Transit Feasibility Study

MMM Group Limited

TOWN OF INNISFIL TRANSIT FEASIBILITY STUDY

FINAL REPORT

September 2015

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1

2.0 CONTEXT FOR TRANSIT IN INNISFIL ...... 2

2.1 Policy and Planning Context ...... 2 2.2 Demographics, Land Use and Growth ...... 6 2.3 Modes of Travel and Destinations ...... 8 2.4 Transit and Transportation Services...... 11

3.0 WHAT WE HEARD FROM THE PUBLIC ...... 18

3.1 The Consultation Approach ...... 18 3.2 Telephone and Online Survey ...... 19 3.3 Public Open Houses ...... 24 3.4 Stakeholder and Staff Workshops ...... 27 3.5 Additional Consultation ...... 32

4.0 VISION, MISSION AND GOALS FOR TRANSIT IN INNISFIL ...... 34

4.1 Vision and Mission for Transit ...... 34 4.2 Goals for Transit ...... 35

5.0 TRANSIT SERVICE MODELS AND MARKET ASSESSMENT ...... 37

5.1 Overview of Transit Service Models ...... 37 5.2 Peer Review of Fixed Route, Fixed Schedule Transit ...... 41 5.3 Peer Review of Specialized Transit Service ...... 45 5.4 Transit Ridership in Innisfil ...... 48

6.0 SHORT-TERM TRANSIT SERVICE OPTIONS ...... 51

6.1 Service to Priority Destinations ...... 51 6.2 Comparison of Options for Priority Destinations ...... 57 6.3 Service to Additional Destinations ...... 59 6.4 Specialized Transit Service ...... 61

7.0 SHORT-TERM TRANSIT SERVICE RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 63

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009 i

7.1 Service Plan ...... 63 7.2 Service Hours and Schedule ...... 64 7.3 Service Standards and Bus Stops...... 66 7.4 Bus Stops and Shelters ...... 68

8.0 LONG-TERM TRANSIT NETWORK ...... 71

9.0 SERVICE DELIVERY ...... 73

9.1 Service Delivery Options ...... 73 9.2 Conventional Transit Service Delivery Recommendations ...... 77 9.3 Specialized Transit Service Delivery Recommendations ...... 81 9.4 Regulatory Requirements and Risk Management ...... 83

10.0 VEHICLES AND TECHNOLOGY ...... 84

10.1 Vehicles ...... 84 10.2 Technology ...... 86

11.0 MUNICIPAL ORGANIZATION AND STAFFING ...... 88

12.0 MARKETING AND COMMUNICATION ...... 90

12.1 Launch Marketing ...... 90 12.2 Ongoing Marketing and Communication ...... 92

13.0 FARE STRUCTURE AND RIDERSHIP PROJECTIONS ...... 93

13.1 Recommended Fares ...... 93 13.2 Ridership and Fare Revenue Projections ...... 94

14.0 FINANCIAL PLAN ...... 96

14.1 Capital Costs ...... 96 14.2 Operating Costs...... 96 14.3 Revenues and Funding ...... 98 14.4 Five-Year Financial Plan ...... 100

15.0 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ...... 105

APPENDIX A – Survey Questions and Results

APPENDIX B – Additional Information on Contracting and Procurement

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009 ii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Introduction

Building on the work completed by the Town of Innisfil as part of the Transportation Master Plan and subsequently, MMM Group conducted a Transit Feasibility Study that reviews the options for transit and develops recommendations for the coming years. The specific objectives of the Study are as follows:

► To identify Innisfil public transit needs;

► To develop a transit network concept, service plan and service standards for transit that address community needs and meet Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) requirements;

► To recommend a service delivery model, business plan, financial plan and implementation plan for the recommended transit service; and

► To engage the public and stakeholders in a dialogue about transit in Innisfil.

