Special City Council Meeting Agenda Consolidated as of February 15, 2019
Wednesday, February 20, 2019 – 6:00 p.m. Council Chambers, Guelph City Hall, 1 Carden Street
Please turn off or place on non-audible all electronic devices during the meeting.
Please note that an electronic version of this agenda is available on guelph.ca/agendas.
Guelph City Council and Committee of the Whole meetings are streamed live on guelph.ca/live.
Changes to the original agenda have been highlighted.
Open Meeting – 6:00 p.m.
Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest and General Nature Thereof
Special Council – Public Delegations – Tax Supported Operating Budget and Local Boards and Shared Services Budget
Delegations: Gary Pomfret, on behalf of Wellington Condominium Corporation 158 Kithio Mwanzia, Guelph Chamber of Commerce Carolyn Weatherson, Rotary Club of Guelph (presentation) Jim MacKenzie, Rotary Club of Guelph (presentation) Raechelle Devereaux, Guelph Community Health Centre Andrew Cleary John Marchese, Transit Action Alliance of Guelph Inc. Steven Petric, Transit Action Alliance of Guelph Inc. Dylan Euteneier Olivia Simpson Scott McGovern, on behalf of Ed Video Media Arts Centre and Kazoo! Fest Patti Broughton, on behalf of Guelph Arts Council Kevin Bowman Dominica McPherson, The Guelph & Wellington Task Force for Poverty Elimination Gail Hoekstra Tina Brophey Kerry Manthenga, on behalf of the Wellington Guelph Drug Strategy Dr. Alex Folkl Steve Dyck
City of Guelph Council Agenda – February 20, 2019 Page 1 of 2
Pat Fung Jennifer Schneider
Correspondence: Marty Williams and Meg Dunning, Downtown Guelph Business Association Guelph Community Health Centre Neil Van Oirschot Susan Schappert and Ian Kearney Transit Action Alliance of Guelph Inc. Susan Watson
Adjournment
City of Guelph Council Agenda – February 20, 2019 Page 2 of 2
Rotary Club of Guelph 100 years of service
Honouring our past. Celebrating our future. Iconic Community Events
Rotary Canada Day at Riverside Park
Sparkles in the Park
Hospice Wellington A small sample of Sunrise Equestrian Centre Evergreen Senior’s Centre Rotary initiatives Community Dialysis Centre benefiting Guelph: Kidsability Women in Crisis Market Square Guelph YMCA-YWCA Rotary Forest Rotary Club of Guelph Centennial Project
The Rotary Club of Guelph will celebrate 100 years of service by turning the Rotary Forest into an exciting hub for the entire Guelph community:
Educate youth and people of all ages about nature, the environment and astronomy
Increase tourism
Promote healthy, active living and family time Rotary Forest
For 12 years, we have been planting a wide variety of trees, shrubs and wildflowers to create a magnificent 100 acre forest. Guelph Rotary Helping to Fund Nature Centre
The GRCA’s new Nature Centre near the Rotary Forest will be a gathering place for park visitors to take part in nature programs and access information. The Centre will have modern learning spaces for the 20,000+ young people who will benefit each year from hands-on programs. Rotary Club Observatory and Planetarium Project Observatory and Planetarium
Guelph Lake is an ideal location for star-gazing where everyone can broaden their minds and be inspired by the wonder of the universe. The Rotary observatory will have a retractable roof containing 3 powerful telescopes. The inflatable planetarium for the new Nature Centre will be a fantastic and awe-inspiring education tool for all ages. Rotary Forest Trail
The Rotary Club of Guelph and the GRCA will build a fully accessible trail within the Rotary Forest supporting a range of activities all year round. Connects Rotary Forest with the future Nature Centre and observatory within the park. The Link Trail
The forth and final component to our Centennial Project is to link an existing trail, built in part by Rotarians in the early 1980’s, from Victoria Road to our new Rotary Forest trail. The Link Trail
New trail - an all-weather, fully accessible link from Victoria Road to the Rotary Forest. Aligns with Guelph Trail Master Plan Links City-wide network to lake, Rotary Forest, the new nature centre, observatory & planetarium The Rotary Commitment
Link Trail to Rotary Forest ($258,000)
City of Guelph $158,000 Rotary Fundraising $100,000 Total $258,000
*The trail is on GRCA property and the GRCA will build the trail. Cost Breakdown for Trail Link Rotary Centennial Commitment
Four components
The Nature Centre $2,500,000
