Student Transportation Services

TORONTO STUDENT TRANSPORTATION GROUP

Public

Agenda

Wednesday February 13th, 2013 10am – 12pm 5050 Yonge St

John Del Grande Gerri Gershon Angelo Sangiorgio Vidyia Rego

1 | Page

Blank

2 | Page

I. Call to order II. Roll call III. Approval of the Agenda

IV. Approval of Minutes (pg. 4-6) V. Feedback from Trustee Workshop A. Summary Information (pg. 7-18) VI. New business - actionable B. TSTG Quorum and Meeting Dates (pg. 19) C. TSTG Temporary Human Resources (pg. 20) VII. New business – informational D. TSTG Annual Report (pg. 21-50) E. Readiness for 2nd E&E Review - added VIII. Reports or Information for Board Committees IX. Communications Transportation of Aboriginal Students Status of Consultants Report

X. Pending Items (pg. 51) XI. Date of Next Meeting XII. Adjournment

3 | Page

3 Toronto Student Transportation Group Committee Meeting

Wednesday October 10th, 2012 2 Trethewey Dr, York Room

Present G. Gershon B. Poplawski A. Sangiorgio

Staff K. Hodgkinson

The meeting was called to order at 10:25AM

Roll Call was taken by today’s chair Trustee Gershon – V. Rego was absent.

Moved by Trustee Poplawski that the agenda as amended be approved.

Carried

Moved by A. Sangiorgio that the minutes as presented be approved.

Carried

Rising out of the minutes the Committee would like to see a pending list added to the agenda and confirmation of secondary school students helping to facilitate a first rider program.

Moved by Trustee Poplawski that the report regarding TSTG Transportation Protocols be received with the following direction to staff to: 1. convene a working group consisting of School Principals, Academic Superintendents, and parents to review and provide input on the operational policy manual. 2. that the section on policy comparisons be removed from the start of the manual and added as an appendix. 3. Clarify with the Ministry the purpose of non-transportation policy summary. 4. that a general communication protocol be added.

Carried

Moved by A. Sangiorgio that the report regarding the TSTG Technology plan be approved with direction to bring back scope of work for approval prior to release.

Carried 1 | Page

Moved by A. Sangiorgio that the report on the TSTG Strategic Plan be received with direction to: 1. establish a trustee workshop and include strategic plan as discussion item 2. provide a snapshot of survey questions and agenda prior to release to trustees 3. include a history of transportation in Toronto, E&E review, and short presentation as part of workshop.

Carried

Moved by Trustee Poplawski that the report on TSTG – Bell Time Protocol be approved with direction to staff to: 1. Prepare a report for the TDSB & TCDSB recommending the change to the bell time process and procedures. Carried

Moved by A. Sangiorgio that the report on the TSTG Policy Harmonization be received with direction to staff to: 1. address at the trustee workshop. Carried

Moved by Trustee Poplawski that the report on E&E Review Timelines be amended and that; 1. the letter outlining the E&E review be submitted by the co-chairs with the removal of the Board logos and specific costing data showing savings through integrated transportation service. 2. the issue of policy change and timing of E&E review be discussed at the Trustee workshop.

Carried

Moved by A. Sangiorgio that the report on Professional Development be approved and that; 1. where possible transportation staff should have equal opportunity to professional development opportunities 2. get clarification on current travel restrictions at the TDSB.

Carried

Moved by Trustee Poplawski that the report on the TSTG Branding be approved.

Carried

Moved by Trustee Poplawski that the report on Legal Services be approved with direction to staff to; 1. follow BPS directive in securing bids 2. provide a recommendation report once a firm is selected.

Carried 2 | Page

Moved by A. Sangiorgio that the report on TSTG Separate Legal Entity be approved with direction to staff to; 1. provide as discussion topic at trustee workshop. Carried

Moved by Trustee Poplawski that the Communication regarding Transportation of Aboriginal Students be deferred to next meeting. Carried

Moved by A. Sangiorgio that the Communication regarding Metrolinx/Green Canada STP Facilitator be received with direction to staff to: 1. discuss with Board staff the possibility of securing a STP facilitator either through direct hire or contract position with Green Communities. Carried

A. Sangiorgio moved for adjournment at 12:20pm.

Carried

______Co-Chair Secretary ______Date

3 | Page

6 Hodgkinson, Kevin (Transportation)

To: Hodgkinson, Kevin (Transportation) Subject: FW: Transportation Consortium Trustee Workshop - January 29th, 2013 TCDSB Attachments: TSTG Trusttee Workshop Agenda January 2013.pdf; Toronto Student Transportation Group Trustee Workshopbxw.pptx; Safety Hazards as approved.PDF; E&E Review - TSTG presentation.pdf; B9 Memo User Fees-E.PDF; TDSB Operational Proceedures.pdf; 2011 Jun 22 Consortia E&E Review Summaries.pdf

!"# $%&"' ( )* + , , - "' * $ . ! / + 0- + 1 0 0 2 +3(0 ,!+4 !+45 106 ( '& 47808 ,* )* 01 0 4 %&"")* , + 0 4 ) From: Sangiorgio, Angelo (Associate Director of Planning and Facilities) Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2012 12:41 PM To: Trustees (With Staff) Cc: Director's Council; Education Council; Volek, John (Planning Services) ([email protected]); Rego, Vidyia Subject: FW: Transportation Consortium Trustee Workshop - January 29th, 2013

This message is being sent on behalf of the Toronto Student Transportation Group (TSTG) Governance Committee:

1 + 9 + : 4;%7 $%&"'% ! #/'&

1 7 $ + ;"2$ %&"'$

4 > Toronto Student Transportation Group

/?? ?? + + 1 Angelo Sangiorgio Associate Director, Planning and Facilities Toronto Catholic District School Board 80 Sheppard Avenue East Toronto, Ontario M2N 6E8 Phone: (416) 222-8282 ext. 2349 Fax: (416) 512-3432 E-mail: [email protected] Web site: www.tcdsb.org

CONFIDENTIALITY: This e-mail message (including attachments, if any) is confidential and is intended only for the addressee. Any unauthorized use or disclosure is strictly prohibited. Disclosure of this e-mail to anyone other than the intended addressee does not constitute waiver of privilege. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete this. Thank you for your cooperation. This message has not been encrypted. Special arrangements can be made for encryption upon request.

2 8 CONSORTIA E&E REVIEW RESULTS

Overall Rating Effect on deficit Boards Effect on surplus boards High Reduce the gap by 100% (i.e. eliminate the gap) No in-year funding impact; out-year changes are to be determined

Moderate-High Reduce the gap by 90% Same as above Moderate Reduce the gap by 60% Same as above Moderate-Low Reduce the gap by 30% Same as above Low Reduce the gap in the range of 0% to 30% Same as above