Public and Stakeholder Consultation

As part of the Transit Feasibility Study, the consultant team worked with Town staff to undertake a wide range of consultation and engagement activities including the following:

► Statistically valid telephone survey of Innisfil residents and online survey;

► Stakeholder workshops with Nantyr Shores Secondary School, Sandycove Acres and the Innisfil Accessibility Committee;

► Two public open houses; and

► Conversations with Innisfil business representatives, Barrie Transit, the County of Simcoe, Tanger Outlet Mall, Georgian Downs and others.

The consultation activities indicated a strong need for transit and a high level of support for transit among Town residents. Frequently mentioned themes included the importance of transit for youth, seniors and people with disabilities; the need for transit to access jobs, education, shopping, recreation, health services, and other destinations; and community benefits related to property values, quality of life and ability to attract future growth. At the same time, some residents expressed concerns about transit due to the additional costs for the Town and taxpayers, and the rural geography of the Town.

The results of the telephone survey are particularly informative, as they represent a randomly selected cross-section of residents. Environics Research conducted a statistically valid automated telephone

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009 iii survey of 477 Innisfil residents on June 8, 2015. The margin of error for a sample of 477 is plus or minus 4.5 percentage points (at the 95% confidence level). Key findings of the telephone survey are as follows:

► There is widespread support (77%) for the introduction of a public transit service in Innisfil. More than half of survey respondents (56%) indicated that they “strongly support” the introduction of public transit in Innisfil.

► More than six in ten residents believe that an extra $25 a year in property taxes is reasonable to pay for transit.

► Residents were asked what destinations they would like to see connected to the “core” destinations of Alcona and the Innisfil Recreational Complex. Barrie Transit/the south end of Barrie was by far the most frequently selected destination for transit to serve. The Tanger Outlet Mall in Cookstown was selected second most frequently.

Transit Vision, Mission and Need

Based on the review of the Innisfil context and consultation results, an Innisfil transit service would provide many benefits, now and in the future as Innisfil grows and develops. These include the following:

► Mobility for seniors, youth, people with disabilities and other non-drivers;

► Increased affordability of transportation for residents who struggle with the costs of vehicle ownership and use;

► Support for active transportation, physical activity and public health;

► Increased use of other Town services and facilities such as the Recreational Complex; and

► Resident and business attraction and retention.

A draft vision, mission and goals for a transit system were developed based on a review of the Innisfil context and results of public and stakeholder engagement. These statements can be adopted or refined by Innisfil Council when there is a decision to implement a transit system. The proposed Vision and Mission are identified below. The primary target audience for Innisfil’s transit service includes seniors, youth, people with disabilities, and residents without regular access to a vehicle.

Vision Mission

Transit supports the long-term vision of Innisfil as “the place to To deliver an affordable, accessible, customer- be”. Thanks to transit, Innisfil residents of all ages and abilities focused Innisfil transit service that connects can access opportunities and achieve a high quality of life. people and places.

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009 iv

Transit Service Recommendations

Short-Term Conventional Service

MMM Group developed and analyzed a number of options to address Innisfil’s priorities for transit in the immediate future. Based on the analysis of Innisfil’s population and employment, travel patterns and consultation results, the priority destinations for transit were identified as follows:

► Alcona (along Innisfil Beach Road and through the urban area to Nantyr Shores Secondary School);

► Innisfil Recreational Complex and Town Hall; and

► South end of Barrie, with a connection to Barrie Transit.

A variety of on-demand, flexible and fixed service models were considered. Five route options were developed and compared, all of which would operate on an hourly frequency with either one or two vehicles in operation. Based on the comparison of route options, two routes were shortlisted: a one-bus option and a two-bus option. Ridership was estimated based on experiences in other peer municipalities and based on the route characteristics. The tables below summarize the two shortlisted route options.

Alcona to Barrie South GO (1 bus - hourly service)

Service Design

 Hourly service can be provided with a single vehicle in service.  Anticipated ridership: 6-7 boardings per hour, ~16,000 per year  Serves the core destinations only, connecting to Barrie Transit at the Barrie South GO; does not serve Sandycove Acres or Park Place.  Total round trip travel time is 52 minutes which provides 8 minutes for recovery between trips.  Service to Nantyr Shores Secondary School and the residential areas south of Innisfil Beach Road is via a one-direction loop. Service in two directions cannot be provided via the Alcona South loop as it would increase the round trip travel time to 60 minutes.