The Observatory and Planetarium $100,000
The Rotary Forest Trail $150,000
The Link Trail $258,000
Total $3,008,000 Commitment
Rotary Club and Rotary Charitable Foundation $600,000
GRCA and GRCF $2,250,000
City of Guelph $158,000
Total $3,008,000 Our request of the City
Celebrate with the Rotary Club of Guelph Honour the Club’s 100 years of service to the community HOW? Make the Link Trail a reality by including $158,000 for it in the 2019 budget Name the new trail: THE ROTARY TRAIL THANK YOU
QUESTIONS? I Belong Here. “My hope is to bridge the street“My hopeentrenched is to bridge population,the street businesses entrenched and thepopulation, gap that businesses exists betweenand the gap them, that exists buildingbetween inclusiveness.” them, building inclusiveness” -Wendy Noll, Outreach Worker This program is absolutely a step in the right direction. We should all be working together to support our community. I believe it’s crucial for this program to continue past it’s trail phase. Wendy’s workshop was honest, personal and an important reality check that I think Guelph needs if we want to move forward increasing safety, improving lives and making our downtown core a better place for everyone. I believe it’s essential for Wendy to have team members. It’s what our community deserves. Can We Count on Your Support? Guelph Arts Council
Our Vision: a vibrant city that integrates the arts into all community building
Patti Broughton, Executive Director Introduction
Support to culture: strategic investment beyond cost-of-living CBAs: foster innovation, leverage resources and collaborations 2017: 74,000 volunteer hours, 177,000 Guelph residents benefited GAC: 3600 volunteer hours, 18,000 people, including 300 artists Strategic Investment
Core activities: professional development, cultural events, advocacy, resources, communications 2019: expenses $158,400, planned deficit to support key initiatives Increase CBA support to 50%, or $66,500 Sustainable, equitable relationship Cultural Planning
Creative community: one of Guelph’s great strengths Deserves support worthy of its contribution Enhances wellbeing, sense of belonging, quality of life, sense of place, innovation Delegation to Guelph City Council
February 20, 2019 Crisis Addiction/Mental Health Services - SRR
WGDS What City Council can do Mission Addiction/Mental Health Crisis Services in City of Statement: Guelph – Current State We take What we know helps action to prevent and respond to local substance use issues WhatWhat Can City Council Do?
Direct Support Indirect Support
Understand that for the whole Learn about these complex City to flourish, every boat needs issues to rise on the tide of prosperity Fight for health equity for all Provide funds to essential residents of Guelph addiction/mental health services Recognize that addiction and Offer in-kind supports – i.e. mental health are core service provide City-owned property to needs support services, include Address systemic stigma homeless and marginalized regarding addiction/mental health residents in City planning processes, etc. CurrCurrCCurrent State of Crisis Services
Today in the City of Guelph, some residents who are experiencing an addiction/mental health crisis will NOT meet criteria for hospital services or community services
Why? • Their problems are seen as “behavioural” not medical
• Their psychosis is “drug induced”
• The nature of their illness leads them to reject services or discount their need for help
• They are not “compliant patients” – i.e. the service model doesn’t meet their needs
• Once acute medical needs are addressed, they are discharged back to the street – but they are not able to care for themselves, and there is no one to care for them
• Many community services are not available on weeknights or weekends WhatWWhat happens next?
Over use of GPS and EMS First responder staff become services – repeated calls for the cynical and burned out – repeat same person in 24 hours clients (“frequent flyers”) frustrate staff Custody acts as a de facto “detox” Clients become hopeless and cynical – “nothing can help me” Shelters become the service providers – despite their lack of Downtown businesses are upset resources (appropriate staff and because people without physical space) to support high adequate service support are on needs clients the streets
In absence of appropriate services, patient condition worsens What What Helps?
