1 Report No. 7 of the Transit Committee
THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK
REPORT NO. 7 OF THE REGIONAL TRANSIT COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 4, 2002
For Consideration by The Council of The Regional Municipality of York on September 19, 2002
Chair: Regional Councillor Diane Humeniuk, Chair
Members: Regional Councillor Barrow Regional Councillor Joyce Frustaglio Mayor Tim Jones Regional Councillor Scarpitti Regional Chair B. Fisch
Also Present: Mayor Wayne Emmerson Regional Councillor B. O'Donnell
Staff Present: J. Barnes, P. Carlyle, S. Cartwright, M. Garrett, D. Gordon, P. May, E. Stevenson, K. Schipper, E. Wilson
The Transit Committee began its meeting at 11:05 a.m. on September 4, 2002. 2 Report No. 7 of the Transit Committee
TABLE OF CONTENTS Clause Page
1 YORK REGION TRANSIT 3 PERFORMANCE BASED OPERATING CONTRACTS
2 YORK REGION TRANSIT MOBILITY PLUS SERVICE 8 2001 SYSTEM PERFORMANCE REVIEW
3 YORK REGION TRANSIT 20 ONTARIO TRANSIT RENEWAL PROGRAM – REQUEST FOR ALLOCATION OF RENEWAL FUNDS
4 YORK REGION TRANSIT 24 BUS ADVERTISING CONTRACTS FOR MARKHAM AND RICHMOND HILL AREAS
5 YORK REGION TRANSIT MOBILITY PLUS SERVICE 26 AMENDMENT TO VAUGHAN SERVICE AREA CONTRACT
6 YORK REGION TRANSIT MOBILITY PLUS SERVICE 28 WHITCHURCH-STOUFFVILLE SERVICE AREA CONTRACT
7 YORK REGION TRANSIT MOBILITY PLUS SERVICE 30 KING AND EAST GWILLIMBURY SERVICE AREA CONTRACTS
8 UPDATE – COMMITTEE PROCEEDINGS 32 3 Report No. 7 of the Transit Committee
1 YORK REGION TRANSIT PERFORMANCE BASED OPERATING CONTRACTS
The Transit Committee recommends:
1. The presentation by Rick Takagi, Manager, Operations, be received; and
2. The recommendations contained in the following report, August 26, 2002, from the Commissioner of Transportation and Works be adopted, subject to:
(a) inserting the word "enhanced" before "principles of performance" in Recommendation 1; and
(b) amending the figures in the presentation document under "Financial Impact", bullet points 3 and 4, to read $65,000 and $59,000 respectively.
1. RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that: 1. Staff be authorized to proceed with a procurement process for the operation of conventional transit services in 2003, based on the principles of performance and service quality as identified in this report.
2. Staff be authorized to negotiate a four month extension of the operating agreement with Can-Ar Coach Service, A Division of Tokmakjian Limited, to May 3, 2003, for transit service in the Vaughan area; a three month extension of the operating agreement with Laidlaw Transit Limited, to June 28, 2003, for transit service in the Newmarket and Aurora areas; and a four month extension of the operating agreement with Pacific Western Limited to May 31, 2003, for transit service in the Richmond Hill area.
2. PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to inform Transit Committee and Regional Council of York Region Transit’s (YRT) ongoing effort to update, improve and standardize the terms and specifications of the operating contract and procurement document for the delivery of contracted conventional transit services. As part of this process, staff have investigated the opportunity to include performance-based provisions in the contract.
In order to accommodate the schedule to introduce performance based contracts and also stagger the completion dates of existing contracts, authorization is being sought to negotiate a short term extension to the existing service agreements in the Vaughan, Richmond Hill and 4 Report No. 7 of the Transit Committee
Newmarket/Aurora areas. It is considered more manageable from an administrative point of view to have the contracts end at approximately one month intervals.
3. BACKGROUND Prior to York Region assuming responsibility for the delivery of public transit services, operating contracts for the different area municipalities varied to suit local needs. Since three of the four major service contracts are coming to the conclusion of their terms between January and June, 2003, there is an opportunity to standardize these contracts and update the specifications.
The goals of the Region’s 25-year strategic plan, Vision 2026, include increasing public accountability in the delivery of cost-effective, high-quality service to residents and businesses. In keeping with this vision, staff is proposing the introduction of service quality provisions in all transit contracts. For example, the introduction of performance measures, which could provide financial incentives and disincentives to the service providers, is being proposed.
4. ANALYSIS AND OPTIONS YRT utilizes four different major contractors to operate conventional transit service in the Region. Each contractor provides transit service on designated routes within sometimes overlapping service areas. Buses are stationed at storage and maintenance facilities owned by the respective contractors and located in each service area. Since three of the four contracts are scheduled to end in 2003, staff is preparing new contract and procurement documents which standardize and update the specifications. The procurement process will also enable the combining of contracts where deemed appropriate. For example, there are likely to be economies of scale associated with having two contractors to serve the Markham, Vaughan and Richmond Hill areas, rather than three.
Staff have reviewed opportunities to include performance measures and related financial rewards and penalties to encourage the delivery of quality service.
It should be noted that the TTC is also contracted by YRT to extend their routes from Toronto into York Region. In addition, Miller Transit, whose contract expires in December 2005, provides transit service in the Markham area. Neither the TTC’s, nor Miller’s operating agreements are included in this review.
4.1 Standardized Transit Operating Contracts The Region’s transit contractors are compensated on the basis of an hourly rate for each bus that is put into revenue service. Each agreement also has compensation variables that affect both contract administration and costs. These include leased buses, communication equipment, driver training, insurance, equipment repair charges, taxation on maintenance, fuel escalation charges, and ‘dead-head’ charges. 5 Report No. 7 of the Transit Committee
Having standardized operating contracts Region-wide will ensure seamless and a more consistent quality of conventional transit services. Moreover, a common contract document will allow for easier and consistent contract administration.
4.2 Performance-Based Operating Contracts The existing operating contracts were typically awarded based on the contractor meeting specifications and having the lowest bid price. There are currently no financial or other incentives in the contracts to promote quality performance, except for limited financial penalties for not providing service.
An internal staff team, comprised of representatives from York Region Transit, Legal, and Supplies and Services, was established to develop a new model contract. Among other things, the team reviewed the opportunity to incorporate performance provisions into future contracts. Performance is measured using various benchmarks. There are often incentives for contractors who achieve levels higher than the set benchmark, and disincentives for those who perform below the set benchmark. Additionally, statistics collected over the term of the contract can be used in future procurement processes.