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009 v

Sandycove to Park Place via Alcona (2 bus - hourly service)

Service Design

 Hourly service cannot be provided with a single vehicle in service; two vehicles are required.  The total round trip travel time is 102 minutes long which provides 18 minutes for recovery between trips.  Anticipated ridership: 5-6 boardings per bus per hour, ~25,000 per year  Wider service area coverage than the one-bus option, serving Sandycove Acres and Park Place  Service to Nantyr Shores Secondary School and the residential areas south of Innisfil Beach Road is via a two-direction loop.  It is possible to accommodate route deviations to serve a potential future GO Station at 6th Line Road without requiring additional vehicles in service.  It is also possible to serve the Barrie South GO Station with northbound buses on Yonge Street continuing northbound to the Barrie South GO Station instead of turning onto Lockhart Road.

It is recommended that the Innisfil transit service begin with service hours from 7:00am to 7:00pm on weekdays and 9:00am to 5:00pm on Saturdays. Service standards are proposed for hours of service, service coverage, frequency of service, route design, bus stops and performance standards.

The MMM team also identified two short-term service options to connect Tanger Outlet Mall with Alcona: a fixed schedule limited service, and an on-demand service. In addition to connecting Alcona and Tanger Mall, these services would connect Lefroy-Belle Ewart residents to Alcona and Tanger. Either transit service option could be delivered using small vehicles such as taxis, or with larger vehicles such as community buses. The telephone and online surveys clearly identified the Tanger Mall as residents’ next priority for transit, after connecting the “core” destinations and the south end of Barrie. However, the demand for transit to Tanger is expected to be significantly lower than for the core transit service.

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009 vi

Specialized Transit Service

The Town of Innisfil’s conventional transit service will be fully accessible, in line with AODA requirements, reducing demand for door-to-door transit and making it easier for residents with disabilities to travel within the Town. In addition, under section 45(1) of the Integrated Accessibility Standard Regulation, an alternative accessible method of transportation must be provided by a municipality if its conventional transportation service cannot be used by a person with a disability because of his/her disability and if there is no specialized transportation service in the area. MMM Groups recommends that the Town offer a dedicated specialized transit service and define the service area as within 800m walking distance of the conventional transit route.

Long-Term Transit Network

Based on the analysis of options, three additional transit routes/services are recommended as part of the long-term service plan to connect key employment areas and larger residential areas that are expected to experience growth. The following three routes/services will supplement the fixed route transit service connecting Alcona, Barrie and the Innisfil Recreational Complex:

► Cookstown to Alcona via Lefroy and Tanger Outlet Mall: limited-hour fixed schedule service or on- demand service;

► Alcona to Innisfil Heights and Georgian Downs: peak hour fixed route service; and

► Alcona to Big Bay Point/Friday Harbour: on-demand service.

Service Delivery

Conventional Transit Service Delivery

MMM assessed the options for conventional transit service delivery based on factors that include: service quality, operating costs, risks, flexibility, local capacity and revenue possibilities. Based on this assessment, a contracted service delivery model is recommended. The MMM team also identified potential operators for the conventional transit service.

A competitive procurement process using a publicly advertised request for proposal (RFP) is recommended to obtain the best price and quality for contracted service delivery. Before soliciting bids, the Town may want to obtain an updated quote for conventional transit service delivery through an inter- municipal agreement with the City of Barrie.

Specialized Transit Service Delivery

The demand for specialized transit in the Town will likely be low in the initial years of service, and will grow in subsequent years as awareness of the service increases and the ridership base grows. To limit the costs of providing specialized transit service in the first five years of service, a scalable service delivery model is recommended with costs based on the actual service delivered (vehicle hours or

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009 vii kilometres). It is therefore recommended that the Town delegate or contract service delivery to one of the organizations in the area that already operates wheelchair-accessible transit service and that has the staff, vehicles and capacity to meet varying levels of demand for specialized transit service. There are a number of organizations that would be well positioned to deliver specialized transit in Innisfil.