% of Consortium Policies & Routing & Surplus Revised E&E Site Contracts Overall E&E Surplus E&E Date Consortia Name Geographic Area Management Practices Technology (Deficit) Surplus Adjustment Phase # Rating Rating (Deficit) Rating Rating Rating Attributed to (Deficit) the Consortium Windsor-Essex Student Transportation Services City of Windsor, & stretching 2008/09 • Greater Essex County District School Board (9, B66028) • $78,914 • 100% • $78,914 • $0 from Lake Erie in the south, to Moderate 3C Feb 2010 1 • Windsor-Essex Catholic District School Board (37, B67024) the US border in the west, Lake Moderate-Low Moderate Moderate-High Moderate-Low • $515,860 • 100% • $515,860 • $0 (60%) • Conseil scolaire de district du Centre Sud-Ouest (58, B66303) St. Clair in the north, & Chatham- • $329,427 • 1.29% • $4,250 • $0 • Conseil scolaire de district des écoles catholiques du Sud-Ouest (63, B67300) Kent County to the east • ($1,095,592) • 43.24% • ($473,734) • $284,240 Chatham Kent & Lambton Administrative School Services 2007/08 • Lambton Kent District School Board (10, B66036) Grand Bend to Wheatley, & Moderate-High • $99,264 • 100% • $99,264 • $0 2B Jan 2009 2 High High High Moderate • St. Clair Catholic District School Board (39, B67040) Sarnia to Duart (90%) • $232,895 • 100% • $232,895 • $0 • Conseil scolaire de district du Centre Sud-Ouest (58, B66303) • ($489,907) • 0.19% • ($947) • $853 Southwestern Ontario Student Transportation Services Elgin County, Middlesex 2009/10 Moderate-High 4 Oct 2010 3 • London District Catholic School Board (38, B67032) County, Oxford County, & the Moderate-High Moderate-High Moderate-High Moderate • $646,529 • 100% • $646,529 • $0 (90%) • Thames Valley District School Board (11, B66044) City of London • ($1,066,526) • 100% • ($1,066,526) • $959,873 Huron Perth Student Transportation Services From Listowel & Wingham in the 2008/09 • Avon Maitland District School Board (8, B66010) north, to Centralia & St. Mary’s in Moderate-High • ($946,906) • 100% • ($946,906) • $852,215 3B May 2009 4 • Huron-Perth Catholic District School Board (36, B67016) the south, Lake Huron in the Moderate-High Moderate-High Moderate-High Moderate • ($261,925) • 100% • ($261,925) • $235,733 west, to Shakespeare/New (90%) Hamburg in the east Student Transportation Service Consortium of Grey-Bruce From Tobermory in the north, to 2007/08 • Bluewater District School Board (7, B66001) Lucknow in the south, & from Moderate-Low • $178,390 • 100% • $178,390 • $0 3A Jan 2009 5 Moderate-Low Moderate-Low Moderate Moderate-Low • Bruce-Grey Catholic District School Board (35, B67008) Kincardine in the west to (30%) • $12,671 • 100% • $12,671 • $0 • Conseil scolaire de district des écoles catholiques du Sud-Ouest (63, B67300) Dundalk in the east • ($1,150,890) • 3.47% • ($39,896) • $11,969 Student Transportation Services of Brant Haldimand Norfolk City of Brantford, & stretching 2008/09 • Grand Erie District School Board (23, B66168) from Hwy. 2 in the north to Lake Moderate-Low • ($973,922) • 100% • ($973,922) • $292,177 3B Oct 2009 6 • Brant Haldimand Norfolk Catholic District School Board (51, B67164) Erie in the south, & from Moderate Moderate Moderate-Low Low • ($288,753) • 100% • ($288,753) • $86,626 Dunnville in the east to (30%) • • • • • Conseil scolaire de district catholique Centre-Sud (64, B67318) Tillsonburg in the west $426,053 2.18% $9,290 $0 Student Transportation Services of Waterloo Region From Woolwich Township in the 2007/08 • Waterloo Catholic District School Board (49, B67148) north to North Dumfries • ($101,354) • 100% • ($101,354) • $30,406 Township in the south, as well as Moderate-Low 3A Nov 2008 7 • Waterloo Region District School Board (24, B66176) Moderate-Low Moderate-Low Moderate-Low Moderate • ($890,320) • 100% • ($890,320) • $267,096 from Wilmot Township in the • (30%) • • • • Conseil scolaire de district catholique Centre-Sud (64, B67318) west to Wellington County in the ($1,228,815) 7.84% ($96,359) $28,908 east Niagara Student Transportation Services From Lake Ontario in the north to 2008/09 Lake Erie in the south, & from Moderate-High 3C Feb 2010 8 • District School Board of Niagara (22, B66150) High Moderate-High Moderate-High Moderate-High • ($197,653) • 100% • ($197,653) • $177,888 • Niagara Catholic District School Board (50, B67156) Grimsby in the west to the US (90%) • ($1,498,359) • 100% • ($1,498,359) • $1,348,523 border in the east Hamilton-Wentworth Student Transportation Services From the western shores of Lake 2009/10 • Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board (21, B66141) Ontario between the borders of • TBD • 100% • TBD • TBD • Hamilton-Wentworth Catholic District School Board (47, B67121) the Regional Municipalities of Moderate-Low • TBD • 100% • TBD • TBD 4 Oct 2010 9 Halton & Niagara to the borders Moderate-Low Moderate-Low Moderate-Low Moderate-Low of the County of Wellington, (30%) Region of Waterloo, & County of Brant & Haldimand As at June 22, 2011 Page 1 of 7