The following performance standard categories are being proposed for inclusion in the new contract document: S Schedule Adherence S Vehicle Maintenance S Safety S Customer Satisfaction S Reporting Requirements
The addition of performance standards and measures into operating contracts is intended to improve the overall quality of conventional transit services. Considerable research has been conducted across North America to identify which measurements should be introduced into future agreements and how they will be monitored.
For each performance standard category, a financial incentive or bonus is proposed to be paid if a particular standard is achieved. On the other hand, if the standard is not achieved a disincentive or penalty would be levied against the contractor. The total value of the proposed incentive package would be $65,000 annually, and $59,000 annually in disincentives. Depending on the contract, these amounts represent approximately 1% of the individual contract values.
4.3 Service Quality Improvements In addition to performance measurements, staff is also considering the following items improve service quality and image: S Standardized training programs S Minimum training hours S Common uniforms and operator appearance improvements 6 Report No. 7 of the Transit Committee
4.4 Rapid Transit York Region Council recently approved York Consortium 2002 as the successful partner for the York Rapid Transit Plan. This proposal includes staged rapid transit along the Yonge and Highway 7 corridors, as well as corridors connecting to the Spadina subway line in the west and the Sheppard subway line in the east. The proposed performance based operating contracts will need to accommodate any transitional issues between existing transit services and the rapid transit proposal.
4.5 Service Agreement Schedule Below is a preliminary schedule of dates for implementing the performance-based contracts. The contract start dates in the different geographical areas occur over a three month period in order that potential transitional issues are resolved in each area of the Region. S RFP/Tender release September, 2002 S Mandatory Bidders meeting September, 2002 S RFP/Tender closing November, 2002 S Bid evaluation November, 2002 S Submission to Committee and December, 2002 Award of Contract S Contract start dates May to June, 2003
4.6 Proposed Contract Extensions Three of the four existing service contracts expire in 2003. The Can-Ar Coach Service contract ends on January 31, 2003; the Pacific Western and Laidlaw contracts on March 31, 2003; and Miller Transit contract on December 31, 2005. All three of the expiring contracts are being recommended for different short term extensions so as to stagger the start times of any new contracts and to enable possible new contractors sufficient time to set-up operations, including storage and maintenance facilities.
There is a benefit to staggering the end date of the existing contracts by at least one month for each geographic area to ease the process of changing over contractors. Changing contractors is an enormous administrative challenge for the Region that must be handled properly to ensure there is no negative customer impact. Staggering the end of the existing contracts and the start of the new will make the transition more manageable. Also, it is desirable to have any changeover in contractors occur during or near the slower summer months of July and August.
Given the staff resource requirements (drivers and mechanics) and capital investment required (garage facility) faced by contractors, sufficient time is needed to certify and transfer buses, hire and train drivers and mechanics, and possibly set up a new garage and storage facility. The latter is complicated by local zoning by-laws which tend to limit the supply of land available for this type of use. 7 Report No. 7 of the Transit Committee
The proposed short term contract extensions are to be based on the same terms and conditions of the existing contracts and will not include any performance-based provisions that are proposed for the new contracts. The following extensions are recommended: S Can-Ar Coach Service (Vaughan area) to May 2003 S Laidlaw Transit (Newmarket and Aurora areas) to June 2003 S Pacific Western (Richmond Hill area) to July 2003
Further reports concerning the award of the performance-based operating contracts and the proposed contract extensions will be submitted to Transit Committee at an upcoming meeting.
5. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The proposed new operating contract(s) will be awarded through a competitive bid process. As such, the cost impact will not be known until the procurement process is completed. The introduction of the performance-based procurement process and higher standards of performance may introduce new costs; however, the proposed incentives and penalties should also result in improved service and reliability. Furthermore, the possible future consolidation of two contracts into one in the south part of the Region in particular, could produce economies of scale.
With performance based contracts, additional YRT staff resources would be required to perform ongoing inspections and monitor contract compliance. These will be included for consideration in the 2003 Business Plan and Budget.
Table 1 identifies the current annual expenditure for each existing contract.
Table 1 Current Contract Values
Contractor 2002 Contract Service Area Current Agreement Value Expiry Date Can-Ar Coach Service $6.2 million Vaughan January 2003
Laidlaw Transit $3.4 million Newmarket/ March 2003 Aurora Pacific Western $4.3 million Richmond Hill March 2003
6. LOCAL MUNICIPAL IMPACT The introduction of performance-based operating contracts will ensure higher quality conventional transit service in Vaughan, Richmond Hill, Aurora and Newmarket. 8 Report No. 7 of the Transit Committee
7. CONCLUSION The introduction of a new standardized transit service operating contract next year will allow for identical specifications, terms and conditions, as well as enhancements to provide consistent administration of the contract(s). Performance measures are being included, along with incentives and disincentives, in order to promote higher quality conventional transit service. The short term extension of some of the existing contracts will allow more time for the procurement process, and the setting-up of storage and maintenance facilities by potential new contractors. Similarly, the staggering of contract end/start dates as proposed will ease the administrative burden associated with changing contractors.
This report has been reviewed by the Senior Management Group.
2 YORK REGION TRANSIT MOBILITY PLUS SERVICE 2001 SYSTEM PERFORMANCE REVIEW
The Transit Committee recommends:
1. The presentation by Irene McNeil, Manager, Service Planning, be received;
2. The recommendation contained in the following report, August 26, 2002, from the Commissioner of Transportation and Works be adopted; and
3. Staff be requested to provide further analysis of system performance and comparative data in all areas relating to the provision of York Region Transit Mobility Plus Service and report back on initiatives to further improve performance.
1. RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that: 1. The York Region Transit Mobility Plus Service - 2001 System Performance Review report be received for information.
2. PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to evaluate the 2001 performance of the newly amalgamated York Region Transit (YRT) Mobility Plus specialized transit service following its first full year of operation. The report will provide Transit Committee and Council with an overview of system performance based on commonly used indicators, and will also compare YRT's Mobility Plus performance with selected GTA and other Canadian specialized transit services. 9 Report No. 7 of the Transit Committee
3. BACKGROUND In the fall of 2000, the Province announced the implementation of a mandatory performance measurement program for all Ontario municipalities in nine core service areas: solid waste, water and wastewater, roads, transit, fire, police, local government administration, land use planning and social services. The program is intended to enhance accountability, provide a basis for continuous improvement initiatives and demonstrate to taxpayers how efficiently local governments deliver key municipal services.