To better establish the capacities of these organizations and their interest in delivering specialized transit service in Innisfil, the Town could issue a Request for Expressions of Interest. This could be used as the basis for subsequent negotiations with qualified providers and a potential sole source agreement. Alternatively, it could be followed by a Request for Proposal or Request for Quote targeted at qualified potential service providers.

Five-Year Financial Plan

MMM Group developed five-year financial plans for the one-bus and two-bus transit services, including estimates of capital costs, operating costs, revenues and funding sources. Capital costs include the cost of purchasing vehicles, purchasing and installing bus stop signs and infrastructure upgrades to priority bus stops. Operating costs include hourly costs of contracted service delivery, costs for contractor- provided standby vehicles, municipal staffing costs, bus stop maintenance costs, marketing costs and costs related to vehicle refurbishment. In addition to fare revenues, primary funding sources include the Ontario Gas Tax program, County of Simcoe grant funding and potential cost-sharing arrangements with the City of Barrie.

One-Bus Service

Table E1 identifies the total costs, revenue sources and net costs for the one-bus service. Table E2 presents the associated key performance indicators for conventional transit.

Table E1 Year 1 to 5 Net Costs – One Bus Net Costs Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total Costs Total Capital Costs $231,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 Total Operating Costs $330,000 $344,000 $366,000 $389,000 $410,000 Total Costs $561,000 $354,000 $376,000 $399,000 $420,000 Revenue Sources Fare Revenue $39,000 $47,000 $51,000 $55,000 $59,000 Ontario Gas Tax Funding* $200,000 $152,000 $161,000 $171,000 $180,000 Simcoe County funding** $50,000 - - - - Total Revenue $289,000 $199,000 $212,000 $226,000 $239,000 Net Costs $272,000 $155,000 $164,000 $173,000 $181,000 * Gas Tax funds provided to each municipality cannot exceed 75% of municipal own spending on transit. Municipal own spending includes passenger revenues and municipal contributions to operating and capital expenses. As a result of this 75% cap, the Gas Tax funding available to the Town would decrease after year 1 as total costs of the transit service would be lower. **Potential revenue source; availability depends on 2016 budget and other municipal applications

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009 viii

Table E2 Year 1 to 5 Key Performance Indicators – One Bus, Conventional Transit Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total Operating Cost per Service Hour $83 $85 $88 $91 $93 Cost Recovery Ratio 13% 16% 17% 17% 18% Net Cost per Passenger* $17 $14 $14 $14 $13 *Total operating cost minus fare revenues

Two-Bus Service

Table E3 identifies the total costs, revenue sources and net costs for the two-bus service. Table E4 presents the associated the key performance indicators for conventional transit.

Table E3 Year 1 to 5 Net Costs – Two Buses Net Costs Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total Costs Total Capital Costs $439,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 Total Operating Costs $541,000 $600,000 $634,000 $669,000 $698,000 Total Costs: Capital and Operating $980,000 $610,000 $644,000 $679,000 $708,000 Revenue Sources Fare Revenue $67,000 $84,000 $92,000 $101,000 $101,000 Ontario Gas Tax Funding $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 Simcoe County Funding* $50,000 - - - - City of Barrie Cost-Sharing* $58,000 $59,000 $60,000 $61,000 $62,000 Total Revenue $375,000 $343,000 $352,000 $362,000 $363,000 Net Costs $605,000 $267,000 $292,000 $317,000 $345,000 *Potential revenue sources; availability unconfirmed

Table E4 Year 1 to 5 Key Performance Indicators – Two Buses, Conventional Transit Performance Indicators Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total Operating Cost per Service Hour $71 $78 $82 $85 $87 Cost Recovery Ratio 14% 15% 16% 17% 17% Net Operating Cost per Passenger $17 $15 $14 $14 $14 *Total operating cost minus fare revenues

Implementation Plan

An implementation schedule was developed with a target launch date of August 1, 2016 used for planning purposes. This date would enable the Town to figure out any final service delivery details before September, when school resumes and transit demand tends to increase. Recommendations regarding timing include the following:

► Manufacturers have indicated that 18- to 24-seat, low floor cut-away transit vehicles can take up to six months for delivery after they are ordered. The Town should order the vehicle in early January of

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009 ix

2016 in order to receive the vehicle in late June of 2016. This will provide a month for vehicle testing, driver training, decal application, etc.