9 CONSORTIA E&E REVIEW RESULTS

% of Consortium Policies & Routing & Surplus Revised E&E Site Contracts Overall E&E Surplus E&E Date Consortia Name Geographic Area Management Practices Technology (Deficit) Surplus Adjustment Phase # Rating Rating (Deficit) Rating Rating Rating Attributed to (Deficit) the Consortium Service de transport de Wellington-Dufferin Student Transportation Services 2006/07 • Upper Grand District School Board (18, B66117) • ($2,829,989) • $1,697,993 Guelph, Orangeville, • Wellington Catholic District School Board (48, B67130) Moderate • ($96,637) • $57,982 1 Apr 2007 10 Mississauga, Brampton, & Moderate-Low Moderate-High Moderate-High Moderate-Low • Conseil scolaire de district catholique Centre-Sud (64, B67318) (60%) • ($1,524,904) • 2% • ($37,612) • $22,567 area • Conseil scolaire de district du Centre Sud-Ouest (58, B66303) • ($516,040) • 2% • ($9,770) • $5,862 • Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board (43, B67083) • ($6,662,430) • 6% • ($390,918) • $234,551 Service de transport de Wellington-Dufferin Student Transportation Services (Follow Up Review) 2007/2008 • Upper Grand District School Board • ($919,672) • 100% • ($919,672) • $919,672 High 3B Jul 2009 10 • Wellington Catholic District School Board High High High Moderate-High • $121,700 • 100% • $121,700 • $0 (100%) • Conseil scolaire de district catholique Centre-Sud • ($1,228,815) • 2.19% • ($26,943) • $26,943 • Conseil scolaire de district du Centre Sud-Ouest • ($489,907) • 1.94% • ($9,480) • $9,480 • Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board • ($57,308) • 10% • ($5,731) • $5,731 Halton Student Transportation Services From Wellington County in the 2008/09 • Halton District School Board (20, B66133) north to Lake Ontario in the • ($375,661) • 100% • ($375,661) • $225,397 Moderate 3B Aug 2009 11 • Halton Catholic District School Board (46, B67113) south, as well as from Hamilton Moderate Moderate Moderate-High Moderate-High • ($188,064) • 100% • ($188,064) • $112,839 (60%) • Conseil scolaire de district catholique Centre-Sud (64, B67318) Wentworth to the west & the • $426,053 • 3.29% • $13,998 • $0 • Conseil scolaire de district du Centre Sud-Ouest (58, B66303) Region of Peel to the east • $329,427 • 2.73% • $8,993 • $0 Student Transportation of Peel Region 2006/07 Low 1 May 2007 12 • Peel District School Board (19, B66125) Peel & Dufferin-Peel Low Low Moderate-Low Low • ($9,814,086) • $2,944,226 (30%) • Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board (43, B67083) • ($6,662,430) • 94% • ($6,271,510) • $1,881,453 Toronto Transportation Group 13 • Toronto Catholic District School Board (40, B67059) • Toronto District School Board (12, B66052) Student Transportation Services of York Region York (from Lake Simcoe in 2006/07 Moderate 2A May 2008 14 • York Catholic District School Board (42, B67075) the north to the City of Moderate-High Moderate Moderate Moderate-High • $329,767 • 100% • $329,767 • $0 (60%) • York Region District School Board (16, B66095) Toronto in the south) • $1,595,391 • 100% • $1,595,391 • $0 Simcoe County Student Transportation Consortium From Tiny Township in the 2008/09 north to Hwy. 9 in the south, & Moderate-Low 3C Nov 2009 15 • Simcoe County District School Board (17, B66109) Low Moderate Moderate Low • $1,073,507 • 100% • $1,073,507 • $0 • Simcoe Muskoka Catholic District School Board (44, B67091) from Collingwood in the west to (30%) • ($32,806) • 80% • ($26,245) • $7,873 Gambridge in the east Durham Student Transportation Services 2007/08 • Durham Catholic District School Board (45, B67105) Regional Municipality of Moderate • $806,143 • 100% • $806,143 • $0 2B Mar 2009 16 Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate • Durham District School Board (13, B66060) Durham (60%) • $3,848,738 • 100% • $3,848,738 • $0 • Conseil scolaire de district catholique Centre-Sud (64, B67318) • ($1,228,815) • 6.73% • ($82,645) • $49,587 Trillium Lakelands District School Board From Burk’s Falls in the north 2008/09 • Trillium Lakelands District School Board (15, B66087) to Pontypool in the south, as • $714,839 • 100% • $714,839 • $0 Moderate-High 3B May 2009 17 • Peterborough Victoria Northumberland and Clarington Catholic District School Board (41, B67067) well as from Honey Harbour Moderate-High Moderate-High Moderate-High Moderate • • • • (90%) $1,054,910 100% $1,054,910 $0 • Simcoe Muskoka Catholic District School Board (44, B67091) to Cardiff west to the east • ($32,806) • 20% • ($6,561) • $5,905 respectively Student Transportation Services of Central Ontario 2006/07 • Peterborough Victoria Northumberland and Clarington Catholic District School Board (41, B67067) Moderate-High • $678,813 • 16% • $570,203 • $0 1 Apr 2007 18 Peterborough & area Moderate-High Moderate-High Moderate-High Moderate • Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board (14, B66079) (90%) • ($541,760) • $487,584 • Conseil scolaire de district catholique Centre-Sud (64, B67318) • ($1,524,904) • 3% • ($49,780) • $44,802 Tri-Board Student Transportation Services 2006/07 • Algonquin and Lakeshore Catholic District School Board (55, B67202) • ($52,968) • 100% • ($52,968) • $47,672 • Hastings and Prince Edward District School Board (29, B66222) Belleville, Kingston, Trenton, Moderate-High • ($263,163) • 100% • ($263,163) • $236,847 2A May 2008 19 High High Moderate-High Moderate • Limestone District School Board (27, B66206) & area (90%) • ($927,058) • 100% • ($927,058) • $834,352 • Conseil des écoles catholiques du Centre-Est (66, B67334) • ($1,009,915) • 4.84% • ($48,854) • $43,968 • Conseil des écoles publiques de l'Est de l'Ontario (59, B66311) • ($3,121,187) • 7.24% • ($225,957) • $203,361 As at June 22, 2011 Page 2 of 7

10 CONSORTIA E&E REVIEW RESULTS

% of Consortium Policies & Routing & Surplus Revised E&E Site Contracts Overall E&E Surplus E&E Date Consortia Name Geographic Area Management Practices Technology (Deficit) Surplus Adjustment Phase # Rating Rating (Deficit) Rating Rating Rating Attributed to (Deficit) the Consortium Tri-Board Student Transportation Services (Follow Up Review) 2007/08 • Algonquin and Lakeshore Catholic District School Board • ($411,687) • 100% • ($411,687) • $411,687 • Hastings and Prince Edward District School Board High • ($655,769) • 100% • ($655,769) • $655,769 3B Aug 2009 19 High High High High • Limestone District School Board (100%) • ($1,595,100) • 100% • ($1,595,100) • $1,595,100 • Conseil des écoles catholiques du Centre-Est • ($1,202,286) • 4.67% • ($56,091) • $56,091 • Conseil des écoles publiques de l'Est de l'Ontario • ($1,901,242) • 7.82% • ($148,680) • $148,680 Renfrew County Joint Transportation Consortium From Deux Rivières in the north 2008/09 to Arnprior in the south as well Moderate-Low 3C Oct 2009 20 • Renfrew County District School Board (28, B66214) Low Moderate-Low Moderate-Low Moderate-Low • ($739,083) • 100% • ($739,083) • $221,725 • Renfrew County Catholic District School Board (54, B67199) as from Pembroke in the east to (30%) • ($39,688) • 100% • ($39,688) • $11,907 Barry’s Bay in the west Student Transportation Services of Eastern Ontario 21 • Upper Canada District School Board (26, B66192) • Catholic District School Board of Eastern Ontario (52, B67172) Ottawa Student Transportation Authority 22 • Ottawa-Carleton District School Board (25, B66184) • Ottawa Catholic District School Board (53, B67180) Nipissing-Parry Sound Student Transportation Services 2007/08 • Conseil scolaire de district catholique Franco-Nord (60b, B29114) • $106,674 • 100% • $106,674 • $0 Moderate-Low 3A Mar 2009 23 • Conseil scolaire de district du Nord-Est de l’Ontario (56, B28100) Moderate Moderate-Low Moderate-Low Moderate-Low • ($51,438) • 55.21% • ($28,400) • $8,520 (30%) • Nipissing-Parry Sound Catholic District School Board (30b, B29017) • $156,555 • 100% • $156,555 • $0 • Near North District School Board (4, B28037) • $330,640 • 100% • $330,640 • $0 North East Tri-Board Student Transportation 2006/07 • District School Board Ontario North East (1, B28002) Moderate • $44,150 • 100% • $44,150 • $0 2A May 2008 24 Timmins & area Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate • Northeastern Catholic District School Board (30a, B29009) (60%) • ($4,468) • 100% • ($4,468) • $2,681 • Conseil scolaire de district du Nord-Est de l’Ontario (56, B28100) • ($150,978) • 42.59% • ($64,302) • $38,583 Sudbury Student Services Consortium 2006/07 • Conseil scolaire de district catholique du Nouvel-Ontario (61, B29122) • $792,920 • 80.56% • $638,779 • $0 • Conseil scolaire de district du Grand-Nord de l’Ontario (57, B28118) Moderate-High • ($224,885) • 86.87% • ($195,350) • $175,815 2A May 2008 25 Sudbury & area Moderate-High Moderate-High High HIgh • Rainbow District School Board (3, B28029) (90%) • $11,464 • 100% • $11,464 • $0 • Sudbury Catholic District School Board (32, B29033) • $968,581 • 100% • $968,581 • $0 • Huron-Superior Catholic District School Board (31, B29025) • $171,755 • 5.88% • $10,101 • $0 Sudbury Student Services Consortium (Follow Up Review) 2009/10 • Conseil scolaire de district catholique du Nouvel-Ontario • $0 • 81.57% • $0 • $0 • Conseil scolaire de district du Grand-Nord de l’Ontario High • ($329,459) • 90.61% • ($298,523) • $298,533 4 Sep 2010 25 High High HIgh High • Rainbow District School Board (100%) • ($1,287,521) • 100% • ($1,287,521) • $1,287,521 • Sudbury Catholic District School Board • $443,408 • 100% • $443,408 • $0 • Huron-Superior Catholic District School Board • $137,266 • 8.65% • $11,874 • $0 Algoma & Huron Superior Transportation Services 26 • Algoma District School Board (2, B28010) • Huron-Superior Catholic District School Board (31, B29025) East of Thunder Bay Transportation Consortium 2007/08 • Superior-Greenstone District School Board (6b, B28070) • $157,651 • 100% • $157,651 • $0 Bordered by Lake Superior to Moderate-Low 2B Dec 2008 27 • Superior North Catholic District School Board (34b, B29076) Moderate-Low Moderate-Low Low Moderate • $23,271 • 100% • $23,271 • $0 the south (30%) • Conseil scolaire de district du Grand-Nord de l’Ontario (57, B28118) • ($207,823) • 7.30% • ($15,168) • $4,550 • Conseil scolaire de district catholique des Aurores Boréales (62, B29130) • $63,763 • 29.12% • $18,571 • $0 Student Transportation Services of Thunder Bay From Jacques & Fowler Townships 2009/10 • Lakehead District School Board (6a, B28061) in the north to the American border • ($53,741) • 100% • ($53,741) • $0 in the south, as well as from Moderate-Low 4 Sep 2010 28 • Low Moderate-Low Moderate-Low Moderate-Low • • • • Thunder Bay Catholic District School Board (34a, B29068) Shebandowan/Raith area to Sibley (30%) $233,172 100% $233,172 $0 • Conseil scolaire de district catholique des Aurores Boréales (62, B29130) in Shuniah Township west to the • ($21,128) • 54% • ($11,409) • $0 east respectively As at June 22, 2011 Page 3 of 7

