.0 0 0.3 2.8 6.1 Total Number of Split Routes 0.0 32.4 0.0 0.1 3.3 43.7 17.3 32.3 5.2 0 0.8 5.5 11.7 Number of charters performed with school route buses 0.0 0.4 69.2 0.0 11.5 0.3 0.2 0.0 77.8 55.4 5.7 3.0 18.6 Number of spare vehicles 2.0 13.1 15.0 15.0 21.4 27.9 15.6 21.0 23.3 4.3 16.0 13.9 15.7 Number of book offs (last week total) AM 0.0 9.2 5.1 0.9 13.3 23.7 20.6 25.2 7.2 5.3 24.7 7.9 11.9 Number of book offs (last week total) Noon 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.7 0.2 0.0 0 0.6 2.3 0.5 Number of book offs (last week total) PM 0.0 9.9 7.1 0.6 15.0 26.4 18.5 26.0 7.3 5.45 24.3 8.0 12.4 Book Offs as a % of total routes 0.0% 1.0% 2.7% 0.1% 2.7% 2.6% 2.6% 3.0% 1.3% 9.3% 4.3% 0.8% 2.5% Percentage of Spares (5% contract minimum) 13.4% 2.1% 6.0% 6.5% 3.2% 4.1% 6.7% 5.1% 3.1% 18.1% 7.3% 7.1% 6.9% Open Coverage -10 -18.1 -28.6 -24.3 -1.5 -3.5 -12.6 -16.1 -24.9 -7.8 -21.2 -86.25 -21.2
1 standard deviation above average
1 standard deviation below the average 45 Toronto Student Transportation Group,
Annual Report (2016-2017) Page 23 of 32
Open Coverage Open Routes 0 8.0% -10 FX AT FM MC SH SC SN ST SW TD FT WA 7.0% -20
Poorly Poorly Covered -30 6.0% - -40 5.0% -50 4.0% -60 -70 3.0%
Well Well Covered -80 2.0% -90 -100 1.0% 0.0% FX AT FM MC SH SC SN ST SW TD FT WA
WA Late Routes Acidents 3% SW TD WA 0% 2% FT FX FT 10% 10% AT TD ST 15% SW 10% ST SN SN 10% FM SC 17% SC SH SH 10% MC 12% FM AT FX MC 1% 0.0% 0.2% 0.4% 0.6% 0.8% 1.0% 1.2%
46 Toronto Student Transportation Group,
Annual Report (2016-2017) Page 24 of 32
TSTG KPI
In order to address the performance of the Toronto Student Transportation Group a number of key performance indicators have also been identified as a means to track how well the organization is doing. Over time a historical trend can be identified that will show areas of strength and weakness. Of the data below the capacity utilization of 90% is significant considering a majority of the transportation provided in Toronto is for special needs students who typically have longer trips and lower loads.
Number of Changes: Of significant impact to the level of service that the TSTG offers its Board members is the number of changes received in late August and into September. Looking at the data below you can see that over 4500 changes are processed in Transportation during the month of September alone. This equates to 9% of all students being impacted during the start up. Consistency is the back bone to better levels of service and it is difficult to deliver this service when the system is in such a state of flux during this time period. By prohibiting the addition of new students to routes or changes to planned routes for the first two week of school and establishing a weekly change schedule that would increase stability for students and drivers along with providing better service for all involved. Accurate and timely delivery of student data is paramount to building good transportation routes that are more resilient to change and providing minimal impacts to our student population.
Web Site Visits: Communication is one of the key tools to ensure our stakeholders have accurate and timely information. The introduction of the delay portal saw access numbers to the web site reach over 20,000 hits in September alone. Spikes in accessing data in January indicate that families are looking for updates to transportation status, especially during the cold and stormy weather to confirm if buses were cancelled or not. Of primary concern is to ensure that our Operators have the necessary tools and means to minimize school bus delays and as a secondary measure to ensure that we have the communication tools available to notify our communities when those delays are unavoidable.