► It is recommended that the Town negotiate and finalize a contract with an operating company in April or May of 2016. This will provide the operating company with several months to hire staff (if needed) and prepare for service delivery in advance of the launch date.

► With a start date of August 1, 2016, the Ministry of Transportation has indicated that there will be adequate time for the Town of Innisfil’s transit service to be considered for inclusion in the 2016/2017 Ontario Gas Tax program. Town staff should contact the Ministry for advice on next steps after two decisions have been made: the decision to proceed with a transit service, and the decision regarding whether the Town will operate a system on their own or partner with a neighbouring municipality.

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009 x

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Town of Innisfil is a growing municipality within Simcoe County that has developed a vision for its future: “The place to be by 2020”. As the population grows, the Town is aiming to dramatically improve quality of life, showcase Innisfil’s diversity and appeal, and make sure businesses can excel. In line with these objectives, the Town is evaluating the need for public transit and considering the options for transit in Innisfil. The Town has heard from residents that there is a need for public transit to improve quality of life. The Town’s 2013 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) also identified the importance of transit to improve mobility for residents without access to a vehicle and to prevent additional road congestion.

Building on the work completed by the Town of Innisfil as part of the TMP and subsequently, MMM Group conducted a Transit Feasibility Study that reviews the options for transit and develops recommendations for the coming years. The specific objectives of the Study are as follows:

► To identify Innisfil public transit needs;

► To develop a transit network concept, service plan and service standards for transit that address community needs and meet AODA requirements;

► To recommend a service delivery model, business plan, financial plan and implementation plan for the recommended transit service; and

► To engage the public and stakeholders in a dialogue about transit in Innisfil.

The Transit Feasibility Study Draft Final Report is organized as follows:

► Section 2 describes the context for transit in Innisfil;

► Section 3 presents the results of public and stakeholder engagement;

► Section 4 discusses the vision, goals and challenges for transit in Innisfil;

► Section 5 presents the results of the peer review and market assessment;

► Section 6 identifies short-term transit service options for Innisfil;

► Section 7 provides short-term transit service recommendations for Innisfil;

► Section 8 outlines a long-term transit network for Innisfil;

► Section 9 identifies service delivery options and provides service delivery recommendation;

► Section 10 discusses vehicles and assets;

► Sections 11 and 12 discuss municipal staffing and marketing and communications;

► Section 13 recommends a fare structure and provides year-by-year ridership projections;

► Section 14 present a five-year financial plan with costs and revenue sources; and

► Section 15 presents an implementation plan, with timelines and next steps to make transit a reality in Innisfil.

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study 1 MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009

2.0 CONTEXT FOR TRANSIT IN INNISFIL

2.1 Policy and Planning Context

This section summarizes the strategic planning, transportation planning and transit planning work that the Town has conducted to date. The feasibility study builds on this strong foundation of technical analysis and community consultation.

Inspiring Innisfil 2020

The Town of Innisfil is a growing municipality within Simcoe County that has developed a vision for its future: “The place to be by 2020”. Traditionally a rural municipality with a number of small community centres, the Town is expected to grow from about 32,000 people in 2013 to about 65,000 by 2031. As the population grows, the Town is aiming to dramatically improve quality of life, showcase Innisfil’s diversity and appeal, and make sure businesses can excel. Specific objectives include: improving transportation networks to unite residents, businesses and communities; and promoting a vibrant urban core in Alcona. The Town has heard from residents that there is a need for public transit to improve quality of life.

