DOCSLIB.ORG

City of Spruce Grove 2016 Transit Fare Review

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
City of Spruce Grove 2016 Transit Fare Review City of Spruce Grove 2016 Transit Fare Review Prepared by: Patrick Inglis Senior Sustainability Advisor Planning & Infrastructure Table of Contents Introduction ......................................................................................................................................2 Current Fare Structure .......................................................................................................................5 Review of Other Fares ........................................................................................................................8 Analysis of Fare Structure ................................................................................................................. 11 The Universal Transit Pass (U-Pass) ................................................................................................... 15 Seniors and Low Income Fares .......................................................................................................... 17 Proposed Fare Structure and Rationale ............................................................................................. 18 1 | P a g e Introduction The primary purpose of collecting transit fares is to have the users pay a portion of the cost of operating and providing the service. The key phrase is “paying a portion”, because very few transit systems achieve full cost recovery from transit fares (Figure 1); costs of capital equipment and operations exceed the recovery of revenue from transit riders. It is also universally agreed by governments who fund and provide the service, that providing transit services is in the greater public good. Transit helps students get to school, employees get to work and it keeps infrastructure costs for roads down. Transit is part of the Economic Development engine, as it helps to facilitate business growth. Figure 1 Transit Cost Recovery – 2014 Selected Transit Systems1 The following are some select cost recovery rates for Alberta: Less than 50,000 populations (Canadian Average) = 33% 50,000 to 150,000 population (Canadian Average) = 38% Airdrie = 44% (includes commuter service with 100% cost recovery) Calgary = 51% Edmonton = 45% Grande Prairie = 17% Leduc = 24% Lethbridge = 28% Red Deer= 34% Spruce Grove = 39% St. Albert = 37% Strathcona County = 31% Wood Buffalo= 8% (2013) Besides cost recovery, fare setting has a number of secondary purposes that are very important to a transit system2. These include: Attracting, generating and retaining transit customers Encouraging the use of underutilized capacity Support of education in the community Support to seniors Supporting social services Ensuring equity 1 CUTA (Canadian Urban Transit Association) 2014 Fact book 2 Transit Fare Strategy – Final Report, Strathcona County Transit Department, June 2015; ISL Consulting and DanTec Associates. P.7 2 | P a g e In setting a transit fare policy a number of issues need to be considered. These issues are common to many transit systems. They include: Balancing equity between the fares paid by the users of the system and community support with subsides generated from tax sources Ensuring all residents can afford transit Encouraging youth to use transit more frequently Increasing customer convenience Adopting tired pricing for fares Review and encouraging discussion for a reciprocity with neighbouring transit systems Streamlining fare structure by consolidating similar fares The City of Spruce Grove has operated a transit system since 1996 under a contractual agreement with Edmonton Transit. In that period, fares have always been set by the City of Spruce Grove. The current fare prices have been in place since September 2014. In a recent meeting of the Canadian Urban Transit Association, Prairie and Territories Chapter, members were asked if given the current economic climate, they have or were planning to increase transit rates. With the exception of a small number of transit systems, there are plans underway to raise transit fares. The widespread comment is that wages, capital costs and eventually fuel costs will escalate. Most municipalities did indicate their fare increase would be very modest, being tied to inflation, or would increase only as a result of a major system review (Strathcona County and the Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo). A few municipalities indicated that their strategy was to tie transit fares to major