47 Toronto Student Transportation Group,
Annual Report (2016-2017) Page 25 of 32
TSTG Status September November January March May Average Total Number of Routes Servicing Toronto 452 452 454 454 454 453 (AM/PM)[72] Total Number of Routes Servicing Toronto 1058 1089 1089 1089 1090 1085 (AM/PM)[18] Total Number of Routes Servicing Toronto 79 79 78 78 77 78 (AM/PM)[5] Total Number of Routes Servicing Toronto 168 168 168 168 168 168 (AM/PM)[4] Total Number of Routes Servicing Toronto (Noon) 132 156 155 155 155 152 Grand Total Of Routes (AM/PM TOTAL ONLY) 1757 1788 1789 1789 1789 1784 Monthly Change (# of routes) -0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.00 Number of students transported (bus) 47949 49792 49627 49532 49199 49371 Number of students transported (TTC) 3836 6180 5655 6893 7263 6306 Number of students transported (Taxi) 69 83 98 101 102 93 Number of students transported (All) 51854 56055 55380 56526 56564 55769 Student per vehicle 27.3 27.8 27.7 27.7 27.5 28 Number of Changes 4574 3020 2202 1806 1531 2349 Total Kilometres 67533 70487 70951 71940 71639 70824 Available Capacity 52655 53213 53352 53352 53365 53223 Capacity Utilization 91.1% 93.6% 93% 93% 92% 93% Tot Cost/month (not incl utiliz, taxi, ttc ) $7,826,119.38 $8,795,810.52 $6,706,882.24 $7,545,242.52 $9,222,527.16 $7,816,894.15 Tot Cost/Day $ 411,901.02 $ 418,848.12 $ 419,180.14 $ 419,180.14 $ 419,205.78 $ 418,048.12 Monthly Variant 0.00% 0.00% 0.08% 0.00% 0.01% 0.10% Cost per Student/month $ 163.22 $ 176.65 $ 135.15 $ 152.33 $ 187.45 $ 158.38 Cost per Bus/month $ 4,454.25 $ 4,919.36 $ 3,748.96 $ 4,217.58 $ 5,155.13 $ 4,381.79 Cost per Kilometre/month $ 115.89 $ 124.79 $ 94.53 $ 104.88 $ 128.74 $ 110.43 Average run length (km) 15.7 16 16.2 16.3 16.5 16 Average run time (min) 51.27 52.8 53.5 53.9 54.4 53 Average # stops 8.9 9.1 9.2 9.2 9.2 9 Web Visits [Google Analytics](Total Visits/Sessions) 29645 9285 15658 6642 6642 13828 Phone Call Answer Rate 54% 81% 72% 88% 90% 80%
48 Toronto Student Transportation Group,
Annual Report (2016-2017) Page 26 of 32
Transportation Planning
The transportation planning unit is responsible for the design and maintenance of the school bus routes. As a means to create an effective and efficient transportation system staff utilize GIS based technology to schedule and move students and buses throughout the City of Toronto. The strategic stratification of bell times in conjunction with the optimization of bus runs lays the foundation to increase the level of service provided to our families while minimizing costs.
Bell Times
One of the core planning attributes to creating a successful transportation system is the ability to manage and stagger school bell times. The staggering of bell times allows for the coupling of bus runs thereby reducing the number of buses required. The TSTG has input on school bell times, however, the ultimate decision rests with the school/senior management team. A snapshot of bell times highlighted below shows the current am staggering of buses throughout the city. Clearly, more strategic staggering of bell times would offer further savings to the Schools Boards as the current times are closely clustered together.