Supportive Recovery Room (SRR) Model:
Non-hospital based addiction/mental health crisis services
72-hour care model – addresses client’s needs in appropriate setting (low stimulation, “homey” rather than “clinical” environment, needs for food, safety, etc. are met)
Provides a safe 24/7 environment for short-term recovery from substance use and/or acute mental health episode
Referral to other services as needed
Staff are concurrent trained; peers work on-site
When clients return to the service more than once, this is an opportunity to build relationship – the better the client is known, the easier it becomes to serve them Delegation Tax Supported Budget – February 20, 2019. Guelph has an operating cost problem and the City is using its citizens’ wallets to solve the problem instead of reducing costs. I’ve presented many times to Council demonstrating that our operating costs on a per person basis are higher than many municipalities in Ontario. Barrie, a single tier municipality which is the same age as Guelph and has approximately the same population and area as Guelph, runs its city with $47,000,000 less than Guelph. On a per person basis Barrie spends $2,530 versus Guelph’s $3,075 (22% difference or $545 per person). Barrie recently passed its 2019 budget and it has a 1.88% increase to deliver services and a 1% infrastructure surcharge a total of 2.88% compare with 3.93% in Guelph. Would the Guelph increase have been greater if not for the extra $1,000,000 dividend? Peterborough another single tier municipality recently passed its 2019 budget with an all‐inclusive 2.5% tax increase. There are many areas in spending that do not affect public facing services that could and should be reduced. We as citizens of Guelph cannot afford cost increases that have been greater than both the rate of inflation and population growth (see Exhibit Whenbelow). city is in negotiations with its labour unions, the wages are usually based on settlements in other jurisdictions. Why doesn’t the City use this same philosophy in determining its operating costs? It should align its operating costs on a person basis with other cities. If it did, the cost of running the City would be substantially reduced and so would our taxes and service fees. We end up paying people the same rate, yet we have substantially more FTEs than others. There is something wrong with this picture. The City cannot afford the luxury of always adding FTE’s anytime there is a request for a perceived new want/need. Reductions elsewhere have to occur before additions can be made. It has been argued by Guelph administration that when statistics from the BMA report are used and Guelph shows as a high cost provider in a particular area, that service levels or accounting may make a difference. Granted that may be true for any single service but when you examine the overall number, all those factors wash out. Guelph just keeps going into taxpayers’ wallets every year for more and more. It has to end. With our high operating costs, we should be able to reduce spending without affecting public facing services and keep the tax increase at or below the rate of inflation. In those areas where spending is reduced, we should use the savings to fund the infrastructure gap. The Waste Resources Service Review concluded that waste pickup should not be outsourced based on numbers that Dillon Consulting used. However the BMA reports contradict the consultant numbers used in the review. Waste collection per BMA report is $54 per person in Guelph vs $11 per person province wide. Page 35 of the Service Review states “The cost per customer is approximately $30 per customer, with the municipal average being approximately $25 per customer”. How did the City reconcile these substantial differences and arrive at the conclusion to not outsource waste The Communications department is an area where cost reductions can be made and not affect the taxpayer. It is overstaffed. For a group of 11 people, it has a General Manager and 2 managers. There are 3 management people for 8 staff. That is ludicrous. Additionally, according to its own statistics that it started reporting in 2013 but stopped reporting in 2015, it said it was in the top 33% of productivity when compared to other cities. In fact it is in the bottom 33%. This group cannot even interpret its own chart correctly. Its chart is attached for your reference. In this one department, the City has been operating on the assumption that it is highly productive when in fact it is not. Are other departments like this? Why does the City run