service changes – opening of new routes or increased service. With consideration of fiscal responsibility and providing an important social service, the challenge in fare setting is further complicated by the challenger to public transit – the private automobile. In Canada, based upon a 2011 Statistics Canada survey, public transit commute times are 81% longer than cars. This is because buses share the same roads as cars and most stop many times along the route to load and unload. The challenge is that the cost of operating a car, although considerably higher, are not obvious to most households or are acceptable living costs. Figure 2, illustrates the cost comparison of car ownership and transit costs. 3 | P a g e Figure 2 Comparison of Automobile Ownership vs. Public Transit3 Class – Crossover Class – Pickup Class- SUV Class – Compact Vehicle: Toyota Vehicle: Ford Vehicle: Chev Vehicle: Honda Venza F150 Equinox Civic Fuel $1,831 $3,165 $2,616 $1,906 Insurance $1,659 $1,775 $1,692 $1,684 License & $101 $101 $101 $101 Registration Depreciation & $6,950 $8,762 $8,269 $5,325 Maintenance Cost per Km $0.52 $0.69 $0.63 $0.45 Annual Total Cost (Based on 20,000 $10,439 $13,702 $12,577 $8,914 Km/yr.) Environmental Impact – CO2e 16,987 27,219 23,127 17,608 Kilograms/year Fuel Economy 7.32 L/ 100 Km 12.66 L/100 Km 10.46 L/ 100 Km 7.62L/ 100 Km Not: Does not include finance charges Transit Alberta Average $3.20 Single Fare $67.96 Monthly Pass $743.60 Year * Spruce Grove Adult $6.00 Single Fare $130.00 Monthly Pass $1,320.00 Year * Based on 10 monthly passes plus 20 days’ cash. Does not account for federal tax allowance on transit passes. 3 Canadian Automobile Association – Driving Costs Calculator – Accessed April 17, 2016 http://caa.ca/car_costs/ 4 | P a g e Current Fare Structure The fare structure established for the City of Spruce Grove was last adjusted in September 2014 with the introduction of an integrated fare product that combined a Spruce Grove Adult Pass with an Edmonton Transit Pass at a single cost (discounted to be cheaper than purchasing both individually). Also in 2014 the student pass was introduced at a cost of $95, 27% less than the full adult pass. To be eligible to receive either the integrated or the student pass, the customer is required to provide proof of residency in Spruce Grove. Cash fares were set at $6.00. In 2015, the City of Spruce Grove introduced tickets in strips of 10 for $48.00 which is a savings of 20% from the cash fare. There has been no change in transit fare rates since 2014. One change that is affecting and warrants the need for review of fares, is the increased cost of the ETS monthly adult fare in February 2016 from $89.00 to $91.50. The integrated fare product should keep the price in pace with ETS fares otherwise the level of discount will continue to increase. Figure 3 is a summary of all of the current fares. Figure 3 Current Spruce Grove Transit Fares Commuter Rates (Spruce Grove – Edmonton) Commuter pass $130/month Integrated Transit Pass $165/month (Spruce Grove Residents Only) Student Pass $95/month (Spruce Grove Residents Only) Adult Commuter Tickets $48/strip of 10 tickets Cash fare (1 way) $6.00 Local Rates (within Spruce Grove) Adult $2.00 Youth (age 6 – 17) $1.75 Senior $1.75 Currently in Spruce Grove, the sales of fare products are through a number of vendors and each offers a different set of fare products. This creates confusion to transit customers, especially new users of transit. There is concern for some vendors selling ETS products, a lack of desire on the part of vendors to carry and manage products like tickets. Attempts to encourage current vendors to handle all products has been met with resistance, largely due to labour costs to handle the product. Offering a vendor commission might encourage sales of all fare products. Currently vendors sell the products without a commission, on the basis that it drives customers to stores, compelling other sales in that venue. Despite this, the relationship with vendors is excellent and a very valuable part of the Spruce Grove Transit System. Figure 4 lists the various vendors and the products sold. 5 | P a g e Figure 4 Transit Sales Outlets Vendor Transit Products sold City Hall Regular Commuter Transit Pass (Hours 8:30 am – 4:30 pm) Integrated Transit Pass (Spruce Grove residents only) Student Pass (Spruce Grove residents only) Adult Commuter Tickets Shoppers Drug Mart (two Spruce Grove Regular Commuter Transit Pass locations) Integrated Transit Pass (Spruce Grove Century Crossing (#100, 131 Century residents only) Crossing Rd.), open Monday - Sunday, 8 Student Pass (Spruce Grove residents a.m. to 10 p.m. only) Westland Market Mall (70 McLeod Ave., Hwy. 16A), open Monday - Sunday, 9 a.m. to 11 p.m. Mac's (three Spruce Grove locations) Open 24 Regular Commuter Transit Pass Hours 624 King Street, 98 McLeod Avenue Unit 100, #3 McLeod Ave Spruce Grove’s transit boarding’s between 2012 and 2015 are presented in figure 5. Transit boarding’s increased between 2014 and 2015 by 4.4%. Growth was supported by promoting transit, free ride day and a rider appreciation