2. Bell time stratification for Toronto schools
Morning Bell Time After Noon Bell Time AM Range TCDSB TDSB Total PM Range TCDSB TDSB Total Before 8:00 AM 0 0 0 Before 2:30 PM 2 2 4 8:00 AM to 8:19 AM 0 1 1 2:30 PM to 2:49 PM 17 2 19 8:20 AM to 8:29 AM 0 3 3 2:50 PM to 2:59 PM 8 11 19 8:30 AM to 8:39 AM 116 25 141 3:00 PM to 3:09 PM 61 85 146 8:40 AM to 8:49 AM 17 247 264 3:10 PM to 3:19 PM 2 178 180 8:50 AM to 8:59 AM 3 122 125 3:20 PM to 3:29 PM 0 95 95 9:00 AM to 9:19 AM 69 151 220 3:30 PM to 3:49 PM 115 175 290 9:20 AM to 9:39 AM 0 0 0 3:50 PM to 4:09 PM 0 1 1 9:40 AM and later 0 0 0 4:10 PM and later 0 0 0 Total # of Schools 205 549 754 Total # of Schools 205 549 754
49 Toronto Student Transportation Group,
Annual Report (2016-2017) Page 27 of 32
3. Bell Time Distribution
Morning Bell Time Spread 300
250
200
150
100
50
0 Before 8:00 8:00 AM to 8:20 AM to 8:30 AM to 8:40 AM to 8:50 AM to 9:00 AM to 9:20 AM to 9:40 AM and AM 8:19 AM 8:29 AM 8:39 AM 8:49 AM 8:59 AM 9:19 AM 9:39 AM later
TCDSB TDSB
Afternoon Bell Time Spread 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Before 2:30 2:30 PM to 2:50 PM to 3:00 PM to 3:10 PM to 3:20 PM to 3:30 PM to 3:50 PM to 4:10 PM and PM 2:49 PM 2:59 PM 3:09 PM 3:19 PM 3:29 PM 3:49 PM 4:09 PM later
TCDSB TDSB
50 Toronto Student Transportation Group,
Annual Report (2016-2017) Page 28 of 32
Change Summary
Student transportation services will process over 1000 requests each week during September start-up. Tracking the volume of changes allows staff the opportunity ensures that resources are in place to maintain a consistent level of service. New in 2016-2017 was the introduction of the delay portal which identified school bus delays and a means for families and schools to have better communication around school bus delays.
4. Historical Summary of transportation change requests 2013 – 2016
CHANGE REQUESTS 2013-2016
2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017
2500
2000
1500
1000 # of Requests of #
500
0 Week Of -2 -1 school start +1 +2 +3 +4
5. Delay Portal
Accident - Bus Reasons for School Bus Delays Break Down Involved 9% 2%
Traffic Driver 31% Coverage Late 19% Student Issue 3% Other / Misc Field Trip School - Waiting 14% Returning Late 4% 3% School - No Start Return to School - 5% School Lockdown Road Conditions 2% 0% 8%
51 Toronto Student Transportation Group,
Annual Report (2016-2017) Page 29 of 32
Safety
One of the primary conditions for the transportation of students is that they are provided a safe trip to and from school. A dedicated safety officer oversees the deployment of various school bus safety programs, ensures schools and bus operators are following proper school bus safety practices, and audits runs and routes to ensure drivers have the proper qualifications and are following routes as planned.
School Bus Safety Program
The Toronto Student Transportation Group provides a number of transportation safety programs in order to educate our students, families and the general motoring public. The in- school program has been in place since 1993 and services approximately 20,000 students each year. The number of students participating in the program over the last several years is highlighted below.