11 CONSORTIA E&E REVIEW RESULTS

As at June 22, 2011 Page 4 of 7

12 CONSORTIA E&E REVIEW RESULTS

Consortia Map Legend

1. Windsor-Essex Student Transportation Services 2. Chatham-Kent & Lambton Administrative School Services 3. Southwestern Ontario Student Transportation Services 4. Huron Perth Student Transportation Services 5. Student Transportation Service Consortium of Grey-Bruce 6. Student Transportation Services of Brant Haldimand Norfolk 7. Student Transportation Services of Waterloo Region 8. Niagara Student Transportation Services 9. Hamilton-Wentworth Student Transportation Services 10. Service de transport de Wellington-Dufferin Student Transportation Services 11. Halton Student Transportation Services 12. Student Transportation of Peel Region 13. Toronto Transportation Group 14. Student Transportation Services of York Region 15. Simcoe County Student Transportation Consortium 16. Durham Student Transportation Services 17. Trillium Lakelands District School Board 18. Student Transportation Services of Central Ontario 19. Tri-Board Student Transportation Services 20. Renfrew County Joint Transportation Consortium 21. Student Transportation Services of Eastern Ontario 22. Ottawa Student Transportation Authority 31. Service de transport Francobus 32. Consortium de transport scolaire de l’Est 33. Consortium de transport scolaire d’Ottawa

23. Nipissing-Parry Sound Student Transportation Services 24. North East Tri-Board Student Transportation 25. Sudbury Student Service Consortium 26. Algoma & Huron Superior Transportation Services 27. East of Thunder Bay Transportation Consortium 28. Student Transportation Services of Thunder Bay 29. Rainy River Transportation Services 30. Northwestern Ontario Student Services Consortium 34. CSD catholique des Grandes Rivières

As at June 22, 2011 Page 5 of 7

13 CONSORTIA E&E REVIEW RESULTS

District School Boards Map Legend (Board Numbers circa 1998 Amalgamation)

1. DSB Ontario North East 7. Bluewater DSB 2. Algoma DSB 8. Avon Maitland DSB 3. Rainbow DSB 9. Greater Essex County DSB 4. Near North DSB 10. Lambton Kent DSB 5a. Keewatin-Patricia DSB 11. Thames Valley DSB 5b. Rainy River DSB 12. Toronto DSB 6a. Lakehead DSB 13. Durham DSB 6b. Superior-Greenstone DSB 14. Kawartha Pine Ridge DSB 15. Trillium Lakelands DSB 16. York Region DSB 17. Simcoe County DSB 18. Upper Grand DSB 19. Peel DSB 20. Halton DSB 21. Hamilton-Wentworth DSB 22. DSB of Niagara 23. Grand Erie DSB 24. Waterloo Region DSB 25. Ottawa-Carleton DSB 26. Upper Canada DSB 27. Limestone DSB 28. Renfrew County DSB 29. Hastings and Prince Edward DSB

As at June 22, 2011 Page 6 of 7

14 CONSORTIA E&E REVIEW RESULTS

30a. Northeastern CDSB 35. Bruce-Grey CDSB 30b. Nipissing-Parry Sound CDSB 36. Huron Perth CDSB 31. Huron-Superior CDSB 37. Windsor-Essex CDSB 32. Sudbury CDSB 38. District School Board 38 (London Catholic) 33a. Northwest CDSB 39. St. Clair CDSB 33b. Kenora CDSB 40. Toronto CDSB 34a. Thunder Bay CDSB 41. Peterborough Victoria Northumberland 34b. Superior North CDSB and Clarington CDSB 42. York CDSB 43. Dufferin-Peel CDSB 44. Simcoe-Muskoka CDSB 45. Durham CDSB 46. Halton CDSB 47. Hamilton-Wentworth CDSB 48. Wellington CDSB 49. Waterloo CDSB 50. Niagara CDSB 51. Brant Haldimand-Norfolk CDSB 52. CDSB of Eastern Ontario 53. Ottawa CDSB 54. Renfrew County CDSB 55. Algonquin and Lakeshore CDSB

56. CSD du Nord-Est de l’Ontario 60a. CSDC des Grandes Rivières 57. CSD du Grand Nord de l’Ontario 60b. CSDC Franco-Nord 58. CSD du Centre Sud-Ouest 61. CSDC de Nouvel Ontario 59. CSD de l’Est de l’Ontario 62. CSDC des Aurores boréales 63. CSDC du Sud-Ouest 64. CSDC Centre-Sud 65. CSDC de l’Est ontarien 66. CSDC de Centre-Est de l’Ontario

As at June 22, 2011 Page 7 of 7

Ministry of Education Ministère de l'Éducation Business and Finance Division Division des opérations et des 22nd Floor, Mowat Block finances Queen=s Park 22e étage, édifice Mowat Ontario Toronto, ON M7A 1L2 Queen=s Park Toronto ON M7A 1L2

2002: B9

MEMORANDUM TO: Directors of Education

FROM: Norbert J. Hartmann

DATE: April 25, 2002

SUBJECT: User Fees for Student Transportation

Transportation is an important support service that many students require to ensure that they arrive at school safely, on-time and ready to learn. School boards provide transportation services to their students in accordance with board policies. The Ministry of Education provides funding to support student transportation through the Student Focused Funding Model.

I am writing now to remind all boards that under current Ministry policy, transportation services which take elementary or secondary school students to and from their schools are to be provided without fee. The Education Act does not explicitly authorize school boards to charge for transportation of students admitted to elementary or secondary schools, nor does it contain any implied authority to do so.

The Ministry has taken interim measures to help address the cost pressures while a new funding model is being developed. In December 2001, interim funding of $29.3 million was provided to school boards to reflect higher fuel prices and help offset the impact of declining enrolment. This was the second consecutive year that interim funding was provided to boards to reflect cost pressures.

The Ministry of Education continues to work with the Transportation Funding Review Committee to develop a new funding approach for student transportation. This new approach is being designed to ensure that funding to support effective and efficient transportation services is distributed among boards in a fair and equitable manner. Over the next several months, Ministry staff will be working closely with school boards who are well advanced with the implementation of the transportation software acquired under our interest-free loan program to assess various options. We will keep your board notified of our progress.