colour notices in the Trib. It must be costing an additional $750,000 to use colour instead of black and white. The City services are a monopoly, why does it have to use colour at all? Has it considered putting its notices as an insert to beThe delivered City of Guelph with the Performance Trib to see Reportingif it is cheaper Dashboard. than having What the did Trib it cost publish to develop the notices this andin its what paper? are the ongoing operating costs? What value is there for the taxpayer? https://guelph.ca/city‐hall/city‐administrators‐office/strategic‐planning‐corporate‐initiatives/public‐ reporting/performance‐dashboard/#!tab3 Does anyone really care how many potholes were filled in 2017? What’s the point of all this data? As of today pothole data and bus ridership is for 2017. This is now 2019 so the data is not even current. Data for the Sleeman Centre and River run is also for 2017. It is now 2019. Again what is the point of this? This whole website looks like a make work project. This doesn’t fit in with the Corporate Administrative Plan that says “Focusing on what matters”. It is a total waste of public money. The Guelph library costs are $14/person higher than Ontario average for cities over 100,000 in population or $1.8 million. In fact at $62 per person, Guelph spends the most of any municipality with population over 100,000. Will this cost difference be exacerbated with the new library? I have questions for the Board of Directors of the Guelph Library. Why are there two people getting paid more than the CEO of Region of Waterloo Library? In 2017 the CEO of Guelph library was paid $158,842.91 and the Director of Branch Bookmobile services was paid $119,208.85. The pay grade for Waterloo Region is $95K to $119K – as noted in job posting contained in the Exhibits below) The Region has 535,000 people which is 4X larger than Guelph. What is being done to get Guelph’s costs in line with other libraries? Why is the CEO at 150% of the Waterloo pay scale? The Corporate Administrative Plan states:
Financial stability
Managing our resources to achieve maximum public value
Focusing on what matters
Where is this demonstrated? Certainly not in Communications, the Performance Reporting Dashboard, library or waste collection.
The City must find a way to get the tax increase down to 2.0% all in for 2019 and for the next five years have a 0% increase based on reducing its costs by3% each year to get its costs to a more affordable level for the citizens of Guelph.
Pat Fung, B. Comm., CPA, CA [email protected]
Exhibits Guelph/Barrie Comparison
Measure Guelph Barrie Difference % difference Population 131,790 141,434 9,644 7% less in Guelph Expenses $405.2 mill $357.9 mill $47.3 mill 13% more in Guelph Spending per $3,075 $2,530 $545 22% more in capita Guelph Area in sq km 87.2 99.0 12.8 15% less in Guelph Spending per sq km $4.6 mill $3.6 mill $1.0 28% more in Guelph
BMA Comparison
Measure Guelph Ontario average Difference % difference Waste collection $54 $11 $43 390% greater in Guelph Library $62 $48 $14 29% greater in Guelph Fire protection $199 $172 $27 16% greater in Guelph General $150 $128 $22 17% greater in government Guelph POA (Provincial $23 $9 $14 155% greater Offences Act) in Guelph
Guelph Costs over the years
Guelph 2008 2017 Change % change Expenses $246.8 mill $405.2 mill S158.4 mill 64% Population 117,000 131,790 14,790 13% Salaries and $125 mill $208 mill $83 mill 66% benefits CPI 113.3 130.8 17.5 15%
Waste Collection cost per person
BMA Service Review Difference % Diff Guelph $54 $30 $24 80% Others $11 $25 $14 56%
Communications Annual Reports from 2013 and 2015 http://guelph.ca/wp‐content/uploads/2013AnnualReport_CorporateCommunications.pdf
Above chart from the 2013 Communications Performance Report. It says it is ranked in top 33% of the comparator group. It is in the bottom 33%. The group does not understand its own report.
Reports from 2016 forward are no longer available. http://guelph.ca/wp‐content/uploads/CorporateComAnnualReport2015.pdf
Job Posting for CEO of Region of Waterloo Library (November, 2018)
Manager, Library Services (Region of Waterloo Library)
Region of Waterloo21 reviews - Waterloo, ON$95,095 - $118,864 a yearApply On Company Site
Manages the planning, administration, development, and delivery of library services for the rural townships of Waterloo Region, including branch operations, programming and community outreach, marketing/communications, and technical services. Functions as the Chief Executive Officer of the library for the purposes of the Public Library Act.