6. School bus safety program historical summary
School Bus Safety Training Historical Costs
$60,000.00 $50,000.00 $40,000.00 $30,000.00 Cost $20,000.00 $10,000.00 $- 2006-2007 2008-2009 2010-2011 2012-2013 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017 TDSB Cost $34,852.00 $46,362.00 $35,794.00 $30,700.00 $36,994.00 $33,226.00 $30,663.71 TCDSB Cost $30,774.00 $50,908.00 $40,906.00 $32,946.00 $34,640.00 $41,423.00 $42,228.11
School Bus Safety Presentations 2016-2017 15,223 20,716 2015-2016 17,252 22,435 2014-2015 18,497 17,320 2013-2014 14,519 12,533 Toronto District School Board 2012-2013 15,350 16,473 2011-2012 15,759 15,738 Toronto Catholic District School Board 2010-2011 17,897 20,453 2009-2010 17,783 21,614 2008-2009 23,181 25,454 2007-2008 19,760 25,016 2006-2007 17,426 15,387
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000
52 Toronto Student Transportation Group,
Annual Report (2016-2017) Page 30 of 32
Accident Statistics
School bus accident statistics provide an insight into the type of accidents taking place on the road along with the conditions from which these accidents take place. The reduction of accidents and improving the safety of students in and around the school bus can be achieved through the review of accident statistics.
● Based on data highlighted below the trend for school bus accidents is on the rise, however, over the last three years it is in decline. The majority of accidents can be attributed to ‘rear ends’ and ‘sideswiping’ based on conditions reported in 16-17. Although school bus carriers cannot control non preventable accidents, training can be tailored to address the factors contributing to preventable accidents.
7. Conditions impacting school bus accidents
Accident Type Summary Historical Approaching 1% Head On Turning Backing 1% 15% 13% Sideswipe Hit Fixed Object 11% Right Turn 13% 0% Intersection 8% Rear End 26% Passing 4% Left Turn N/A 1% 1% Parked Vehicle Pedestrian 4% 2%
53 Toronto Student Transportation Group,
Annual Report (2016-2017) Page 31 of 32
8. Year over year summary of accident statistics Accidents By Year 350 300 250 200 150 100 # of # Accidents 50 0 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 Year
9. Accident Statistics by division
16-17 Total Accidents
50
40
30
20
10
0 AT FM FX MC SC SN ST TD WA FT SH SW
16-17 As % of Fleet
30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% AT FM FX MC SC SN ST TD WA FT SH SW
54 Toronto Student Transportation Group,
Annual Report (2016-2017) Page 32 of 32
Incidents
In terms of dealing with behavioural or other small incidents on the school bus a ‘pink slip’ system is used to communicate these issues to the school Principal so that they can be addressed. If a student continues to misbehave on the bus and they receive multiple pink slips the school Principal may remove the student from transportation for a defined period of time.
When something happens on the bus that is not considered a minor incident then the bus company will document the issue as an incident. This may include a number of issues including violence, vandalism, or some other act that needs immediate attention. Incidents on the school bus are trending higher as per the graph below and one of the reasons why recruitment of school bus drivers is becoming increasingly harder. Data in the 2014-2015 school year as reported by two carriers has created an anomaly within the dataset. It is likely that all incidents regardless of severity were reported in that year by these two carriers.
Incidents 2010 to 2016 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 # of # Incidents 150 100 50 0 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017 Year
55 56 57 144 Main Street, Suite 207, Markham, ON, L3P 5T3 www.oasbo.org | tel: 905.209.9704 | fax: 905.209.9705