Load more

Recommended publications
  • CO00425 U-Pass Options for Spring and Summer Terms 2021 Report.Pdf
    U-Pass Options for Spring and Summer Terms . 2021 Recommendation That Executive Committee recommend to City Council: That a temporary exemption to City Policy C451H Edmonton Transit Service Fare Policy, for the period April 30, 2021 to August 31, 2021, to allow for fare program eligibility expansions, as outlined in the March 22, 2021, City Operations report CO00425, be approved. Executive Summary The regional Universal Transit Pass (U-Pass) provides eligible students at participating post-secondary institutions with unlimited travel on Edmonton Transit Service (ETS) and participating regional transit providers at a discounted rate for the school term. As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, post-secondary institutions are continuing to deliver learning online and holding a limited number of classes and labs on campus into the spring and summer 2021 terms. Consequently, U-Pass was paused for the fall and winter terms, and that arrangement is recommended to be extended to the spring and summer terms in 2021. Effective September 2020, temporary measures were put in place to support students affected by the pause on U-Pass. These include access to the Ride Transit Program for qualifying students and an expansion of the age eligibility for youth fare products for post-secondary students as well as seniors fare products. Extending these temporary measures for the spring and summer terms would continue to address the gap for affected students. Report The regional Universal Transit Pass (U-Pass) is provided through contractual agreements between Edmonton Transit Service (ETS), St. Albert Transit, Strathcona Transit, Leduc Transit, Fort Saskatchewan Transit, and Spruce Grove Transit and four post-secondary institutions in Edmonton: University of Alberta, MacEwan University, NAIT and NorQuest College.
    [Show full text]
  • Council of Representatives
    Concordia Student Union – Council of Representatives CSU Special Council Meeting – Agenda Thursday, February 27, 2019 CSU Conference Room, 11h30, S.G.W. Campus Updated Agenda 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Establishing Rules for Impeachment Trial 4. Anti-Discrimination Definition and Strategy 5. Exam Conflict Recommendation to Administration 6. Elections Rules 7. UPass (Universal Transit Pass) 8. Adjournment Adjournment Meeting officially called by CSU Councillors James Hanna, Mathew Kaminski and Peter Zhuang as per By-Law 6.6.3. 1. CALL TO ORDER Eduardo calls meeting to order at 11h58 . James Hanna appoints Eduardo Malorni as interim Chair. Seconded. We would like to begin by acknowledging that Concordia University is located on unceded Indigenous lands. The Kanien’kehá:ka Nation is recognized as the custodians of the lands and waters on which we gather today. TiohEá:ke/Montreal is historically known as a gathering place for many First Nations. Today, it is home to a diverse population of Indigenous and other peoples. We respect the continued connections with the past, present, and future in our ongoing relationships with Indigenous and other peoples within the Montreal community. 2. ROLL CALL Council Chairperson: Caitlin Robinson Council Minute Keeper: S Shivaane Executives present for the meeting were: Eduardo Malorni (Student Life Coordinator), Patrick Quinn (Academic & Advocacy Coordinator) Councilors present for the meeting were: Mitchell Schecter (John Molson School of Business), Peter Zhuang (Fine Arts), Hannah Jamet-Lange (Arts & Science), Christiane Sakr (Arts & Science), Lauren Perozek (John Molson School of Business), Sean Howard (Gina Cody School of Engineering & Computer Science), Tzvi Hersh Filler (Gina Cody School of Engineering & Computer Science), Mathew Levitsky-Kaminski (John Molson School of Business), James Hanna (Gina Cody School of Engineering & Computer Science), Jeremya Deneault (John Molson School of Business), Salman Fahim Syed (Gina Cody School of Engineering & Computer Science).