The provincial performance measures program is specifically designed to measure conventional transit performance only. However, performance monitoring of specialized transit services for persons with disabilities is no less critical for internal administration, strategic planning and system management.
The concept of measuring performance is not new to the public transit industry. For many years prior to 1998, Ontario transit agencies were required to submit detailed financial and operational data in order to qualify for provincial subsidies. In addition, the Canadian Urban Transit Association (CUTA) collects and publishes detailed annual system statistics and performance measurements for all public transit agencies (conventional and specialized) in Canada. As a result, the public transit industry is well advanced in the development and monitoring of performance measures. It should be noted that with specialized transit services, performance is commonly monitored in terms of total operating data, and is also separated into dedicated and non-dedicated service categories. Dedicated refers to service provided in vehicles exclusively dedicated to the transport of persons with disabilities (e.g. vans, small buses). Dedicated service can be provided internally or under contract. Non- Dedicated refers to services available to persons with disabilities provided by non-exclusive vehicles (e.g. taxis) which usually operate under contract and may also provide service to other than registered-customers.
Some of the more common and relevant specialized transit performance indicators include:
a) Financial Indicators – Revenue/Cost Ratio; Total Cost/Passenger; Cost/Passenger (Dedicated); Cost/Passenger (Non-dedicated); Cost/Hour (Dedicated) b) Utilization & Operating Performance Indicators – Registrants/Capita; Passenger Trips/Capita; Passenger Trips/Registrant; Passenger Trips/Hour (Dedicated); Km/Passenger Trip (Dedicated)
4. ANALYSIS AND OPTIONS The York Region Transit Mobility Plus service commenced operations on January 1, 2001 with the amalgamation of the specialized transit systems formerly operating in the municipalities of Markham, Vaughan, Richmond Hill, Stouffville, Aurora, Newmarket and Georgina. In May of 2001, the Region introduced specialized transit services to King and East Gwillimbury.
The YRT Mobility Plus system makes use of a variety of service delivery options including in-house operation (YRT drivers using specialized transit vehicles), non-dedicated contract 10 Report No. 7 of the Transit Committee
services (e.g. sedan and small van taxis) and dedicated contracted services (e.g. Simcoe Coach Lines).
For the purposes of this report, the YRT data for the year 2000 is based on submissions to CUTA made by the area municipalities. Some of the aggregate data may be inconsistent with the current data collection practices. Caution should therefore be used regarding these performance measures. In addition, it should be noted that in the peer group comparisons, 2001 data is used for Mobility Plus versus 2000 data for the peer group (the most recent available from CUTA).
The YRT Mobility Plus system is a fairly unique operation, which makes peer group analysis rather complex. Several factors were given careful consideration when attempting to compare performance indicators. In 2001, York Region had a specialized transit service area population of 792,000, making Mobility Plus comparable to Peel Transhelp (983,000) or Ottawa Para Transpo (695,000). However, due to its suburban type development, close proximity to a major metropolitan area and tremendous growth patterns, the service area is more akin to the situation that exists in the city of Laval, north of Montreal. In terms of comparable service delivery scenarios, the dedicated versus non-dedicated trip ratio for Mobility Plus stands at 60% /40%, which is similar to services in Hamilton (50% / 50%) or Kitchener-Waterloo (69% / 31%). Ottawa is not an appropriate comparator for these indicators since 100% of its operation is provided through a contracted dedicated service. TTC Wheeltrans data is presented strictly for information since the scale of the operation is vastly different. And finally, the Canada-wide data is used strictly for average comparative purposes.
4.1 Specialized Transit Performance Indicators Based on CUTA data, statistics have been compiled for York Region specialized transit services covering both the 2000 and 2001 periods (refer to Attachment 1 for a summary of these statistics). Along with this data, the aforementioned peer group statistics are presented for comparative purposes.
4.1.1 Financial Performance Financial performance can be measured using a variety of performance indicators including revenue to cost ratio (total operating revenues divided by total direct operating expenses), total cost per total passenger; cost per passenger (for both dedicated and non-dedicated services) and cost per operating hour (dedicated services only). 11 Report No. 7 of the Transit Committee
Exhibit 1 Revenue Cost Ratio
20%
18%
16%
14%
12%
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0% York Region York Region Peel Kitchener- STL Laval Ottawa Para Hamilton TTC - CANADA Transit Transit Transhelp Waterloo Transpo WheelTrans (2000) (2001) (2000) The YRT Mobility Plus revenue/cost ratio (Exhibit 1) is just over 10%. This is a fairly consistent figure across Canada, regardless of the type of service delivery. The figure of 18% for the Hamilton area is indicative of the relatively high usage of Taxi Scrip fares which result in a higher than average passenger fare rate. Taxi Scrip refers to customer discount program which is based on lower fares than the meter rate, but higher than regular transit fares. 12 Report No. 7 of the Transit Committee
Exhibit 2 Total Cost per Total Passengers
$30.00
$25.00
$20.00
$15.00
$10.00
$5.00
$0.00 York Region York Region Peel Kitchener- STL Laval Ottawa Para Hamilton TTC - CANADA Transit Transit Transhelp Waterloo Transpo WheelTrans (2000) (2001) (2000)
The total cost per total passenger rate (Exhibit 2) for Mobility Plus is just over $15 per trip. This rate is slightly lower than the Canadian average of just over $17. The total cost figure includes both the dedicated and non-dedicated services, thereby providing a combined operating cost. Once again, the YRT Mobility Plus figure is slightly lower than Peel Transhelp, likely due to YRT’s smaller in-house fleet and lower associated operating costs. On the other hand, Ottawa’s Para Transpo cost of just over $20 per passenger can be partially attributed to the fact that 100% of their service is dedicated exclusively to registered passengers thus resulting in somewhat higher operating costs.