Knowledge, Skills & Abilities Required:
Knowledge of library-related legislation, current public library services, information technology, cataloguing, adult/children’s literature, education trends, the publishing industry, collection development, automated library systems, branch operations, and community relations and needs assessment, normally acquired through a Masters Degree (or equivalent), plus progressively responsible public library management experience. Knowledge of and ability to comply with policies, procedures, legislation (e.g., public library act, intellectual freedom, accessibility, privacy, health and safety), and collective agreements. Analytical, research, planning, organizational, and continuous improvement skills to manage budgets; plan and develop operational and long term plans and goals to meet library standards and community needs; develop policies and procedures; research and recommend new approaches to library services and programs; and implement service improvements. Leadership, human relations, communication skills and political sensitivity to manage and support staff in achieving short and long-term objectives; organize work and its performance; instruct and train staff in work methods/procedures; communicate effectively with staff, the public, agencies, municipalities, Council, and the media; resolve public complaints/concerns; conduct presentations; develop and maintain relationships with the community and peer organizations; and participate as an effective team member. Ability to write policies and procedures, memos, reports, service contracts, press releases, and grant applications. Ability to read and interpret reports, data, surveys, studies, and social media. Computer skills with ability to use software such as Microsoft Office, library circulation software, online catalogues, databases, and electronic services. Ability to learn new technologies and keep knowledge current. Ability to travel to various locations within and outside Waterloo Region. Ability to support and demonstrate the Region’s values.
Please apply online, by the closing date Nov 25, 2018 quoting competition number 2018-2073, or drop off your resume to the Region of Waterloo, Information Desk located on the main floor at 150 Frederick Street, Kitchener, ON N2G 4J3.
5 days ago
Mr. Mayor and Members of Council
My husband and I have been residents of Arthur Street North for almost 10 years. We love our neighbourhood and appreciate its historic character. However, the historic character of the area means that many of us are left with limited or no parking on ours propertie and rely on either street parking permits or permits in nearby city owned parking lots. We have had a permit to park in the Norwich Street lot since July 2009 and each year, when we receive our notice, we renew our permit.
This year, just days after the deadline to renew our parking pass for 2019, we received an email from City staff that referred to an upcoming change in parking fees. It did not inform us of the actual increase that was proposed, but provided a general link to the City’s proposed 2019 budget. Upon further request, we wered informe that the information was included in the fee schedules and that our proposed increase was to a monthly fee of $100 plus HST.
Our current monthly fee is $40.21 per month. The proposed increase is 148.7% more than what we agreed to pay when we renewed our parking permit just weeks ago. While we understand the need to increase fees each year, we feel than an increase of more than 148% is unreasonable and unrealistic. We have also not heard of any proposed improvements to the Norwich Street lot, which is unpaved and full of potholes and do not understand the rationale for such a steep and unfair increase in the monthly permit fee.
If the proposed fee increase, which impacts not only our lot on Norwich Street but also includes significant increases on many other city owned lots near the downtown, is intended to provide funding for new parking structures downtown, we feel this is an unfair burden to place on the nearby residents. We have chosen to live close to the downtown so that we can walk there and are not the intended end‐ users of this new parking structure.
There are other parking lots which have proposed increases in the $60 range, which is much closer to the amount we currently pay. For example, the Elizabeth Street lot is proposed to change from $53 to $60, which seems reasonable. Similarly, the Fountain Street lot is going from $60 to $66. Both of these lots currently cost more than then Norwich Street lot, but their increase is under 15%.
We hope that members of Council will re‐examine the fee increases proposed by staff and arrive at a fairer proposal that does not place an undue and unexpected burden on residents. We have written to our local Councillors in advance of this meeting and hope that the Mayor and other councillors will agree that a fee increase of 148.7%, especially without notice before permits were renewed, is unreasonable.