If you have any questions regarding this issue, please contact Drew Nameth at (416) 325-4030 or via e-mail at: [email protected]

Norbert J. Hartmann Assistant Deputy Minister Business and Finance Division cc Superintendents of Business Transportation Managers

Memorandum from Norbert J. Hartmann 16 Page 1 of 1 User Fees for Student Transportation Safety Hazards

MAJOR

1. Students have to cross a busy* two lane or multi lane street without adequate crossing facilities (e.g. lights, crossing guard)

2. Students have to cross railway tracks

3. Students have to utilize a major overpass

MODERATE

1. Students have to cross a busy* two lane or multilane street, or intersection with lights or with a pedestrian crosswalk and crossing guard; or have to cross a medium volume traffic street without crossing guards. (Note: Crossing an intersection, no matter how many times you need to cross at that same intersection is still considered a single moderate hazard.)

2. Students have to walk in areas with major hills, ravines, or rivers.

3. Students have to utilize an underpass or a minor overpass

MINOR

1. Students have to walk in residential areas without sidewalks

2. Students have to walk along busy street with sidewalks

*BUSY IS DEFINED AS HAVING A TRAFFIC VOLUME EQUAL TO OR GREATER THEN 600 VEHICLES PER HOUR.

To comply with Transportation Regulation 1(ii), the students would need to encounter:

One major hazard, or

Two moderate hazards, or

One moderate and two minor hazards.

17 18

TO: TSTG GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE FEBRUARY 13TH, 2013

FROM: GENERAL MANAGER

SUBJECT: TSTG QUORUM AND MEETING DATES

Origin:

Toronto Student Transportation Group

Executive Summary

In order to ensure equitable and fair decision making it is in the best interest of the TSTG and member Boards to have all members present to constitute quorum at committee meetings. The number of Governance meetings should also be reduced from 4 to 3 per annum to better suit the schedules of all parties involved.

Comment(s):

1. The ‘Toronto Transportation Group’ membership agreement as signed on September 21st, 2011 sets out a number of terms that establishes the governance of the consortium. One item that was not detailed in the agreement was how many Governance Committee members needed to be present to constitute a quorum. Another condition that is documented but should be considered for revision is the number of meeting dates.

2. Since there are only 4 sitting members on the TSTG Governance Committee it would be in the best interest of all parties that all members be present in order to constitute quorum. This would ensure that there is equal voting power from the membership from each Board to avoid any one member from approving measures that may not be in the best interest of other party.

3. The original agreement identified four meetings of the Governance Committee each year. The natural grouping of meetings would include September, December, March, and June. Since the summer months along with September and June are not conducive to members or TSTG staff’s schedules the number of meetings should be reduced to three. This will allow TSTG staff to deal with September Start-up before the first meeting and not interfere with members duties for graduation ceremonies and Board business in June. The three meeting schedule would fall into October, January/February, and May timeframe. The General Manager or TSTG chair can as always call a meeting as needed to address any time sensitive issues either in person or via teleconference.

Recommendation:

1. That all TSTG Governance members or designates are required to be present at meetings to constitute quorum.

2. That the Governance meeting schedule be reduced to three meetings per year.

K. Hodgkinson General Manager

TO: TSTG GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE FEBRUARY 13TH, 2013

FROM: GENERAL MANAGER

SUBJECT: TSTG TEMPORARY HUMAN RESOURCES

Origin:

TSTG

Executive Summary

Peak periods in Transportation require temporary human resources to ensure a consistent level of service is provided to our stakeholders. By making the approval of these resources part of the draft budget submission routine then the process can be harmonized allowing for a streamlined approval process.

Comment(s):

1. Throughout the school year there are peak periods in Transportation when additional staff or human resources are required to ensure data entry is complete and to support Operations with communication efforts. These resources are generally required on a reoccurring yearly basis. Based on past survey results, communications is one of the most influential factors in determining the level of service the stakeholder feels in regards to the transportation group.

2. Both boards have historically approved these temporary human resources in different manners. The TDSB has identified the costs and made them part of the transportation budget submission. Approval of the budget in turn meant approval of the temporary resources. The TCDSB also included costing into the transportation budget but also required further approval from the senior business official responsible for transportation and the Superintendent of Human Resources before staff approval was decided.

3. In an effort to streamline this process and to be consistent with Ministry expectations as discussed through the E&E review it would be beneficial if these two processes were harmonized. Harmonization would lessen the administrative burden by following one process and minimizing the number of approvals required. By simply including these costs into the budget process and submitting for approval at that time would be simple and effective way of approving these reoccurring temporary human resources.

Recommendation:

1. That approval of temporary human resources is done as part of the draft transportation budget submission process.

. K. Hodgkinson General Manager

2011-

2012

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 2012

21 Blank

22 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 undertook 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 transportation consortium was officially launched on September 21st, 2011 when the agreement between both Boards was signed. It was also the first meeting of the consortium Governance committee. One of the first actions of the Governance committee was to change the name of the consortium to the ‘Toronto Student Transportation Group’ which more accurately reflected the service provided by this group. Throughout the first year of operation movement was made on drafting a Strategic Plan, service agreements, and obtaining separate insurance for the consortium.

Shortly after the signing of the consortium agreement the Transportation Consortium had its first Effectiveness and Efficiency review. Given the relative newness of the consortium the Consultants did indicate suggested improvement in the areas of Governance and Policy while higher scores were garnered in the Planning & Technology and Contracts area. The consortium continues to address those concerns highlighted by the E&E review in preparation of a secondary review in the near future.

The past school year was also fraught with potential labour actions that threatened the consortiums ability to provide student transportation services. No less than four different school bus operators had drivers in legal strike positions. Given the size of some of these operations there would have been little opportunity to protect transportation services for impacted students had drivers gone on strike. Thankfully through the efforts of all parties involved there was no strike action and student transportation services were not impacted.

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

23 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 shareholders expectations.

Contents INTRODUCTION ...... 6 History ...... 6 A Look Back ...... 7 Ministry’s Effectiveness & Efficiency Review...... 7 Toronto Student Transportation Group ...... 8 Fleet Optimization ...... 8 A Look Ahead ...... 9 Consortium Consultation ...... 9 Transportation Request for Proposals ...... 9 Next E&E Review ...... 10 Student Transportation Services ...... 11 Financial ...... 11 Programming ...... 14 Special Education ...... 14 Operations ...... 16 Communications ...... 16 School Bus Loading ...... 17 Operators ...... 18 Fuel ...... 19 Operator KPI ...... 20 TSTG KPI ...... 24 Transportation Planning ...... 26 Bell Times ...... 26 Change Summary ...... 27 Safety ...... 28 School Bus Safety Program ...... 28 Accident Statistics ...... 29

25 Toronto Student Transportation Group, Annual Report (2011-2012) Page 6 of 30

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 1600 vehicles to provide transportation services for students with a budget of just over $78,000,000.

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.

26 Toronto Student Transportation Group, Annual Report (2011-2012) Page 7 of 30

A Look Back

The 2011 -2012 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.

Ministry’s Effectiveness & Efficiency Review

The Ministry of Education as part of their transportation reforms initiated an Effectiveness and Efficiency (E&E) review on the Transportation Departments and completed their assessment in December. This assessment was divided into four areas including Consortium Management, Policies & Practices, Routing & Technology, and Contracts. The scoring system went from a ‘low’ to a ‘high’ range. The TSTG scored a high in contracts and a moderate high in routing and technology. The consultants assessed policies and practices at a moderate low and consortium management as a low. The overall rating for the consortium was marked as ‘moderate’.

With a moderate rating the Boards that were in deficit receive further transportation Grant in the amount equalling 60% of the prior fiscal year deficit. This generated about $1.5M for the TCDSB while no additional Grant was awarded the TDSB since they were in a positive Transportation fiscal position.