Costs can be further broken down to compare dedicated vs non-dedicated services. These comparisons provide staff with financial performance indicators used for analysing the cost effectiveness of different service delivery options (e.g. contracted taxi vs other forms of dedicated type services). As noted in Exhibits 3 and 4, the cost to provide dedicated service is generally higher ($16.94) than non-dedicated ($11.23). This can be attributed to the fact that with non-dedicated services, resources (drivers and vehicles) can be better utilized, especially during off-peak periods. 13 Report No. 7 of the Transit Committee
Exhibit 3 Cost per Passenger (Dedicated Service)
$25.00
$20.00
$15.00
$10.00
$5.00
$0.00 York Region York Region Peel Kitchener- STL Laval Ottawa Para Hamilton TTC - CANADA Transit Transit Transhelp Waterloo Transpo WheelTrans (2000) (2001) (2000) Exhibit 4 Cost per Passenger (Non-dedicated)
$30.00
$25.00
$20.00
$15.00
$10.00
$5.00
$0.00 York Region York Region Peel Kitchener- STL Laval Ottawa Para Hamilton TTC - CANADA Transit Transit Transhelp Waterloo Transpo WheelTrans (2000) (2001) (2000) 14 Report No. 7 of the Transit Committee
Another measure of financial performance is cost per hour (Exhibit 5). This indicator is normally used for dedicated services only, since the compilation of operating hour data for non-dedicated contracted services (e.g. taxis) is somewhat complex and unreliable. The Mobility Plus cost per hour figure of $49.62 is well within the range of the comparator group. In fact, only Kitchener-Waterloo and Laval are lower. Despite this acceptable cost, the YRT Mobility Plus rate increased during the first year of amalgamation by some 30%. This can be attributed to the increase of customer service hours and the standardization of employee wages. The Ottawa and TTC rates are approximately 30% higher than the Mobility Plus rate. This higher investment rate reflects the more advanced nature of their specialized service delivery models which include such features as comprehensive driver training programs, fully automated scheduling/dispatching facilities, etc.
Exhibit 5 Cost per Hour (Dedicated)
$70.00
$60.00
$50.00
$40.00
$30.00
$20.00
$10.00
$0.00 York Region York Region Peel Kitchener- STL Laval Ottawa Para Hamilton TTC - CANADA Transit Transit Transhelp Waterloo Transpo WheelTrans (2000) (2001) (2000)
4.1.2 Utilization and Operating Performance Several indicators are used to reflect service utilization and operating efficiency, including registrants per capita; passenger trips per capita; passenger trips per registrant; passenger trips per hours of operation (dedicated services only) and km travelled per passenger trip.
The number of registrants per capita (Exhibit 6) reflects the number of persons with disabilities registered with the specialized service provider as a percentage of the total area 15 Report No. 7 of the Transit Committee
population. This figure can vary depending on a number of factors including the demographics of the service area or eligibility criteria of the specialized transit system. The YRT Mobility Plus figure of 0.007 registrants/capita is somewhat lower than the comparator group, with the Canadian average being 0.012. Systems in Hamilton, Ottawa and Kitchener- Waterloo all have higher registrant ratios which might be explained by an older demographic profile or a more established system of registration. It is expected that YRT Mobility Plus registration will increase over the next couple of years due to greater flexibility of eligibility criteria and a more comprehensive information and registration process.
Exhibit 6 Registrants per Capita
0.025
0.020
0.015
0.010
0.005
0.000 York Region York Region Peel Kitchener- STL Laval Ottawa Para Hamilton TTC - CANADA Transit Transit Transhelp Waterloo Transpo WheelTrans (2000) (2001) (2000)
Passenger trips per capita (Exhibit 7) reflects the number of actual trips as a percentage of the total population. This factor can be strongly influenced by population age, the number of medical facilities/programs offered within the service area or the level of specialized transit services provided. The YRT Mobility Plus figure of 0.21 passengers/capita is relatively low relative to the comparator group. The Canadian average is 0.63, while the rate in Hamilton and Ottawa is over 1.0. These higher rates likely reflect the higher levels of services offered both in terms of frequency and service hours. As in the case of the registration figure, it is expected that the YRT Mobility Plus figure will increase as service levels are standardized across the Region. 16 Report No. 7 of the Transit Committee
Exhibit 7 Passenger Trips per Capita
1.60
1.40
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00 York Region York Region Peel Kitchener- STL Laval Ottawa Para Hamilton TTC - CANADA Transit Transit Transhelp Waterloo Transpo WheelTrans (2000) (2001) (2000)
Passenger trips per registrant (Exhibit 8) reflects the average number of trips taken by each registrant. This figure is useful when estimating the anticipated demand based on a given number of new registrants. The figure varies significantly by individual; for example, those persons attending daily work could take hundreds of trips per year. On the other hand, there are some registrants who may only use the service once or twice per year when family members are unavailable to provide transportation. The YRT Mobility Plus figure, at 27.54 trips/registrant, is once again significantly lower than the Canadian average of 53.15. The TTC Wheeltrans figure of 70.26 is more likely the norm. The relatively low Mobility Plus rate can be attributed to the fact that prior to 2002, some areas of the Region had quite limited service hours. In addition, for a portion of 2001, there were still some areas of the Region which had no service (King and East Gwillimbury). And finally, the limited number of wheelchair accessible vehicles available throughout the Region may have resulted in a number of unaccommodated trip requests. 17 Report No. 7 of the Transit Committee
Exhibit 8 Passenger Trips per Registrant
80.00
70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00 York Region York Region Peel Kitchener- STL Laval Ottawa Para Hamilton TTC - CANADA Transit Transit Transhelp Waterloo Transpo WheelTrans (2000) (2001) (2000)
Passenger trips per hour (Exhibit 9) is a measure of service efficiency and, due to complexity of collecting operating hour data, is only measured for the dedicated portion of specialized services. The YRT Mobility Plus figure of 2.93 passengers/hour is surpassed only by the TTC Wheeltrans service at 2.97 which is slightly above the Canadian average of 2.86. This level of passenger handling is considered acceptable in specialized service delivery models since most passengers require some level of driver assistance and, in addition, the boarding/alighting time requirements can be significant. 18 Report No. 7 of the Transit Committee
Exhibit 9 Passenger Trips Hour (Dedicated Service Only)
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00 York Region York Region Peel Kitchener- STL Laval Ottawa Para Hamilton TTC - CANADA Transit Transit Transhelp Waterloo Transpo WheelTrans (2000) (2001) (2000) The km per passenger trip measure (Exhibit 10) simply reflects the average trip length. This figure is directly related to the geographic nature of the service area and the location of medical facilities/programs in relation to residential areas. Interestingly, the YRT Mobility Plus figure of 5.41 km/trip is the lowest in the comparator group, which leads us to believe that trips on the dedicated portion of our service are relatively local in nature despite the vast geographic size of the Region. This figure will be useful in estimating future service demands once our services are delivered seamlessly (i.e. across local municipal boundaries) throughout the Region. 19 Report No. 7 of the Transit Committee
Exhibit 10 Km per Passenger Trip
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00 York Region York Region Peel Kitchener- STL Laval Ottawa Para Hamilton TTC - CANADA Transit Transit Transhelp Waterloo Transpo WheelTrans (2000) (2001) (2000)
5. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS As part of a continuous improvement process, the monitoring of performance measures provides YRT management and staff with the tools to evaluate both the efficiency and effectiveness of service delivery strategies. These measures and resulting trends can then be used to develop short-term budget forecasts and longer-term strategic plans. For instance, increases in the number of registered users will directly translate into an increase in the number of trips. This increase can then be used to develop budgets and service delivery programs. Overall, the Mobility Plus system operates well within the average range of other Canadian systems, however it is obvious that utilization rates will likely increase with the provision of higher levels of service, thereby resulting in higher operating costs.