Building your career in The Honourable Indira Naidoo-Harris Ontario’s educational Minister of Education system Ministry of Education OASBO is a member-driven 22nd Floor, Mowat Block organization, committed to building Ontario’s provincially- 900 Bay Street funded education system Toronto, ON M7A 1L2 through strong and efficient administration. 9 February 2018 L’OASBO est un organisme piloté par ses membres et engagé à bâtir le système Dear Minister Naidoo-Harris: d’éducation financé par la province de l’Ontario à l’aide d’une administration solide et On behalf of OASBO, we would like to thank the Ministry of Education for efficace. addressing some of the concerns noted in our July 13, 2017 letter. We also wish to thank Chris Martin, Senior Policy Advisor and Joshua Paul, Assistant Deputy 2017–2018 Board Minister for continued dialogue with OASBO Transportation Committee President representatives. OASBO looks forward to collaborating on the New Vision for Mark Connors Student Transportation project. Simcoe County DSB Vice President While OASBO is optimistic that the full rollout of the School Bus Driver Retention Nathalie St-Pierre Conseil scolaire Viamonde Bonus Program will have an encouraging short-term effect, we are concerned that it is not sustainable. The program doesn’t address the overall issue of the driver Past President shortage, which has been further exacerbated by the increase in minimum wage. Peter Derochie Simcoe Muskoka Catholic DSB Putting students first requires an experienced driver behind the wheel every day; Directors this adds confidence, value, stability, and reliability to the service that is Lorie Bissonette Ontario Teachers’ Pension coordinated through Transportation Consortia and School Boards. Based on Plan Board information supplied this fall by Consortia and School Boards, it is evident that the Chris Demers school bus driver shortage is widespread and very serious across the province. Waterloo Catholic DSB Judi Green As identified in the letter of July 13, 2017, compression of the wage gap has been Northwestern Ontario Student significant, and in some areas, wages are now on par with minimum wage. Services Consortium Compression has effectively devalued the role of the school bus driver and their Andrew Seagram level of responsibility. When you also factor in student, parent, school, Board, and Upper Grand DSB Consortium expectations, the compression issue becomes even more of a concern. Steve Shaw Toronto DSB School Bus Operators have expressed concerns in their ability to absorb the costs Sandra Vieira associated with the new minimum wage and the other changes included in Bill 148. Waterloo Catholic DSB This will potentially create additional destabilization in our sector and may result Ellen Warling in some School Bus Operators abandoning various contracts which will directly Hamilton Wentworth DSB impact children and families.
Executive Director Gerry Cullen Without support from the Ministry through permanent GSN increases, where funds can be permanently directed towards recruitment, wages and other cost pressures, we remain in a position where drivers are difficult to attract.
The school bus driver shortage has also compromised School Bus Operator staff availability. While anecdotal, we have seen response time to accidents, incidents, vehicle breakdowns, and numerous other issues, being negatively impacted. Many of the staff responsible for these jobs are driving routes to try to meet expected service levels. 58 144 Main Street, Suite 207, Markham, ON, L3P 5T3 www.oasbo.org | tel: 905.209.9704 | fax: 905.209.9705
Some examples of how Consortia have been actively participating to ensure families have continued service include: various levels of route doubling to minimize delays and to ensure consistent service, restructuring routes where possible (which generally creates longer ride times), reallocating routes either short term or permanently to other School Bus Operators with better wages and retention rates, monitoring driver shortages and late runs (delays), supporting local school bus driver recruitment through links on Consortia websites, and through various social media sources.
OASBO has further concerns that we are being forced to compromise requirements of contract performance that wouldn’t otherwise be acceptable.
We are still gravely concerned, that even with the new School Bus Driver Retention Bonus Program, and the benefits that the increased minimum wage may create, the overall issues remain. The existing school bus driver shortage will be further exacerbated by the minimum wage increase. In the absence of a transportation funding formula and an increase in the GSN’s, we feel that that the driver shortage and resulting impact on students and families will not be resolved.
OASBO continues to look forward to working with Ministry of Education staff to assist in providing support and guidance to the school bus transportation sector.