    [Show full text]
  • Welcome to Alberta: a Consumer Guide for Newcomers 1 SHOPPING in ALBERTA
    Welcome to Alberta: A Consumer’s Guide for Newcomers Table of Contents 1 GENERAL CONSUMER PROTECTIONS: RULES THAT PROTECT YOU WHEN SHOPPING . 1 SHOPPING IN ALBERTA .......................................................................................................................2 GENERAL SHOPPING INFORMATION ................................................................................................2 PRICES AND TAXES .............................................................................................................................3 SHOPPING ON THE INTERNET ...........................................................................................................4 DOOR-TO-DOOR SALES......................................................................................................................5 COMPLAINTS ........................................................................................................................................6 BUILD YOUR BUYING SKILLS .............................................................................................................7 2 FINDING A PLACE TO LIVE . 7 ARE THERE ANY LAWS IN CANADA ABOUT HOUSING? ..................................................................7 BUYING A HOME ................................................................................................................................11 TELEPHONE SERVICES ....................................................................................................................12 TELEVISION SERVICES .....................................................................................................................15
    [Show full text]
  • Town of Cochrane Transit Task Force Local Transit
    TOWN OF COCHRANE TRANSIT TASK FORCE LOCAL TRANSIT SERVICE RECOMMENDATION TO TOWN COUNCIL August 30, 2018 Contents Section 1: INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 3 Section 2: THE TRANSIT TASK FORCE ....................................................................................................... 8 Section 3: BACKGROUND.......................................................................................................................... 10 3.1 GreenTRIP Funding & Allocation .................................................................................................... 10 3.2 GreenTRIP Funding Conditions ....................................................................................................... 11 Section 4: FINANCIAL RISK ASSESSMENT .............................................................................................. 12 Section 5: PREVIOUS FIXED ROUTE OPTIONS ......................................................................................... 15 Section 6: THE RATIONAL OF PUBLIC TRANSIT ...................................................................................... 18 6.1 Local Transit Initial Assessment of Other Municipalities .............................................................. 18 6.2 Economic Rational for Transit ........................................................................................................ 21 6.3 Regional Traffic Congestion & Time and Fuel Savings ................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Fredericton on the Move Fredericton Transit Strategic Plan 2018
    Fredericton on the Move Fredericton Transit Strategic Plan 2018 Final Report Prepared for Fredericton Transit Prepared by Stantec November 2018 Final Report Fredericton on the Move Fredericton Transit Strategic Plan 2018 November 12, 2018 Prepared for: Fredericton Transit Prepared by: Stantec Consulting Ltd. Transit Advisory TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I 1.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND 1 1.1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION REVIEW 5 1.3 MARKET CONDITIONS 11 1.4 SYSTEM COMPARISON 26 1.5 ROUTE PERFORMANCE 35 2.0 STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT 40 2.1 STAKEHOLDER ACTIVITIES 40 2.2 PREVALENT THEMES AND CONCERNS 43 2.3 SURVEY RESULTS 44 3.0 GAPS ANALYSIS 56 3.1 SERVICE PLANNING AND OPERATIONS 56 3.2 TECHNOLOGY 56 3.3 FARES 57 3.4 PARTNERSHIPS 58 3.5 MARKETING 59 3.6 FLEET 59 4.0 SERVICE PLANNING AND OPERATIONS 61 4.1 CURRENT NETWORK 61 4.2 NORTH SIDE HUB EVALUATION 65 4.3 PARK-AND-RIDE EVALUATION 72 4.4 SUNDAY SERVICE EVALUATION 83 4.5 ROUTING EVALUATION 94 5.0 TECHNOLOGY 114 5.1 CURRENT TECHNOLOGY APPROACH 114 5.2 FUTURE TECHNOLOGY PROSPECTS 116 5.3 TECHNOLOGY RECOMMENDATIONS 122 6.0 FARES 127 6.1 CURRENT FARE STRUCTURE 127 6.2 FARE PROSPECTS 135 6.3 FARE RECOMMENDATIONS 142 7.0 PARTNERSHIPS 147 7.1 CURRENT PARTNERSHIPS 147 7.2 PARTNERSHIP PROSPECTS 147 7.3 PARTNERSHIPS RECOMMENDATION 150 8.0 MARKETING 151 8.1 CURRENT MARKETING APPROACH 151 8.2 MARKETING PROSPECTS 154 8.3 MARKETING RECOMMENDATIONS 160 9.0 FLEET 162 9.1 CURRENT FLEET 162 9.2 FLEET PROSPECTS 162 9.3 FLEET RECOMMENDATIONS 164 9.4 FACILITY CONSIDERATIONS 167 10.0 PERFORMANCE CRITERIA 169 10.1 ABOUT PERFORMANCE CRITERIA 169 10.2 PERFORMANCE CRITERIA RECOMMENDATIONS 174 11.0 MOVING FORWARD 175 11.1 SUMMARY OF SHORT-TERM RECOMMENDATIONS (0-2 YEARS) 175 11.2 SUMMARY OF MEDIUM-TERM RECOMMENDATIONS (3-5 YEARS) 177 11.3 SUMMARY OF LONG-TERM RECOMMENDATIONS (5+ YEARS) 179 12.0 APPENDICES 183 12.1 THE NORTH AMERICAN BUS MARKET 183 12.2 FREDERICTON TRANSIT SURVEY QUESTIONS 189 FIGURES Figure 1 City wards of Fredericton.