Out of this report a total of twenty six recommendations were generated which the TSTG is currently addressing. The primary focus was on items related to Consortium Management since the consortium was only formed two months prior to the review being completed. One of the most critical areas that were not addressed as part of the E&E review was the implementation of a fair and equitable transportation funding formula that has been absent since 1998.

27 Toronto Student Transportation Group,

Annual Report (2011-2012) Page 8 of 30

Toronto Student Transportation Group

The Toronto Student Transportation Group was officially formed on September 21st, 2011. The membership agreement was officially signed on that day formally amalgamating the two Transportation Departments into one unit. One of the first acts of the consortiums Governance Committee was to change the name of the unit from the Toronto Transportation Group to the Toronto Student Transportation Group to better identify the purpose of the unit.

The consortium is comprised of 28 staff members from the TCDSB and TDSB while the General Manager, Operations Manager, and Planning & Technology Manager are all assigned to do the work of the consortium. An operations committee with membership from both Boards advises and provides clarification to the consortium on daily operational issues. A Governance Committee that is formed with one senior business official from each Board and one Trustee from each Board provide the strategic direction and oversight of the consortium. The consortium hosted four Governance meetings through the inaugural year with a number of action items including the purchase of consortium insurance, the drafting of the consortium strategic plan, and the submission of first Annual report.

Fleet Optimization

As part of an effective and efficient system the Toronto Student Transportation group periodically re-optimizes portions of the transportation system. The purpose of these re- optimizations is two-fold; one to drive efficiencies and reduce the number of vehicles required to provide services and two, as a mechanism to reset the base line for cost sharing. In the spring of 2012 the transportation planning unit undertook an optimization of the regular home to school transportation system to be implemented for September 2012. This resulted in a twenty three bus reduction to the big bus fleet. It also adjusted the shares of cost and moved just under one percent of 72 passenger vehicles from the TDSB to the TCDSB.

Closely following this optimization a new optimization of the entire system was required when the TCDSB moved to standardize their bell times to two specific timeframes for implementation in September 2012. This resulted in an additional 38 vehicles at a cost of $1.52M that the Catholic Board was required to absorb into their transportation budget.

28 Toronto Student Transportation Group,

Annual Report (2011-2012) Page 9 of 30

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 2012-2013 school year will hold for us.

Consortium Consultation

In order to ensure the consortium is meeting the needs of our stakeholders there will be various opportunities for community consultation to help build and form the foundation of the transportation unit. This exchange of information will help focus the strategic plan, provide a basis for prioritizing investments into the consortium, and identifying the type of transportation to be provided and whether further harmonization of policies between the boards will be of benefit to our stakeholders.

The consultation will take place in many forums including workshops, surveys, e-mail posts, and direct feedback from our stakeholders. Stakeholders would include but not limited to Transportation staff, TSTG Operations and Governance committees, School bus operators, School Board Trustees, and our school staff and communities.

Transportation Request for Proposals

The TSTG for the 2012-2013 school year will be in the sixth year of a contract with our bus operators that has a term of five years plus two additional one year terms. This means that a new request for proposal will be required to be issued in the fall of 2013. In preparation of this procurement initiative a review of the current contract terms and conditions will be undertook with an eye to adjusting, deleting, or adding new criteria that will ensure our school bus operators provide a superior level of service while providing competitive rates.

29 Toronto Student Transportation Group,

Annual Report (2011-2012) Page 10 of 30

The two Toronto Boards have been purchasing transportation service through the request for proposal method for the last two decades. With the recent direction from the Ministry of Education to ensure all Transportation consortia procure services through a competitive process it will mark the first time that Toronto will go out to bid when other neighbouring Boards are procuring transportation services as well. This may impact some of our Operators ability to submit bids given the condition they may not know how many buses may be won or lost in the bidding process.

Next E&E Review

TSTG staff has highlighted all recommendations out of the E&E review and are working towards implementing changes where they benefit the needs of the students we transport. The Ministry of Education has confirmed that the consultants hired to perform the Effectiveness and Efficiency reviews are under contract till the 2013-2014 school year. Should there be a change in Government or the MOE decides to discontinue the E&E review process it would mean that the Board’s ability to reduce or eliminate its transportation deficit would also disappear. Ensuring that the recommendations are addressed the TSTG could request another E&E review be facilitated in the 2013-2014 school year as a means to address service level issues and transportation Grant.

The next E&E review will be critical in terms of addressing the significant transportation deficit at both Boards. Certain technology pieces such as integration of carrier GPS data with our routing information will benefit the consortium in multiple areas including level of service standards, auditing, and contract compliance monitoring. There is also a significant effort to harmonize policies and practices between the Boards in terms of transportation related actions. This should help our schools and operators better understand what services the consortium is providing and how they are being delivered.

30 Toronto Student Transportation Group, Annual Report (2011-2012) Page 11 of 30

Student Transportation Services Financial

The Toronto Student Transportation Group currently spends about $78,000,000 on transportation services for the TCDSB and TDSB. The Ministry of Education provided a transportation Grant in 2011- 2012 of approximately $22,700,000 for the TCDSB and $48,000,000 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 $30,000,000.00

$25,000,000.00

$20,000,000.00

$15,000,000.00 Grant $10,000,000.00 Expenditure $5,000,000.00

TDSB $60,000,000.00

$50,000,000.00

$40,000,000.00

$30,000,000.00 Grant $20,000,000.00 Expenditure $10,000,000.00

31 Toronto Student Transportation Group,

Annual Report (2011-2012) Page 12 of 30

2. Transportation Expenditure by Area

TCDSB Late-bussing, Summer Provincial school 2011-2012 0% School 0% Public Transit 1% Section 23 4% 2% Planning & admin 4% WC Transportation 4%

Regular AM/PM Special 40% Transportation Needs 40%

French Immersion Gifted 0% Program Magnet Program 0% 5%

TDSB Late-bussing Section 23 Provincial school Transportation 2% 2011-2012 0% Planning & admin 1% 3% Magnet Program Regular AM/PM 0% Summer School 1% 11% French Immersion Wheelchair 12% Public Transit 12% 5%

Special Transportation Needs 49% Gifted Program 4%

32 Toronto Student Transportation Group,

Annual Report (2011-2012) Page 13 of 30

3. Historical Summary of Transportation Expenditure 2007 - 2011

TCDSB

Provincial school Section 23 Rider Safety Program Late-bussing, Field Trips, and School… Summer School Public Transit 2007-2008 WC Transportation Special Transportation Needs 2008-2009 Gifted Program 2009-2010 Magnet Program 2010-2011 French Immersion Regular AM/PM 2011-2012 Planning & admin

TDSB

Provincial school Section 23 Rider Safety Program Late-bussing, Field Trips, and School… Summer School Public Transit 2007-2008 Wheelchair Special Transportation Needs 2008-2009 Gifted Program 2009-2010 Magnet Program 2010-2011 French Immersion 2011-2012 Regular AM/PM Planning & admin

33 Toronto Student Transportation Group,

Annual Report (2011-2012) Page 14 of 30

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 Programing by Type 2011-2012

Special Needs Section 23 Behavioural Physical Disability 4% 4% 9% 5% Autism 5% Developmental Delayed 9% Deaf & Mild Disability Hard of 25% Hearing 3%

Multiple Exceptionality Learning Disability Diagnostic 11% 16% 3% Language Disability 6%

34 Toronto Student Transportation Group,

Annual Report (2011-2012) Page 15 of 30

5. Breakdown of Sped routes by Area

Total Number of SPED Routes (2006-2012)

850 800 778 750 721 700 661 679 650 593 626 600 550 500 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 Total Numberof Routes Number of SPED Routes by Area Number of SPED Routes by Area (NORTH) (WEST)

300 187 193 203 300 155 175 159 167 182 200 200 141 150 157 100 100 0 0 Numberof Routes Year Numberof Routes Year

Number of SPED Routes by Area Number of SPED Routes by Area (Mid-Central) (East & E-Central)

300 300 151 158 171 166 169 180 200 141 145 147 200 156 156 139 100 100 0 0 Numberof Routes Year Numberof Routes Year

Number of SPED Routes by Area SPED Routes (Noon) (East) 2006-2012

300 159 159 172 172 172 173

200 160180 200 137 120140 10080 4060 100 200 0 2011-2012

Numberof Routes Year Year Numberof Routes

35 Toronto Student Transportation Group, Annual Report (2011-2012) Page 16 of 30

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, and resolve operational problems. Operational staff uses a number of resources to help monitor the integrity of the transportation system and our performance.