6. LOCAL MUNICIPAL IMPACT Monitoring performance measures provides YRT Mobility Plus staff with the necessary tools to make informed decisions regarding service delivery. As part of the municipal and agency 20 Report No. 7 of the Transit Committee
consultation process outlined in the 5-Year Service Plan, stakeholder input will be required to fully appreciate the needs of the various community programs.
7. CONCLUSION Specialized transit performance indicators measure passenger registration, trips and financial performance. During its first full year of amalgamation, the Mobility Plus program focused its attention on standardization of operational and administrative policies. In the coming year, Mobility Plus will focus on providing greater accessibility to all residents of the Region by improving service provision. The formation of an Accessibility Advisory Committee, the development of annual Accessibility Plans (required under the new Ontarians with Disabilities Act legislation) and the further standardization of operating policies will also ensure the ongoing improvement of YRT Mobility Plus services.
This report has been reviewed by the Senior Management Group.
(A copy of the attachment referred to in the foregoing is included with this report and is also on file in the Office of the Regional Clerk.)
3 YORK REGION TRANSIT ONTARIO TRANSIT RENEWAL PROGRAM – REQUEST FOR ALLOCATION OF RENEWAL FUNDS
The Transit Committee recommends the adoption of the recommendations contained in the following report, August 26 , 2002, from the Commissioner of Transportation and Works:
1. RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that: 1. Forms ON-T-01, ON-T-02, ON-T-03, ON-T-04 and ON-T-09, as completed by staff for the 2002 Ontario Transit Renewal Program – Request for Allocation of Renewal Funds, be endorsed.
2. The Regional Chair and Clerk be authorized to execute on behalf of the Region any necessary agreements with the Minister of Transportation with respect to the 2002 Ontario Transit Renewal Program.
2. PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to advise Transit Committee and Regional Council of the provincial government’s Ontario Transit Renewal Program (OTRP) and to have the 2002 allocation request for York Region Transit (YRT) endorsed. 21 Report No. 7 of the Transit Committee
3. BACKGROUND On September 27, 2001, the provincial government announced a new provincial transit investment plan comprised of a $3.25 billion funding commitment for the following:
S Up to $1.25 billion for transit expansion in the Golden Horseshoe (known as the Golden Horseshoe Transit Investment Program or GTIP) S Up to $250 million for transit expansion outside the Golden Horseshoe S A commitment to GO Transit’s operating and base capital program S Up to 1/3 of eligible municipal transit renewal requirements (the OTRP program)
3.1 GTIP In January of 2002, the Region of York made two ‘Expression of Interest’ submissions to the Ministry of Transportation under the GTIP program. The first was for the York Rapid Transit Plan (YRTP) project in the category of ‘long-term inter-regional corridor transit improvements’. The second was for nine smaller initiatives in the category of ‘short-term inter-regional transit improvements and technology and service innovation’. These included: conventional buses operating in inter-regional corridors; specialized buses operating inter- regionally; off-site improvements at GO rail stations; Highway 7 transit infrastructure improvements; queue-jump lanes in major transit corridors; transit priority traffic control system; conventional transit scheduling and runcutting software; automated vehicle location system; and a smart card system.
There have been various discussions between York Region and provincial government staff since the filing of the two submissions. With respect to the YRTP project, it is anticipated that the Region will be requested to proceed to the next phase of the program requiring a detailed proposal to be submitted.
Ministry staff have just recently requested an information update concerning the various initiatives in the short-term inter-regional transit improvements and technology and service innovation submission, and have advise that they are in the process of evaluating the projects that are to be commenced in 2002. In addition, they have indicated that detailed phase two submissions will not be required and that funding announcements are likely to be made in the near future.
3.2 Ontario Transit Renewal Program The Ministry of Transportation has allocated a total of $100 million for this program in 2002. Funding has been allocated to individual transit systems on the basis of local ridership expressed as a percentage of total provincial ridership. On this basis, the Region of York received an allocation of $2,235,762. Annual allocations thereafter will be based on a municipality’s five year average of major refurbishment and replacement needs.
These funds are to be used for the replacement of old vehicles and for major refurbishment purposes only.The provincial contribution cannot exceed one-third of total replacement and renewal needs. 22 Report No. 7 of the Transit Committee
4. ANALYSIS AND OPTIONS The Ministry of Transportation has established a set of guidelines and requirements for the Ontario Transit Renewal Program. They include a series of forms that must be submitted at various times in the year. For example: there are forms to describe how the allocation is to be spent each year; forms to petition the province for payment; and forms detailing total eligible expenditures for the year just concluded.
The forms subject of this report are:
S ON-T-01 – Request for an Allocation of Renewal Funds (Municipality submits this form annually to request allocation of renewal funds for conventional transit.) S ON-T-02 – Transit Vehicle Inventory (This form lists and provides details related to transit vehicles owned by/operated on behalf of the municipality as of December 31st of the previous year.) S ON-T-03 – Detailed Estimate of Allocation of Renewal Funds (This form lists and provides details related to each vehicle to be replaced or subject to major refurbishment in support of the allocation request.) S ON-T-04 – Transit Vehicle Renewal/Major Refurbishment Estimates (5 Years) (This form provides details regarding the municipality’s estimated expenditures and estimated provincial renewal funds for the current year plus the following 4 years.) S ON-T-9 – Request for an Allocation of Renewal Funds - Transportation for Physically Disabled Persons (Municipality submits this form annually to request allocation of renewal funds for transit vehicles for physically disabled persons.)
The forms required for the 2002 allocation request are attached hereto as Attachment 1. The request is summarize as follows:
Table 1 YRT 2002 OTRP Allocation Request
Item Proposed Expenditures OTRP Contribution (one-third) conventional transit $4,531,000. $1,508,823. vehicle replacement (9 new buses)
conventional transit $ 87,000. $ 28,971. bus leasing costs
conventional transit $1,497,000. $ 498,501. vehicle refurbishment (22 buses) 23 Report No. 7 of the Transit Committee
Specialized transit $ 660,000. $ 219,780. vehicle replacement (3 new buses)
Total $6,775,000. $2,256,075.