    [Show full text]
  • Metrobus Market Assessment and Strategic Direc Ons Study
    Metrobus Market Assessment and Strategic Direcons Study FINAL REPORT 2011 St. John’s Transportation Commission (Metrobus) 2011 Market Assessment and Strategic Directions Study – Executive Summary EXECUTIVE SUMMARY STUDY PROCESS Metrobus engaged Dillon Consulting Limited to provide a Market Assessment and Strategic Directions Study for the St. John’s transit system. The need for this study was precipitated by the decline in reported transit ridership since the major service changes in 2007. Both the accuracy of ridership reporting and the integrity of the revenue collection and handling systems were reviewed. As well, a major onboard passenger survey was conducted on March 23rd, 2010 to understand the characteristics of current transit users and to probe their reactions to the recent service changes. Additional surveys were conducted with post secondary students, local businesses and the general public (through the Metrobus web site). Individual stakeholder meetings and focus groups with system personnel and transit users also contributed valuable input to the study. The current services were reviewed by an experienced team of consultants and suggestions offered for system enhancements and productivity improvements. Future transit market opportunities were identified for their potential to generate ridership growth and assessed for the resulting implications on Metrobus. Finally, the material gathered and analyzed was used to assist Metrobus management staff in updating their existing Five Year Strategic Plan for the period 2011 to 2015. KEY FINDINGS Concerning the integrity of the revenue collection and handling systems, the review indicated that there is no cause for concern. Duties are clear and separated, secure processes are in place and revenue is protected.
    [Show full text]
  • Progress Report I Action Taken Following the Recommendations from the First Annual Report, September 2011
    Progress Report I Action taken following the recommendations from the First Annual Report, September 2011 November 2012 Progress Report I: Action taken following the recommendations from the First Annual Report. Table of Content I. OC Transpo Universal Transit Pass (U-Pass) • Initial response from SFUO • Update from the Vice President, University Affairs at SFUO, Elizabeth Kessler (October 2012) II. Issue of procedural fairness in the examination of complaints of discrimination • Initial response from Vice-President Academic and Provost of the University, François Houle (August 2011) • Update from the Office of the Vice-President Academic and Provost of the University (October 2012) III. The full participation of students with an auditory disability • Initial response from the Vice-President Academic and Provost of the University, François Houle (August 2011) • Initial response from SFUO • Update from the Office of the Vice-President Academic and Provost of the University (October 2012) • Update from the President of SFUO, Ethan Plato (October 2012) 2 Progress Report I: Action taken following the recommendations from the First Annual Report. I. OC Transpo Universal Transit Pass (U-PASS) The Ombudsperson’s recommendations: 1. Given the complexity of negotiating a single U-Pass between two different service providers, two municipalities in two different provinces, it is recommended that the Student Associations with the support of the University, approach the STO with the goal of negotiating an agreement to procure a U-Pass for Quebec residents within the STO territory. The proposed agreement should then be put to a vote by referendum for Québec STO residents only. 2. Given that the small minority of students residing in Québec but outside the STO territory could not, by virtue of their small number, have a reasonable expectation of influencing the overall vote, and given that they are unlikely to use the U-Pass, they should be given the option to opt-out of the program or should be exempted.