Official Plan and Our Place Official Plan Update

The Town of Innisfil is in the process of updating the Town's Official Plan (OP) through a comprehensive process entitled ‘Our Place’. The Town is not only looking to ‘check the boxes’ for a legislated Official Plan update, but to identify and articulate the policy elements that achieve place making and strengthen emotional connections between residents and the Town of Innisfil. ‘Our Place’ will have updated planning principles and policies to guide how the Town grows and develops over the next 20 years. Our Place aims to improve the quality of life experienced by all residents, while transforming Innisfil as a more balanced and complete community that provides greater opportunities to live, work, shop and play. The following themes being considered as part of ‘Our Place’ are relevant to public transit in Innisfil:

► Healthy Communities: Innisfil’s current Official Plan has strong complete community policies that encourage the efficient use of land and infrastructure, a pedestrian scale environment, an interconnected active transportation and transit network, and diverse and mixed communities. In ‘Our Place’, these policies will be strengthened. The Healthy Communities Discussion Paper recommendations include the following: identifying alternate modes of transportation in the vision, creating a separate alternate transportation mode section, encouraging compact urban form and considering connectivity between active transportation and transit.

► Intensification: The Simcoe County Official Plan establishes intensification targets for local municipalities and minimum density targets for designated greenfield areas. The Town of Innisfil has an intensification target of 33% and a minimum density target of 32 persons and jobs per hectare for new greenfield area developments. With the trend toward intensification and increased density, Innisfil can expect an increased market for public transit and higher ridership levels in the coming years.

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study 2 MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009

► Retail: Residents currently have to leave Innisfil to do much of their shopping. However, an updated retail demand analysis has concluded that there is market support for an expanded retail sector in the Town, and includes recommendations to advance the retail sector in Alcona. An expanded retail sector and a public transit service would be mutually supportive. Public transit would help Town residents access retail destinations, employees access retail sector jobs, and contribute to local business success. At the same time, an expanded retail sector would help to increase internal trip- making within Innisfil and boost public transit ridership.

Innisfil Transportation Master Plan

In line with the strategic objectives of Inspiring Innisfil 2020, the Town developed its first Transportation Master Plan (TMP) in 2013. The vision of the 2013 Innisfil TMP is as follows: “Innisfil’s transportation network connects people and communities, fostering healthy living and operates efficiently across the Town as an environmentally and financially sustainable system.” The TMP identified the importance of transit to improve mobility for residents without access to a vehicle and to prevent additional road congestion. The TMP also documented the community’s interest in an Innisfil transit service and the priority transit destinations, based on in-person consultation and an online survey. Finally, the TMP developed two transit network concepts for Innisfil. The short-term network concept featured one conventional fixed transit route supplemented by shared-ride, fixed route taxi service to outlying areas (Figure 1). The long-term network would extend the fixed route to Churchill and Lefroy. Figure 1 TMP Short Term Transit Network Concept

Transit Service Level Change Requests

Since the TMP, the Town has done significant additional work to advance transit. The Town presented a staff report on transit options to Council in June 2013 (DSR-105-13) and obtained a Council resolution to request a Service Level Change. The Town also conducted a review of public transit in other municipalities, developed a route plan and recommended hours of service, and estimated the cost of delivering the service in partnership with Barrie Transit. Finally, staff presented Service Level Change requests for transit as part of the 2014 and 2015 budget processes. In 2015, the proposed costs of delivering the service were significantly lower than in 2014 as Barrie Transit’s new contractor offered lower hourly rates. Despite the lower cost, Council did not feel that it had the information required to approve the Service Level Change. Instead, in January of 2015, Council directed staff to conduct a transit feasibility study and present it prior to the final budget deliberations.

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study 3 MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009

Previous Public Consultation on Transit

The Town has already obtained input from residents through three opt-in surveys: the TMP Questionnaire in 2012, the Public Transit Survey in the fall of 2013 (in advance of the 2014 Service Level Change request), and the “Your Two Cents” online survey for the 2015 Operating Budget. The Town also received public input on transit at open houses conducted as part of the TMP in 2012 and in the fall of 2013. Finally, the desire for public transit emerged from a telephone survey conducted as part of the ‘Our Place’ Retail Sector Discussion Paper. The results of these consultation activities are summarized below.