It should be noted that the Region’s actual subsidy allocation for 2002 is capped at $2,235,762. (See letter from Ministry of Transportation – Attachment 2.) The allocation request as calculated in Table 1 varies slightly from the amount in the Ministry letter since the request is based on actual expenditures. Furthermore, it is considered appropriate to include a level of expenditures that will ensure the entire Ministry allocation is utilized.
5. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The 2002 Business Plan and Budget contains $6,654,000 for the purchase of conventional and specialized transit replacement buses, and for the structural refurbishing of conventional transit buses. It also contains $2,200,000 in grants and subsidies, for a total net expenditure of $4,454,000. Based on the above proposed expenditures and the $2,235,762 subsidy allocation, projected actual net expenditures are $4,539,238, which is some $85,200 over budget. This amount will be more than made up for should the Region qualify for GTIP funding for the purchase of expansion buses and other capital.
The subject forms have been prepared in consultation with Finance Department staff.
6. LOCAL MUNICIPAL IMPACT The funds received through the Ontario Transit Renewal Program will contribute to the renewal of the YRT fleet in terms of both new replacement buses and refurbished older buses. This, in turn, will ensure the continued provision of quality transit services in the local municipalities.
7. CONCLUSION It is recommended that the attached Ontario Transit Renewal Program subsidy allocation request forms be endorsed for submission to the Ministry of Transportation.
This report has been reviewed by the Senior Management Group.
(A copy of the attachments referred to in the foregoing is included with this report and is also on file in the Office of the Regional Clerk.) 24 Report No. 7 of the Transit Committee
4 YORK REGION TRANSIT BUS ADVERTISING CONTRACTS FOR MARKHAM AND RICHMOND HILL AREAS
The Transit Committee recommends:
1. The following report, August 26, 2002, from the Commissioner of Transportation and Works be referred back to Staff for further discussion; and
2. In the event Staff are unable to negotiate a bus advertising contract rate that is at least equal to the present contract rate, authorization be given to proceed with a competitive bid process to award the contract.
1. RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that: 1. Regional Council authorize the consolidation and extension of the bus advertising contracts for the Markham and Richmond Hill areas with Viacom Outdoor Group Inc., to January, 2005. 2. The Regional Solicitor be authorized to prepare the necessary agreement. 3. The Regional Chair and Clerk be authorized to execute the agreement on behalf of the Region.
2. PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to inform Transit Committee and Regional Council of the status of the bus advertising contracts for the Markham and Richmond Hill areas, and to seek approval to consolidate and extend the current contracts with some modifications. The newly consolidated contract would be extended to January, 2005, to coincide with the term of the bus advertising agreement for the Newmarket area.
3. BACKGROUND Prior to the amalgamation of York Region Transit (YRT), all of the municipal transit systems contracted out bus advertising rights to private companies. Markham Transit and Richmond Hill Transit both contracted bus advertising services to Viacom Outdoor Group, formerly Mediacom. These contracts expired in the spring of 2002 and have been continued on a monthly basis. Another contract, with Street Scene Media, covers the Vaughan area and expires in 2004, and there is also a contract for the Newmarket area with yet another company, On-board Advertising, which expires in 2005.
The goal of YRT is to eventually consolidate all bus advertising contracts into one. The consolidation of the Markham and Richmond Hill contracts, and their extension to coincide with the expiry of the Newmarket contract in January 2005, would be the first step in that 25 Report No. 7 of the Transit Committee
consolidation. All five contracts would then expire at the same time and a competitive bid process would be conducted to award a single York Region-wide contract.
Viacom has been in the bus advertising business for many years in Canada and elsewhere, and has had a presence in York Region since 1985. In addition to the two bus adverting contracts for Richmond Hill and Markham areas, they also have four shelter advertising contracts covering the Markham, Richmond Hill, Vaughan and Newmarket areas
4. ANALYSIS AND OPTIONS The former Markham contract is based on 50 buses and guarantees $11,000 a month in revenues to YRT or 55% gross billings, whichever is the greater. This translates to a minimum of $132,000 in annual revenues. In the first 6 months of 2002, YRT has received a monthly average of $12,333 for the Markham contract, which is $1,333.31 a month more than the guaranteed minimum.
The former Richmond Hill contract is based on 26 buses and guarantees $43,257 in annual revenues, but does not offer a percentage of gross billings.
Both contracts together guarantee YRT annual revenues of $175,257.
Viacom has confirmed in writing their interest in entering into a new agreement with YRT, which would see the consolidation of the Markham and Richmond Hill contracts. For the new agreement, Viacom has offered 55% of gross billings with a guaranteed minimum of a $150,000 per annum. This is a lower guaranteed minimum than the total of the two previous contracts, justified by Viacom on the basis of a currently sluggish advertising market. There is, however, a prospect of higher revenues, based on an expected improvement in the market in 2003.
Non-acceptance of Viacom’s proposal would mean going to a competitive bid process and could result in less revenue. Furthermore, Viacom has a solid record with YRT and previously with the local municipal transit systems of meeting all of their financial obligations. This has not always been the case with other transit advertising firms.
5. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Although the guaranteed minimum proposed by Viacom is lower than in the previous contracts, there is an opportunity for actual per bus revenues to be higher depending on the advertising market in general. However, with the growth in fleet numbers proposed over the next two years, total advertising revenues will most certainly surpass those from the previous contracts. The new agreement will include a clause requiring the guaranteed minimum to be pro-rated based on the increase in fleet numbers.
The actual bus advertising revenues received in 2002 for all contracts are expected to slightly exceed the $265,000 contained in the 2002 Business Plan and Budget, notwithstanding the sluggish advertising market. This is largely attributable to increases in the YRT bus fleet. 26 Report No. 7 of the Transit Committee
6. LOCAL MUNICIPAL IMPACT There are no local municipal impacts associated with the consolidation and extension of these contracts.
7. CONCLUSION It is recommended that the consolidation and extension of the bus advertising contracts for the Markham and Richmond Hill areas to January, 2005, be authorized.
This report has been reviewed by the Senior Management Group.