    [Show full text]
  • Best Practices and Key Considerations For
    BEST PRACTICES AND KEY CONSIDERATIONS FOR TRANSIT ELECTRIFICATION AND CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE DEPLOYMENT TO DELIVER PREDICTABLE, RELIABLE, AND COST-EFFECTIVE FLEET SYSTEMS First Published JUNE 2020 Edition 2.0 SEPTEMBER 2020 AUTHORS Dr.Josipa Petrunic, President & CEO Dr. Elnaz Abotalebi, Researcher & Project Lead Dr. Abhishek Raj, Researcher c 2 COPYRIGHT © 2020 Information in this document is to be considered the intellectual property of the Canadian Urban Transit Research and Innovation Consortium in accordance with Canadian copyright law. This report was prepared by the Canadian Urban Transit Research and Innovation Consortium for the account of Natural Resources Canada. The material in it reflects the Canadian Urban Transit Research and Innovation Consortium’s best judgment in light of the information available to it at the time of preparation. Any use that a third party makes of this report or any reliance on or decisions to be made based on it are the responsibility of such third parties. The Canadian Urban Transit Research and Innovation Consortium accepts no responsibility of such third parties. The Canadian Urban Transit Research and Innovation Consortium accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions based on this report. UPDATE: COVID-19 PUBLICATION IMPACT The publication of this report has been delayed by three months due to the COVID-19 global pandemic. This report, and the majority of research included within it, was completed primarily between September 2019 and March 2020 – prior to the novel coronavirus pandemic affecting local economies and transit revenue across Canada. While efforts have been made to include relevant announcements by Canadian transit agencies since that time, specifically as they relate to electric buses, many investment decisions and funding programs related to municipal green infrastructure deployments may change this year as a result of the financial crisis unfolding in cities across the country.
    [Show full text]
  • March 24, 2015 9:00 A.M
    Media Release: Friday, March 20, 2015 4:30 p.m. Regional Municipality of Waterloo Planning and Works Committee Agenda Tuesday, March 24, 2015 9:00 a.m. Regional Council Chamber 150 Frederick Street, Kitchener 1. Declarations Of Pecuniary Interest Under The Municipal Conflict Of Interest Act 2. Delegations a) TES-DCS-15-04, Fountain Street Improvements, From Kossuth 1 Road / Fairway Road to Cherry Blossom Road, City of Cambridge – Recommended Design Alternative i. Dan Weinhardt and Dave Harvey, Royal Oak Road Neighbourhood Association 3. Presentations Transportation and Environmental Services Departmental Overview – Thomas Schmidt (Transportation and Transit Services) Consent Agenda Items Items on the Consent Agenda can be approved in one motion of Committee to save time. Prior to the motion being voted on, any member of Committee may request that one or more of the items be removed from the Consent Agenda and voted on separately. 1798720 P&W Agenda - 2 - March 24, 2015 4. Request to Remove Items from Consent Agenda 5. Motion to Approve Items or Receive for Information a) PDL-CPL-15-15, Monthly Report of Development Activity for 35 February 2015 (Approval) b) PDL-CPL-15-16, Year-End 2014 Population and Household 38 Estimates for Waterloo Region (Information) c) PDL-CPL-15-17, 2014 Building Permit Activity and Growth 45 Monitoring (Information) d) TES-TRS-15-06, City of Cambridge - Conestoga College U-Pass 60 Request (Information) e) TES-TRS-15-08 Update on Bike Sharing Initiatives in the Region of 62 Waterloo (Information) f) TES-WAS-15-09.1, Water Efficient Restaurant Certification Program 65 (Approval) g) TES-WAS-15-10.1, Water Efficiency Advisory Committee Terms of 70 Reference 2015 (Approval) Regular Agenda Resumes 6.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Agenda – Standing Policy Committee on Infrastructure Renewal and Public Works – November 4, 2019
    Agenda – Standing Policy Committee on Infrastructure Renewal and Public Works – November 4, 2019 REPORTS Item No. 3 Negotiation of U-Pass Agreements with University of Manitoba, University of Winnipeg and Red River College WINNIPEG PUBLIC SERVICE RECOMMENDATION: 1. That the City enter into four year agreements with the University of Manitoba and the University of Manitoba Students’ Union, the University of Winnipeg and the University of Winnipeg Students’ Association, and Red River College and the Red River College Students’ Association (the “U-Pass Agreements”) for the term September 1, 2020 – May 31, 2024 on the basis of the existing agreements with University of Manitoba, University of Winnipeg and their student associations, as modified by the recommendations set out in this report; 2. That the 2020/2021 U-Pass rate be approved at a rate of $160.75 per term and increase by the rate of inflation annually thereafter; 3. That a second opt-out boundary area defined as outside of the City Boundaries and/or outside of the Perimeter Highway, excluding the area commonly known as St. Norbert, be added as an option for each of the U-Pass Agreements and that each student association be allowed to select either the original or the amended opt-out area that is best suited for their campus for inclusion in their U-Pass Agreement. 4. That a new post-secondary 14-day rolling pass fare product be established and priced at 80% of the cost of a full fare 14-day rolling pass; 5. That, Winnipeg Transit be authorized to increase its staff complement by 4.95 FTE’s for bus operators, maintenance staff and related Inspector/Supervisory/Support staff required for the additional service hours needed from the addition of Red River College students to the U-Pass program; 6.