Sincerely,
Susan Schappert and Ian Kearney
February 2019
The Transit Action Alliance of Guelph would like to offer our input on the proposed 2019 City of Guelph Operating Budget as well as the proposed expansions within it. While we do support some of the proposals, we do have concerns regarding adding service without first understanding how it will fit into the overall vision of transit and long term plans. TAAG understands that City Staff would like some ‘Quick Wins” for Transit users by adding additional service on the Community Bus and conducing Route Reviews on several other routes. However, we believe that the focus should be on improving the customer experience as this has been the common theme of complaints received by Guelph Transit over the past few years. By addressing things like Customer Service, lack of bus shelters at Guelph Central Station, consulting riders of where more shelters should be installed, improving the communication of cancellations and delays over social media, and addressing late buses with tools like transit priority measures, customers will feel like Transit, the City, and City Council are actually listening to them. Some of this could be done through your Transit Advisory Committee along with public input. The core challenge of transit design is how to run vehicles so that people with different origins, destinations, and purposes will choose transit as their preferred mode of transport. Successful transit systems are simple (I don’t have to think about it.) and dependable (I can rely on it.) for riders. Before discussing which route goes where, TAAG strongly encourages the City on determining how much of our transit resources do we want to be dedicated to doing one thing over another and if we want to put more money into achieving a more balanced network or not. Please refer to the attached newspaper article and diagram for additional insight.
www.twitter.com/taaguelph [email protected] www.taaguelph.com
Completing route reviews before looking at how the overall bus network functions is continuing to place the cart before the horse – solutions before we know what the community wants. TAAG is concerned that there will still be ongoing issues, complaints, and extra time and money being spent before we have a clear direction of what the goal of transit is for our community and the long term plan forward. A Transit Growth Strategy would address this and more. It provides the strong foundation to build a comprehensive plan for public transit, it provides the direction for route review and for things like the rebranding and expansion of the Community Bus, and will define the short and long term goals for transit service in Guelph. The city is waiting to complete the Transportation Master Plan first, which provides an overall direction, however, a Transit Growth Strategy will provided the additional definition needed to chart a course for future success as it is built on the collective vision of the community. TAAG also supports and recommends the following from the proposed 2019 City of Guelph operating budget: • More Drivers: TAAG supports the hiring of additional drivers. This will bring the number of drivers to recommended levels as outlined in the Transit Business Service Review. We recommend that the number of drivers being hired to be expedited to help reduce overtime costs more quickly. • Route 3: TAAG supports the extension of funding to continue service on Route 3 Westmount. This route provides essential service and access to medical and educational facilities. TAAG recommends that Council consider only funding a 30 minute all day service instead of a split 20 minute peak and 30 minutes non peak service until a full route and network review is completed within a comprehensive Transit Growth Strategy. • Community Bus: TAAG supports the expansion and rebranding of the Community Bus in theory, however, we do have concerns about how this route fits into the overall vision of transit and route network for the long term. At the end of the day, the objective should be to provide a transit system shaped by what Guelphites want, which will encourage more citizens to choose transit. Please take our ideas, suggestions, and comments into consideration as your discuss the operating budget and expansions.
Thank you. Transit Action Alliance of Guelph, Inc
www.twitter.com/taaguelph [email protected] www.taaguelph.com Transit planning is about making compromises that work Guelph's Transit Business Service Review must first decide between ridership and coverage, writes Steven Petric OPINION Jan 14, 2019 Guelph Mercury
The underlying geometry of transit requires communities like Guelph to make a series of choices on a spectrum between two desires, writes Steven Petric. - Metroland file photo
Good transit planning is always about understanding and accepting that there are trade-offs.
Before discussing which route goes where, what we should be focusing on first is how much of our transit resources do we want to be dedicated to doing one thing over another and if we want to put more money into achieving a more balanced network or not. In transit consultant Jarrett Walker’s book, Human Transit, he lays out how there are no black or white solutions when it comes to transit planning. The underlying geometry of transit requires communities like Guelph to make a series of choices on a spectrum between two desires. Examples of these choices include choosing between high ridership numbers or expanded coverage; requiring riders to transfer or creating an incredibly complex system; or making people walk further to bus stops or have them closer together, slowing down service with more stops.
A ridership goal would focus bus service on streets where there are large numbers of people, where walking to transit stops is easy, and where the straight routes feel direct and fast to customers. Since service is concentrated into fewer routes, the frequency is high, and a bus is always coming soon, usually 15 minutes or better.
However, with a coverage goal, bus service would be spread out so that almost every street had a bus route. Spreading it out may sound great, but it also means spreading it thin, resulting in infrequent routes, even those on the main roads. Infrequent service means predictably low ridership and higher costs and areas with higher demand for more frequent service would have people waiting longer as buses would be too full.