5 YORK REGION TRANSIT MOBILITY PLUS SERVICE AMENDMENT TO VAUGHAN SERVICE AREA CONTRACT
The Transit Committee recommends the adoption of the recommendations contained in the following report, August 26, 2002, from the Commissioner of Transportation and Works:
1. RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that: 1. Regional Council authorize an amendment to the current agreement, dated April 1, 2002, between the Region and 1024640 Ontario Ltd. (A Cab Taxi) to authorize the transfer of A Cab Taxi’s non-ambulatory service obligations to 12074695 Ontario Limited (A Cab Mobility).
2. The Regional Solicitor be authorized to prepare the necessary amending agreement.
3. The Regional Chair and Clerk be authorized to execute the amending agreement on behalf of the Region.
2. PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to inform Transit Committee and Regional Council of the sale of the A Cab Taxi non-ambulatory business and to seek approval for an amendment to the current operating agreement to enable the transfer of the non-ambulatory service obligations to the new company, 12074695 Ontario Limited (A Cab Mobility). This contract relates to the provision of Mobility Plus service in the Vaughan service area. 27 Report No. 7 of the Transit Committee
3. BACKGROUND A Cab Taxi is licensed by the City of Vaughan to provide non-ambulatory taxi service in the municipality. Regional Council approved a recommendation from Transit Committee in January, 2002, that a contract be entered into with A Cab to supplement Mobility Plus service in the Vaughan service area for a two-year term which commenced on April 1, 2002.
York Region Transit (YRT) staff are now in receipt of a letter, dated August 7, 2002, from A Cab Taxi which advises that a new company, 12074695 Ontario Limited (A Cab Mobility) has purchased A Cab Taxi’s non-ambulatory taxi business.
Further to discussion with Legal Services, YRT staff are advised that an amendment to the to the Region’s current agreement is required to reflect the change in operator.
4. ANALYSIS AND OPTIONS City of Vaughan staff have advised that A Cab Taxi is in good standing with the municipality. It is noted that the owner of the new company is Mr. Surinder Purewal, who also has ownership in Astro Taxi, a local Vaughan Taxi company that is currently under contract with the Region to provide Mobility Plus sedan taxi service in the Vaughan service area. Once the formal approvals have been received, the new company will have to provide insurance in accordance with the agreement and any new drivers will be obligated to undergo training.
5. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS There are no financial implications associated with this transfer in ownership.
6. LOCAL MUNICIPAL IMPACT The amendment to A Cab Taxi’s current agreement will ensure the continued provision of specialized transit service for persons with disabilities by the Region’s Mobility Plus service in the Vaughan service area.
7. CONCLUSION It is recommended that the agreement with 1024640 Ontario Ltd. (A Cab Taxi) be amended to enable transfer of A Cab Taxi’s non-ambulatory service obligations to 12074695 Ontario Limited (A Cab Mobility), who have recently purchased A Cab’s non-ambulatory business.
This report has been reviewed by the Senior Management Group. 28 Report No. 7 of the Transit Committee
6 YORK REGION TRANSIT MOBILITY PLUS SERVICE WHITCHURCH-STOUFFVILLE SERVICE AREA CONTRACT
The Transit Committee recommends the adoption of the recommendations contained in the following report, August 26, 2002, from the Commissioner of Transportation and Works:
1. RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that: 1. Regional Council authorize a new three-year agreement between the Region of York and Wheels on Wheels Transport Limited for the provision of Mobility Plus service in the Whitchurch-Stouffville service area.
2. The Regional Solicitor be authorized to prepare the necessary agreement.
3. The Regional Chair and Clerk be authorized to execute the agreement on behalf of the Region.
2. PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to inform Transit Committee and Regional Council of the status of York Region Transit Mobility Plus service in the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville and to seek approval to enter into a new three-year agreement with Wheels on Wheels Transport Limited to provide both ambulatory and non-ambulatory service to the area.
3. BACKGROUND Wheels on Wheels Transport Limited is a private transportation company that is located in Stouffville and has been providing transportation for persons with disabilities since entering into a contract on May 1, 1998 with the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville. When York Region Transit (YRT) was established, the Wheels on Wheels agreement was assigned to the Region. The agreement at that time was on a month-to-month basis until such time as either party decided to cancel. Discussions have been held with the company and there is agreement that a new three-year contract be signed to include the Region’s new service standards and other provisions.
4. ANALYSIS AND OPTIONS Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville staff have advised that Wheels on Wheels Transport Limited has been licensed as a taxi operator in the Town since 1998 and the company currently has three ‘mobility’ taxi plates for the transportation of persons with disabilities. 29 Report No. 7 of the Transit Committee
They have also advised that Wheels on Wheels is the only local taxi operator capable of providing non-ambulatory transportation for persons with disabilities, and that the company has met all local licensing requirements.
During the past year, ridership for both ambulatory and non-ambulatory service in the Whitchurch-Stouffville service area has continued to increase to a current average of 600 trips per month. With the implementation of cross boundary Mobility Plus service in September 2002, plus population growth, it is anticipated that ridership will continue to grow. Wheels on Wheels staff are aware of the anticipated expansion and are prepared to increase their fleet of vehicles as required. The current fleet is comprised of two 1998 GM Access Buses (6-8 passenger) and one 1997 Dodge Caravan low floor van.
From a customer service point of view, Wheels on Wheels is providing a quality service. In addition, they have established administrative and reporting processes that make contract administration efficient and effective for YRT staff.
5. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The costs associated with the Mobility Plus operating contract for the Whitchurch- Stouffville service area are included in the 2002 Business Plan and Budget. They are projected to be $133,500. Regional Council’s approval of a new operating agreement with Wheels on Wheels will have no increased financial implications with respect to the 2002 Business Plan and Budget.
Wheels on Wheels is compensated on the basis of the local taxi tariff rate in effect in the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville.
6. LOCAL MUNICIPAL IMPACT The new operating agreement with Wheels on Wheels will ensure the continued provision of specialized transit services for persons with disabilities in the Whitchurch-Stouffville service area.
7. CONCLUSION It is recommended that a new three-year contract between the Region of York and Wheels on Wheels Transport Limtied be approved for the provision of Mobility Plus service in the Whitchurch-Stouffville service area.
This report has been reviewed by the Senior Management Group. 30 Report No. 7 of the Transit Committee
7 YORK REGION TRANSIT MOBILITY PLUS SERVICE KING AND EAST GWILLIMBURY SERVICE AREA CONTRACTS
The Transit Committee recommends the adoption of the recommendations contained in the following report, August 26, 2002, from the Commissioner of Transportation and Works:
1. RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that: 1. Regional Council authorize an amendment to the current transportation service agreements, dated August 1, 2002, between the Region of York and ADAPT of Ontario and 8800 Taxi Inc. for the provision of Mobility Plus service in the Newmarket and Aurora areas, to also include the Township of King and the Town of East Gwillimbury service areas.