    [Show full text]
  • News Release
    U-Pass welcomes three new municipalities November 24, 2016 Starting January 1, 2017, hundreds of post-secondary students from Fort Saskatchewan, Leduc and Spruce Grove will be included in the Universal Transit Pass (U-Pass) program. Post-secondary students who live in the new partner municipalities will now have access to all partner transit services without having to purchase separate fares. Students enrolled in most credit courses at the University of Alberta, MacEwan University, the Northern Alberta Institute of Technology (NAIT) and NorQuest College are eligible for the U-Pass program. “Students who attend a participating post-secondary institution in Edmonton but live outside of the city faced additional daily transit fees in order to reach classes. On the flipside, all students faced the same barrier if they needed to reach surrounding communities for practicums, classes or other activities. Expanding the U- Pass program means more affordable and convenient transit for these students," said Robyn Paches, vice president operations and finance of the University of Alberta Students’ Union. “As our communities continue to grow, participating in the U-Pass program was an easy choice for the municipalities joining the program. It supports the students in our communities who are traveling across city boundaries to create life-changing opportunities for themselves,” said Mayor Gale Katchur of Fort Saskatchewan. “Edmonton is a hub of highly recognized post-secondary institutions. Tens of thousands of students rely on public transit every day, many of them transferring between municipal providers. Expanding the program participation is a great example of the type of regional collaboration we want to see,” noted Edmonton Mayor, Don Iveson.
    [Show full text]
  • Toward Sustainable Transport Choices Cost Benefit Analysis of U- Pass Program
    Economic Analysis of Public Policy 2014 Professor Yoshitsugu Kanemoto Graduate School of Pubic Policy, The University of Tokyo TOWARD SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT CHOICES COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF U- PASS PROGRAM Chiu Hei (37-147003), Graduate School of Civil Engineering, The University of Tokyo) Ram Kumar Timalsina (53-138211), Graduate School of Public Policy, The University of Tokyo) Shun Suzuki (47-136832), Graduate School of Frontier Sciences, The University of Tokyo Sylvia Shuwen Zhou (51-138239), Graduate School of Public Policy, The University of Tokyo August 12, 2014 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY U-Pass is a public transport discount program carried out in the British Columbia area. It gives students access to bus, SeaBus and SkyTrain services within Metro Vancouver, as well as discounts on West Coast Express (TransLink), allowing unlimited travel in all zones (UBC U-Pass). Started in 2003, it has expanded to 10 institutions in the region (TransLink). Governments, both local and provincial, and participating institutions provide direct subsidies to the program. Students pay the U-Pass fee for the program through compulsory student fees. Though the program has achieved most of the initial goals, the true social benefits and the continuation of the program have been constantly questioned over the past few years, as administrative and maintenance costs increase. Responding to the critique, the present study is an attempt to evaluate the social costs and benefits of continuing the program for the coming school year at the two of the largest participating post-secondary institutions, the University of British Columbia (UBC) and Simon Fraser University (SFU). The policy alternatives, therefore, are continuing the program or not in the next year.
    [Show full text]