Sincerely,
Mark Connors President, OASBO
Cc: Gerry Cullen, Executive Director, OASBO Judi Green, Liaison Director, OASBO David Frier, Transportation Committee Chairperson, OASBO Julie Cherepacha, COSBO Co-Chairperson, OASBO Brian Jeffs, COSBO Co-Chairperson, OASBO
59 Pending List.xlsx
# Date Motion Further details of motion Anticipated CompleComments Moved by V. Rego that the report regarding TSTG Consortium Service 5 21‐Sep‐11 Agreements be approved and that Require confirmation that the 1. the General Manger facilitates the creation and signing of agreements still need to be signed service agreements between the consortium and service and that the various Departments providers. sign off on services provided. 7 21‐Sep‐11 Moved by Trustee Gershon that the TSTG profile be received and that 6. the General Manager develops a business case identifying On‐going project that requires a lot of traffic as a significant factor impacting the financial situation of research and review. the consortium here in Toronto. Rising out of discussion on the feedback from the Trustee Workshop the 36 13‐Feb‐13 following directions were given Modify service agreements to be added as appendices to TSTG See above regarding agreements agreement. Moved by V. Rego that the report titled Effectiveness & Efficiency 40 1‐May‐13 Review for 2013/2014 be amended as follows: That the TSTG have the service level agreements signed by See above regarding agreements August 31st, 2013 Moved by C. Snider that the service level agreements on the pending list be forwarded to Board staff to review and advise of items that are See above regarding agreements missing or should be added and if any costs is associated with those 16‐Oct‐13 services. Moved by T. Ford that the report on ‘TSTG 2015‐2016 Revised Draft 87 19‐Nov‐15 Budget’ be received and amended as follows: 3. That the TSTG pursue an enhanced relationship or partnership with the TTC as a means to better address the affordability of transit for students in the city of Toronto and to engage the students by having them use social media to advocate support for more cost effective transit solutions and to ensure the student Trustees and the overseeing student councils are notified and engaged in the process. May‐19 Moved by C, Kisko that the report on ‘TSTG 2016‐2017 Draft Budget’ be 96 1‐Jun‐16 approved with direction to staff: 1. That the TSTG bring back a report focusing on the integration of TTC use for School Board students as a means of reducing costs. May‐19 Moved by C. Kisko that the report on ‘Non‐Core Transportation Services’ 97 1‐Jun‐16 be amended with direction to staff: 1. To collect data on the volume of trips, administrative time, and financial impact of moving the facilitation of non‐core
transportation services to the schools and report back to the committee. May‐18 Moved by J. Davis that the report titled ‘Active Transportation 99 1‐Jun‐16 Initiatives’ be approved with direction to staff: 1. That the General Manger ask the School Boards to consider documenting student actual mode of travel choices. May‐18 2. That the General Manager ask the School Boards to consider establishing a program devoted to teaching students the safe and In progress responsible way to utilize transportation choices. May‐18 60 Page 1 of 2 Pending List.xlsx
# Date Motion Further details of motion Anticipated CompleComments Moved by C. Kisko that the report titled ‘Strategic Plan’ ’ be deferred 110 15‐Nov‐16 until after the Ombudsman report is released. Moved by Trustee Cary‐Meagher that ‘Annual Report’ be received and 113 14‐Feb‐17 that the following items be acted upon: 2. That KPI data be collected from GTA Boards to ascertain In progress what level of service is being provided outside the city. Nov‐18 Moved by Trustee Cary‐Meagher that ‘TSTG Communication Plans’ be 117 31‐Mar‐17 received as amended: 3. That a future report come back with specific target dates for actions taken; Nov‐18 Moved by Trustee Davis that the communication from the Ministry of 120 31‐Mar‐17 Education dated March 7th, 2017 be received with direction to staff: 1. Investigate the use of school bus monitors and any evidence that shows they decrease the number of incidents on a school bus; May‐18 2. Provide statistics that show the number and type of school bus incidents and their relation to school bus driver turnover; May‐18 3. Identify alternatives to school bus monitors and any evidence that would support their use. May‐18
61 Page 2 of 2 Glossary of Terms