Communications

A dedicated website and a phone queue system are two of the main resources used to track performance as it pertains to departmental performance.

6. Transportation Website Dashboard – monitoring who is visiting and what they are accessing

36 Toronto Student Transportation Group,

Annual Report (2011-2012) Page 17 of 30

School Bus Loading

Given the city of Toronto’s urban nature there are a number of schools situated on small or irregular sized sites that impacts the Departments ability to schedule buses into schools. The aerial snapshot shows some of the site limitations. A summary by type of school bus loading zone shows the various methods used to accommodate buses at Toronto schools.

7. School Bus Loading Zones by Type

School Bus Loading Zones by Type

Lay-By Bus Loop On Street

8. Aerial Photos provide staff real world visuals on space and roadway limitations and restrictions to the school bus loading zone.

37 Toronto Student Transportation Group,

Annual Report (2011-2012) Page 18 of 30

Operators

The Toronto Student Transportation Group secures transportation through a competitive procurement process. The last Request for Proposal was issued in 2007 and secured transportation services for a five year term with an option for two successive years. The following chart highlights the number of Operators by division that are providing service for the TSTG. 9. Breakdown of contracted fleet

Wheelchair Accessible Breakdown by Carrier 2011-2012 Transit Attridge 4% TDSB 6% 2% First Student 25% Stock 43%

First Student - Cardinal McCluskey 14% 6%

Fleet Composition 2011-2012

PDPV 145

Mini-Van 99

Mini-Size 944

Full-Size 420

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

38 Toronto Student Transportation Group,

Annual Report (2011-2012) Page 19 of 30

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. The following chart highlights the fuel costs over the years.

10. Fuel Trend over the last 5 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 Mar Mar Mar Mar Mar Mar Mar Nov Nov Nov Nov Nov Nov Nov Sep Sep Sep Sep Sep Sep May May May May May May May Jan-06 Jan-07 Jan-08 Jan-09 Jan-10 Jan-11 Jan-12 Sep-05

39 Toronto Student Transportation Group, Annual Report (2011-2012) Page 20 of 30

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

40 Toronto Student Transportation Group,

Annual Report (2011-2012) Page 21 of 30

Weekly Operator Status FX FE FM FT TD AT CL MC SC SN ST WA

Total Number of Routes Servicing Toronto (AM/PM) 17 134 107 147 18 97 228 96 290 126 278 67 Total Number of Routes Servicing Toronto (Noon) 10.7 35 25 46 5 15 52 58 64 22 59 10 Grand Total Of Routes (Sum of two above) 27.7 169 132 193 23 112 280 154 354 148 338 77 Open Routes - Yellow 0.4 2.35 2.13 0 0 0.20 0.6 0 4.35 0.46 9.65 0.05 Open Routes - Wheelchair 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.9 0 1.78 0.00 0.00 0 Open Routes - Mini Van 0 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 0.2 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 Open Routes - (please specify each individual route below)0.4 2.35 2.13 0 0 0.28 1.6 0.4 6.14 0.46 9.65 0.19 Open Routes (percentage of AM/PM routes) 2.4% 1.8% 2.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.7% 0.4% 2.1% 0.4% 3.5% 0.3% Number of drivers in training this week 2.23 2.55 4.98 2.43 0 2.50 9.0 0.7 5.19 4.81 5.54 0 Number of additional licensed drivers this week 0.6 0.95 1.00 0.58 0 1.20 1.2 0 1.81 0.81 1.43 0.16 Number of drivers who have left company this week 0.05 0.85 0.13 0.4 0.03 1.10 0.6 0.25 1.27 0.30 0.51 0.30 Number of Accidents 0.05 0.48 0.25 0.225 0.11 0.08 0.4 0.175 1.16 0.76 1.86 0.41 Accidents as a percentage of fleet 0.3% 0.4% 0.2% 0.2% 0.6% 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% 0.4% 0.6% 0.7% 0.05% Number of Late Routes - Weather/traffic related 0.5 6.25 1.48 0.98 0.14 2.70 8.9 0.28 2.46 6.08 23.35 1.19 Number of Late Routes - Operational related 2.5 3.98 11.88 0.03 0.08 1.20 5.0 0.23 16.08 13.54 16.92 0.41 Number of Late Routes - Planning related 0 1.30 0.25 0 0 0.90 2.1 0 0.65 1.41 0.05 0.57 Number of Breakdowns 0.38 3.23 2.23 0.42 0.11 0.50 4.3 0.13 10.62 5.76 6.35 0.41 Number of spare drivers 2.83 5.60 4 6 5.92 4 17.0 5 10.97 4.49 15.89 3.54 Number of routes covered by taxi/subcontract 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 1.1 0.05 1.11 0.00 0.03 0 Number of other available drivers (only days when spare <0 routes)4.00 18.88 6 0 3.9 0.0 1 17.89 4.11 10.78 0 Number of Split Routes Am 0 1.18 0 0.98 2 0 1.0 0.08 22.19 5.30 15.19 1.14 Number of Split Routes Pm 0 1.18 0 1.05 1.2 0 0.9 0.075 25.65 5.76 12.03 1.19 Total Number of Split Routes 0 2.35 0 2.11 0.43 0 1.7 0.075 47.84 11.03 26.89 2.30 Number of charters performed with school route buses 1.7 186.60 107.83 62.38 86.76 0 0.0 0.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.59 Number of spare vehicles 6.3 16.00 15 18 6 4 49.7 5.8 31.00 10.05 27.24 3.62 Book Offs as a % of total routes 2% 0.02 2.2% 2.0% 15.4% 0.6% 0.0 1.1% 3.3% 2.2% 3.1% 1.2% Percentage of Spares (4% contract minumim) 17% 0.04 3.7% 4.1% 32.1% 4.2% 0.1 5.2% 3.8% 3.6% 5.7% 5.3% Open Coverage -10.275 -7.58 -16.28 -21.225 -15.42 -18.7 -33.2 -18.73 0.32 -10.59 1.68 -12.62

41 Toronto Student Transportation Group,

Annual Report (2011-2012) Page 22 of 30

Open Routes and Open Coverage provide us a snapshot view of our Operators ability to provide the service they have been contracted to. 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.

42 Toronto Student Transportation Group,

Annual Report (2011-2012) Page 23 of 30

Open Routes (percentage of AM/PM Open Coverage routes) 5 4.0% 0 3.5% 3.0% -5 2.5% 2.0% -10 1.5% -15 Open Coverage 1.0% Open Routes (percentage 0.5% of AM/PM routes) -20 0.0% -25 WAT

FSAjax -30 Attridge Average Cardinal Stock East TDSBFleet McCluskey Stock West FSThornhill Stock North FSMarkham FSEtobicoke -35

Book Offs as a % of total routes Accidents as a percentage of fleet 18% 0.8% 16% 0.7% 14% 0.6% 12% 0.5% 10% 0.4% 8% 0.3% 6% Book Offs as a % of total Accidents as a percentage 0.2% 4% routes of fleet 2% 0.1% 0% 0.0% WAT WAT FSAjax FSAjax Attridge Attridge Cardinal Cardinal Stock East Stock East TDSBFleet TDSBFleet McCluskey McCluskey Stock West Stock West FSThornhill FSThornhill Stock North Stock North FSMarkham FSMarkham FSEtobicoke FSEtobicoke

43 Toronto Student Transportation Group,

Annual Report (2011-2012) Page 24 of 30

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 85% is significant considering a majority of the transportation provided in Toronto is for special needs students who typically have longer trips and lower loads.