Longer routes can serve more people along the line but require more resources to remain frequent. Double the route length, double the number of vehicles required to keep the frequency the same. Shorter routes are more frequent and are not as prone to delays but will require transfers to go longer distances.
Peak services can handle large influxes of riders at the same time. But vehicles cannot be used throughout the day in other places. However, all-day service is more consistent and easier to understand, but vehicles may have capacity issues at peak times.
Focusing on direct services rather than offering connections brings a complex and infrequent network. Having good facilities, and short waits achieved through frequency or pulses makes connections easy.
Running transit in mixed traffic, where congestion is high, makes reliable operations impossible. Giving transit a path around congestion means it can run fast and reliably.
Technology can be a tool by first defining services to fit together as a useful network and then selecting the right technology for each service. Focusing on technology as an end in itself means sacrificing access. Placing transit stops close to every home or destination can lead to slower service. Having good pedestrian infrastructure encourages longer walks to better transit.
Each of these trades-offs forms the major choices as to how resources are allocated across a transit system. They are mutually exclusive, but not mutually incompatible. For example, it is possible to have a transit network with 60 per cent ridership service and 40 per cent coverage service, with a mix of transfer- based, high-frequency, all day service routes and peak-hour only, direct service routes. But the parameters of this system must first be clearly defined, and they must be adhered to.
What do you think should be the ridership-coverage split be in Guelph? The answer will depend on your preferences and values. This should be the first recommendation and task out of the Transit Business Service Review.
Steven Petric is chair and co-founder of the Transit Action Alliance of Guelph (TAAG), which is a broad based, non-profit community organization advocating for frequent, affordable, and accessible transit in Guelph. They can be reached at taaguelph.com.
A Map of Key Transit Choices Human Transit ch. 6 Human Transit ch. 8 This diagram shows how various value judgments about transit support or conflict with each other. This map is not a recommendation, but an illustration of outcomes.
Geometric feedback loop. All the inward- pointing choices tend to reinforce each other. Make sure everyone has Define a civilized but not luxurious some service, despite “Abundant Access” high cost/rider in low- service that can appeal to the broadest possible spectrum of people. Human Transit ch. 10 demand areas. Service that maximizes access for the great possible number (and diversity) of people. Maximum ridership, Coverage or Ridership? maximum fare revenue, and most effective competition Civilized or Luxurious? Focus abundant service where with cars. Typically features a connected network of few, ridership potential is high. Offer widely spaced lines with high frequency and long span, Focus on high-end transit little service where patronage plus peak overlays only as demand warrants. services for potential is low. high-end markets. end in itself, sacrificing access for an Technology: tool or goal? Focus on the technology as an Focus on the technology emotional or symbolic impact. for each service. then select right technology together as a useful network, to fit Define services
Human Transit ch. 5 Human Transit ch. 12
Human Transit, Island Press, 2011. Human Transit: How Clearer Thinking About Public Transit Can Enrich our Communities and Our Lives
This is a summary of the key points in Jarrett Walker’s book “Human Transit: How Clearer Thinking About Public Transit Can Enrich Our Communities and Our Lives”
The challenge
The core challenge of transit design is how to run vehicles so that people with different origins, destinations, and purposes will choose transit as their preferred mode of transport. Successful transit systems are simple (I don’t have to think about it.) and dependable (I can rely on it.) for riders.
Potential transit riders have 7 demands
“Transit has to exist when you need it (span), and it needs to be coming soon (frequency).” These are riders’ seven demands: (Ch2) • It takes me where I want to go • It takes me when I want to go • It is good use of my time • It is good use of my money • It respects me by providing safety, comfort, and amenities • I can trust it • It gives me freedom to change my plans
Focus on frequency and span
“Speed is worthless without frequency.” Frequency has a direct role in meeting 4 of the 7 transit demands above. Transit-intensive cities pursue the following fundamental elements: • Focus on ridership - City policy makers need to make ridership goals, rather than coverage goals the system’s overarching direction - and make their decision known to Transit planners and support them as they pursue this objective. • Focus on all-day travel (i.e. span) - Transit gets more crowded at peak and buses get more frequent, but the basic pattern of the network is there all day and into the evening, 7-days a week • Have extensive segments of exclusive right-of-way - This means corridors restricted only to transit - not just RT lines but on-street transit lanes. The bus can be preferable to cars during rush hours (even if you have to stand on the bus) if your trip is shortened by priority lanes and signals.