Service Code (if any) Definition Regular Home to School Transportation that is provided for students using central pick up and Transportation drop‐off points School to School Transportation that is provided for students who will walk to the closest Transportation local school which is used as a pick up and drop off location. Special Education Transportation that is provided for students with special needs and are Transportation accommodated with a bus stop at their local home address. Students who are eligible for transportation based on the Board's Distance Transportation distance criteria within the transportation policy (TCDSB ‐ JK‐8 = 1.5km; 9‐ 12 = N/A TDSB jk ‐ 5 = 1.6km; 6‐8 = 3.2km, 9‐12 = 4.8km) students who are eligible for transportation based on the hazard criteria Hazard Transportation established by the Board. Local Schools schools that service the educational needs of the local student population Schools that provide congregated programs for students that reside MAG / FIM / Magnet Schools outside their local school area(French Immersion, Gifted, Sports, Music, GIF Eastern Rite) Magnet schools operated by the Ministry of Education for students with Provincial Schools specific disabilities (i.e. EC Drury in Milton ‐ Deaf and Hard of hearing) ‐ Funded Schools that tend to have congregated programs for students with severe High Needs Schools special needs. (Bloorview / Sunnyview etc.) Magnet programs operated by the Ministry of Education for students that need specific treatment or direction not offered at school Boards (i.e. Section 23 S23 Hospital for Sick Kids program, TPAS {Toronto Partnership for Autism Services} programs etc.) ‐ unfunded Courtesy Seats Transportation service for students who are not eligible. Courtesy transportation for students that will walk to an existing stop Empty Seats EMP where capacity allows. Courtesy transportation for students that are considered a priority for Priority Seats ESP service where capacity and time allow(i.e. sibling of special needs students, fresh start program etc.) Courtesy transportation for students who are not eligible but require a Extenuating Circumstance EXC home stop to meet their needs where capacity and time allow. Courtesy transportation for students who are temporarily incapacitated Temporary Medical TMD and can be serviced by a vehicle where capacity and time allow. (i.e. broken leg) Transportation service for students in select geographical areas who do Non Qualifying NQ not meet the criteria in the transportation policy but have been approved Transportation for service by the Board of Trustees. Mini Bus Transportation VAN transportation provided by a mini bus, small bus, Type A bus transportation provided by a modified mini bus to accommodate Wheelchair Transportation WC students with accessibility issues (wheelchair primarily)May be white or yellow in colour. Transportation provided by a mini van. Non yellow and primarily to Mini Van Transportation MV service students with specific needs and or distance issues. Big Bus Transportation BB transportation provided by a big bus, large bus, Type C bus.
Page 1 of 2 62 Glossary of Terms
Service Code (if any) Definition
Taxi Transportation transportation provided by a taxi company. Generally mini‐van or sedan transportation provided for students who have program hours not Specials adhering to the established times at the school outside of core operating hours (between 9:00 ‐ 11:00 and 1:00 ‐ 3:00) transportation for students whose modified program hours generally fall Noon Hour Transportation within the 11:00AM ‐ 1:00PM timeframe Standard that all school buses must adhere to based on Canadian D‐250 Standards Association Effectiveness and efficiency reviews the Ministry of education conducted E&E Review to ensure School Boards working together and as a trigger mechanism for funding changes Term used to describe how the software system collects all the variable Optimization data and generates a new routing solution. Site on the TSTG website that displays all bus routes that are currently Delay Portal running late as posted by the school bus operators Site on the TSTG website that will allow parents access to transportation Transportation Portal information about their children and the ability to subscribe to the delay portal and receive notifications of bus delays. Initiatives to get more students walking and cycling to school promoting Active Transportation healthy and active lifestyles. Tagging program used to identify students who must be met at the end of Purple Equals Parent PEP the day at drop‐off. devices used to track the exact whereabouts of a vehicle with an installed Global Positioning System GPS GPS device. Pink slips of paper used by drivers to advise school Principals of Pink Slips unacceptable behaviour on the school bus Students who for whatever reason cannot ride with other students and Ride Alones must ride alone on the bus. Restraint systems used to ensure students with physical issues stay Harness upright or secure students who do not have cognitive ability to remain in their seats. identifier for planning staff so that certain individuals are separated and No To ride With NTRW routed on separate vehicles. Edulog Current student transportation management system in use in Toronto Is the current system to disseminate and look up transportation TRACS information for schools and school bus operators. Data supplied by the school bus operators and TSTG staff to monitor the Key Performance Indicators KPI system performance.
Page 2 of 2 63