44 Toronto Student Transportation Group,

Annual Report (2011-2012) Page 25 of 30

TSTG Status September November January March May Average

Total Number of Routes Servicing Toronto (AM/PM)[72] 385 385 388 391 391 388.5 Total Number of Routes Servicing Toronto (AM/PM)[18] 917 933 933 933 933 929.7 Total Number of Routes Servicing Toronto (AM/PM)[5] 117 119 124 123 123 121.6 Total Number of Routes Servicing Toronto (AM/PM)[4] 145 145 145 145 145 145 Total Number of Routes Servicing Toronto (Noon) 277 295 295 296 296 291.8 Grand Total Of Routes (AM/PM TOTAL ONLY) 1564 1582 1590 1592 1592 1584.8 Number of students transported 42647 46022 46337 45823 45668 45575.2 Student per vehicle 27.27 29.09 29.14 28.78 28.69 28.76 Number of Changes 5998 3542 2661 1558 1872 2664.6 Total Daily Kilomtres 64532 66255 67256 69102 69475 67452.9 Available Capacity 45391 45689 45930 46141 46141 45894.6 Capacity Utilization 94% 101% 101% 99% 99% 99% Tot Cost/month (not incl utiliz, taxi, ttc ) $ 5,641,311 $ 6,605,336 $ 4,826,697 $ 5,135,876 $ 6,646,427 $ 5,713,892 Cost per Student/month $ 132.28 $ 143.53 $ 104.17 $ 112.08 $ 145.54 $ 125.46 Cost per Bus/month $ 3,606.98 $ 4,175.31 $ 3,035.66 $ 3,226.05 $ 4,174.89 $ 3,605.76 Cost per Kilometre/month $ 87.42 $ 99.70 $ 71.77 $ 74.32 $ 95.67 $ 84.76 Average run length (km) 15.86 16.19 16.32 16.53 16.61 16.32 Average run time (min) 48.86 50.62 51.38 52.02 52.41 51.193 Average # stops 9.58 9.75 9.61 9.66 9.63 9.664 # BB Runs 731 734 771 776 767 757.6 # Van Runs 1195 1236 1247 1268 1270 1239.6 # Mini Van Runs 133 141 160 139 138 140.1 # WC Runs 288 288 269 267 267 273.7 Web Visits [Google Analyics] 4299 1978 3153 2160 1069 2377 Phone Calls Offered [CDN (route point) Statistics] 4836 992 1044 748 698 1266.3

45 Toronto Student Transportation Group, Annual Report (2011-2012) Page 26 of 30

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.

2. Bell time stratification for Toronto schools

TCDSB TDSB TCDSB TDSB Am Bell Time # of Schools PM Bell Time # of Schools 8:15 AM 0 1 2:20 PM 1 0 8:20 AM 1 0 2:30 PM 6 0 8:25 AM 3 3 2:35 PM 4 1 8:30 AM 50 16 2:40 PM 7 1 8:35 AM 3 11 2:45 PM 4 1 8:40 AM 21 26 2:50 PM 5 1 8:45 AM 51 211 2:55 PM 2 5 8:50 AM 9 71 3:00 PM 31 46 8:55 AM 21 55 3:05 PM 5 37 9:00 AM 53 146 3:10 PM 6 58 9:05 AM 0 5 3:15 PM 24 114 9:10 AM 0 2 3:20 PM 3 65 Grand Total 212 547 3:25 PM 7 25 3:30 PM 83 162 3:35 PM 7 17 3:40 PM 11 6 3:45 PM 6 6 3:50 PM 0 1 4:00 PM 0 1 Grand Total 212 547

46 Toronto Student Transportation Group,

Annual Report (2011-2012) Page 27 of 30

3. Bell Time Distribution

250

200

150 TCDSB 100 TDSB 50

0 8:15 8:20 8:25 8:30 8:35 8:40 8:45 8:50 8:55 9:00 9:05 9:10 AM AM AM AM AM AM AM AM AM AM AM AM

180 160 140 120 100 80 TCDSB 60 TDSB 40 20 0 2:20 2:30 2:35 2:40 2:45 2:50 2:55 3:00 3:05 3:10 3:15 3:20 3:25 3:30 3:35 3:40 3:45 3:50 4:00 PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM

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.

47 Toronto Student Transportation Group,

Annual Report (2011-2012) Page 28 of 30

4. Historical Summary of transportation change requests 2008 – 2011

Change Summary Year over Year 2500 2008-2009

2009-2010 2000 2010-2011

2011-2012 1500 Linear (2010- 2011)

Linear (2011- 2012) 1000

500

0 -2 -1 school +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 start

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.

48 Toronto Student Transportation Group,

Annual Report (2011-2012) Page 29 of 30

5. School bus safety program historical summary

Board 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 Totals TDSB 26,705 19,022 17,426 19,760 23,181 17,783 17,897 141,774 TCDSB 13,421 23,684 15,387 25,016 25,454 21,614 20,453 145,029 Totals 40,126 42,706 32,813 44,776 48,635 39,397 38,350 286,803

Students Participating In School Bus Safety Presentations

Toronto District School Board Toronto Catholic District School Board

2011-2012 15,759 15,738 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 2005-2006 19,022 23,684 2004-2005 26,705 13,421

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.

49 Toronto Student Transportation Group,

Annual Report (2011-2012) Page 30 of 30

6. Conditions impacting school bus accidents

Accident Conditions Head On 1% Turning Backing Hit Fixed Object 14% 6% 9% Intersection Rear End 5% 17%

Other Pedestrian 39% 3% Parked Vehicle 6%

7. Year over year summary of accident statistics

120 Accident Statistics by Carrier 100

60 09-10 10-11 40 11-12

50 Pending List.xlsx

# Date Motion Further details of motion Moved by A. Sangiorgio that the General Manager bring back a report outlining the proposed process for the selection and evaluation to be used to select new applicants for these positions upon the 121‐Sep‐11 positions becoming vacant. Moved by V. Rego in regards to the report detailing with the TSTG 221‐Sep‐11 Organizational Structure that

3. the General Manager in conjunction with the Board Human Resources Departments drafts a process that formally documents staff cross training and succession planning. Moved by V. Rego that the report regarding TSTG Consortium 521‐Sep‐11 Service Agreements be approved and that 1. the General Manger facilitates the creation and signing of service agreements between the consortium and service providers. Moved by Trustee Gershon that the TSTG profile be received and 721‐Sep‐11 that 6. the General Manager develops a business case identifying traffic as a significant factor impacting the financial situation of the consortium here in Toronto. Moved by Trustee Poplawski that the report regarding TSTG Transportation Protocols be received with the following direction to 25 10‐Oct‐12 staff to convene a working group consisting of School Principals, Academic Superintendents, and parents to review and provide input on the operational policy manual clarify with the Ministry the purpose of non-transportation policy summary that a general communication protocol be added Moved by A. Sangiorgio that the report regarding the TSTG Technology plan be approved with direction to bring back scope of 26 10‐Oct‐12 work for approval prior to release Moved by Trustee Poplawski that the report on Legal Services be 33 10‐Oct‐12 approved with direction to staff to follow BPS directive in securing bids provide a recommendation report once a firm is selected

Page51 1 of 1