Simple, direct routes • Encourage simple, direct routes with easy connections - If you avoid connections you sacrifice frequency, span, and simplicity. A connective network covers the same area with far fewer routes. People are not afraid to make connections from one bus to another if - buses are frequent of (especially on main routes). - connection points are physically constructed to support connections - bus routes are timed (i.e. pulses) to support connections
Stop spacing - Create routes with consistent stop spacing. Clearly distinguish between local, rapid, and express. (Ch5)
Human Transit Book Summary by Curt Hull Page 1 of 2 Date: 2015-03-12 Human Transit: How Clearer Thinking About Public Transit Can Enrich our Communities and Our Lives
Simple Grid - Create a simple grid of high-frequency routes. In an ideal grid system, everyone is within walking distance of one north-south line and one east- west line. So you can get from anywhere to anywhere, with one connection, while following a reasonably direct L-shaped path. (Ch13)
Frequent Network Maps (and branding) - (Ch7) Answer the question: “I am someone who likes to use transit and would love to rely on it more, but I’m just too busy to be waiting a long time or worrying about whether service quits running at 7 PM. Where can I go on transit? Show me the network that is useful to me.” (e.g. Portland, Minneapolis-St Paul, Montreal 10-minute max map)
Easy connections
Connections reduce network complexity. Connections buy frequency without increasing operating cost. (Ch12) • Clock-based timing - Design routes to reach stops on even divisions of the hour (e.g. hourly, 1/2 hour, 1/4 hour) (Ch13) • Pulses - Coordinate schedules so buses from many routes come together at a central point. (Ch13) • Connection hubs - Design connection hubs for ease of connection and to address drivers’ needs but also as commercial plazas. Connection points can be logical places to invest in transit-oriented development. (Ch13)
Other points
Pedestrians are important - “Virtually every transit rider is also a pedestrian, so transit ridership depends heavily on the quality of the pedestrian environment where transit stops.” (This also applies to cyclists.) (Ch1)
Chokepoints - “For car traffic, chokepoints are a problem, but for transit they are opportunities.” 1) They create opportunities to connect between lines, 2) they allow transit-only lanes to offer an advantage. (Ch4)
Transit-unfriendly suburbs - It is possible to provide transit service to suburbs with labyrinthine streets by providing frequent service routes adjacent and pedestrian and cyclist cut-throughs to get to the stops. Locate a transit-oriented urban center at the stop. Locate urban centres in a logical direct path with several other major destinations. (Ch14)
Human Transit Book Summary by Curt Hull Page 2 of 2 Date: 2015-03-12 Development Charge By-law update
Susan Watson Development Charge shortfall to be made up from the public purse over the next 10 years $122 million Tax portion:
$50 million
$5 million per year for 10 years Public subsidy for a single detached home (new DC rates):
Single detached home Development Charge: $35,098 (80% of cost)
Public contribution to cover shortfall: $ 8,775 (20% of cost) Identified shortfall?
$10.23 million
Additional $1.25 million to be added to annual tax property tax bills - 2019-2028 Options:
Increase taxes to cover the Development Charge shortfall Slow the pace of growth to meet minimum required targets Negotiate with developers for additional capital contributions (Approach used by Milton and Barrie) Consider which types of growth should be prioritized Net impact of different types of growth on annual property tax revenue Milton study – Watson & Associates
Single Detached 30 -39 ft frontage – negative Single Detached 40 – 50 ft frontage – negative Single Detached 50 + frontage - positive Semi-detached unit - negative Townhouse dwelling - negative Condominium apartment dwelling - positive Neighbourhood plaza - negative Medical clinic building - negative Large industrial building - positive Light industrial units - positive Conclusion
Council needs to take the reins on growth.
The current rate of growth is unaffordable for Guelph citizens.