2. The Regional Solicitor be authorized to prepare the necessary amendments to the agreements to include the following:
a) A three-year contract with ADAPT of Ontario to service non-ambulatory (wheelchair) Mobility Plus passengers in the King and East Gwillimbury service areas. b) A three-year contract with 8800 Taxi Inc. to service the ambulatory (walk-on) Mobility Plus passengers in the East Gwillimbury service area.
3. The Regional Chair and Clerk be authorized to execute the amending agreements on behalf of the Region.
2. PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to inform Transit Committee and Regional Council of the status of York Region Transit Mobility Plus services in the King and East Gwillimbury service areas and to seek approval to amend the current agreements between the Region of York and ADAPT of Ontario and 8800 Taxi for the provision of Mobility Plus service in the Newmarket and Aurora areas, to also include the King and East Gwillimbury areas.
3. BACKGROUND In May 2001, York Region Transit commenced a specialized transit service for persons with disabilities in the Township of King and the Town of East Gwillimbury. ADAPT of Ontario was contracted to provide the service for a six month trial period. In November 2001, Council approved a recommendation from Transit Committee that ADAPT’s contract be extended for an additional 12 month period, which expires on November 13, 2002. The report also advised that ADAPT was having a capacity problem serving ambulatory 31 Report No. 7 of the Transit Committee
customers in East Gwillimbury, and as a result, approval was given for the Region to enter into a contract with 8800 Taxi to supplement ADAPT’s service. This contract also expires on November 13, 2002.
At the Regional Council meeting of June 27, 2002, Council approved a recommendation further to RFP P02-53 and P02-54, that ADAPT and 8800 Taxi enter into agreements with the Region to also operate Mobility Plus service in the Newmarket and Aurora service areas for a three-year term. These contracts supplement the existing service provided by YRT Mobility Plus owned and operated buses in Newmarket and Aurora.
Since both contractors are now operating in all four municipalities, it is recommended that the recent agreements to operate in the Newmarket and Aurora areas be amended to include the Township of King and the Town of East Gwillimbury service areas for the same three- year period.
4. ANALYSIS AND OPTIONS The initial contracts with both ADAPT of Ontario and 8800 Taxi were approved for a short term trial period in order that staff would have the opportunity to evaluate the contractor’s ability to perform the services. The work of both ADAPT of Ontario and 8800 Taxi has been satisfactory and it is recommended that their contracts be renewed to provide service in both the Township of King and the Town of East Gwillimbury for an additional three-year term.
Town of East Gwillimbury staff have advised that 8800 Taxi is the only local licensed taxi operator that is based in the municipality and that the company has met all licensing requirements. ADAPT of Ontario is a Newmarket-based transportation provider that is registered as a not-for-profit charity and provides service for non-ambulatory riders using a fleet of four mini buses.
During the past year, the ridership for both ambulatory and non-ambulatory service both in King and East Gwillimbury has continued to increase. In April, 2002, there were 107 riders in King and 193 in East Gwillimbury. With the implementation of cross boundary Mobility Plus Service in September, 2002, plus population growth, it is anticipated that ridership will continue to increase.
5. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The costs associated with the Mobility Plus operating contracts for the King and East Gwillimbury service areas are included in the 2002 Business Plan and Budget. They are projected to be $100,000. Regional Council’s approval of these taxi operating agreements will have no increased financial implications on the 2002 Business Plan and Budget. 32 Report No. 7 of the Transit Committee
6. LOCAL MUNICIPAL IMPACT These contracts will ensure the continued provision of specialized transit services for persons with disabilities in the King and East Gwillimbury service areas.
7. CONCLUSION It is recommended that the current transit operating contracts between the Region of York and ADAPT of Ontario and 8800 Taxi Inc. for the provision of Mobility Plus service in the Newmarket and Aurora areas be amended to also include the King and East Gwillimbury service areas.
This report has been reviewed by the Senior Management Group.
8 UPDATE – COMMITTEE PROCEEDINGS
The Transit Committee advises Council of the following matters having been considered by the Transit Committee with the following action:
PRESENTATION
1. Rick Takagi, Manager, Operations made a presentation regarding York Region Transit and World Youth Day 2002. Committee extended its sincere thanks to York Region Transit staff for making this event such a huge success. Committee received the presentation.
COMMUNICATIONS
2. Gary McNeil, Managing Director, Go Transit, June 10, 2002, regarding ‘thank- you to YRT team (staff and contractors) for support provided on June 7, 2002 when fatal van/train collision occurred in the City of Vaughan’. Received.
3. Honourable David M. Collenette, P.C., M.P., Minister of Transport, regarding ‘Federal government’s position on funding municipal transit’. Received.
4. Roger W. Halfacre, MTS, CTC, Director of Transportation and the World Youth Day Cross Pilgrimage, World Youth Day 2002, August 8, 2002, forwarding ‘thank-you to York Region Transit for their assistance during World Youth Day 2002 in Toronto’. Received. 33 Report No. 7 of the Transit Committee
OTHER BUSINESS
5. The York Region Transit Ridership Summary as at June 30, 2002 for conventional services (including contracted TTC Services north of Steeles Avenue) and as at July 31, 2002 for specialized services was distributed. Received.
6. Committee raised the issue of the various charitable foundations in York Region that support transportation of persons with disabilities. It was suggested by Committee that York Region Transit should endeavour to facilitate another meeting of the various charitable organizations in York Region that support transportation for persons with disabilities.
7. Committee was advised that York Region qualified for $6.6 million in Golden Horseshoe Transit Investment Program (GTIP) funding. This will enable York Region Transit to purchase 35 buses that will operate inter-regionally, upgrade two computer software systems, and make improvements at the Centennial GO train station in Markham.
8. Committee was informed that Chair Humeniuk is meeting with the Newmarket Chamber of Commerce regarding the transit needs of major corporations of 50 employees and more. A forum will be held in October involving local presidents, plant managers and human resources personnel to work with the Chamber of Commerce and York Region Transit regarding the provision of transit services to employees. It is hoped that this could be a pilot initiative for all municipalities in York Region. The Chair will report back to Committee regarding this matter.
The Transit Committee adjourned at 12:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
September 4, 2002 D. Humeniuk Newmarket, Ontario Chair
(Report No. 7 of the Transit Committee was adopted, without amendment, by the Council of The Regional Municipality of York at its meeting on September 19, 2002.)