Level of Support for Transit

The consultation conducted as part of the TMP indicated a strong level of support for transit. About 74% of Questionnaire respondents support local public transit, stating that they would use the system if it were provided. Numerous respondents also noted that they expect that local transit service would be required to support their future mobility needs as they age. The TMP Questionnaire respondents who did not support public transit in Innisfil questioned the availability of sufficient funds to support a transit system.

Additional feedback on this topic from the TMP Public Open Houses included the following:

► Local transit is needed for work, medical, school, recreation, and shopping trips, especially for youth, adults and seniors without access to a vehicle. Local transit is also needed because of road congestion and lack of sidewalks/trails.

► Big Bay Point / Sandycove in particular will need transit services since many of the residents are elderly and taxi service would be cost prohibitive to get around.

► Taxpayers do not want to pay for services that are underutilized.

Additional information on residents’ desire for public transit emerged from a telephone survey conducted in March of 2015, as part of a retail demand analysis linked to ‘Our Place’. Tate Economic Research contracted Telepoll Research to undertake an in-home consumer telephone survey of approximately 400 households. When asked the open-ended question, “What one type of service would you like to see more availability of in Innisfil”, public transit was the second most common response (18%), second only to “Don’t know”. More doctors / health care and restaurants were further down the list, with 14% and 11% respectively.

Destinations for Transit to Serve

Approximately 40% of TMP survey respondents desire a local Innisfil public transportation system to support travel to municipal facilities within each community, and between the different communities in Innisfil. In addition, over 70% of respondents would like a public transit connection to the north to connect to Barrie, and approximately 40% of respondents would like a public transit connection to the south to Bradford and York Region.

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study 4 MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009

In the 2013 Public Transit Survey, respondents selected the following top destinations for transit to serve: Barrie South GO (54%), the Innisfil Recreational Complex and Town Hall (50%), Downtown Alcona (49%) and within all areas of Innisfil (43%). Park Place (33%) and Stroud (33%) were also common responses.

Figure 2 Desired destinations for public transit to serve – TMP Questionnaire (left) and Public Transit Survey (right)

Willingness to Pay for Transit

Two of these surveys addressed the public’s willingness to pay for transit, and these surveys yielded contradictory results. In the Public Transit Survey in the fall of 2013, about 65 percent of the 268 survey respondents indicated that they would support a 1% tax increase to pay for transit. However, in the “Your Two Cents” survey, about 70 percent of respondents indicated that they were not willing to pay higher taxes for buses. This uncertainty may have contributed to Council’s unwillingness to invest in public transit in 2014 and 2015.

The statistically valid telephone survey conducted as part of the current Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study addresses the questions of level of support for public transit, willingness to pay for transit and priority destinations for transit to serve. The results of the telephone survey and other public consultation activities conducted as part of the current study are presented in section 3 of the report.

Requirements of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act

Ontario’s Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) (2005) sets out goals, actions and timeframes to make Ontario accessible by 2025. AODA requires transportation service providers to meet certain standards for accessible service provision (Table 1), eligibility (Table 1) and accessible vehicles and stops (described in Section 10.0). There are also requirements related to: service disruptions and service delays; connections between specialized transit in adjacent municipalities; non-functioning accessibility equipment; emergency preparedness and response; vehicle steps, floors, indicators and alarms; accessibility of information; accessibility training for transit staff and volunteers; and eligibility application process, timelines and appeal process.

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study 5 MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009

Table 1 Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Requirements for Specialized Transit Service and Eligibility

Transit Service Eligibility

► Vehicles: Vehicles for conventional and specialized ► Definitions and application process: Each municipality transportation must be fully accessible as described in defines what it means for a person to have “a disability Section 10.0. that prevents them from using conventional transportation

► Alternative accessible method of transportation or services”. Each municipality develops their own specialized transportation: An alternative accessible application process for specialized transit. method of transportation must be provided by a ► Categories of eligibility: AODA sets out three municipality if its conventional transportation service categories: “unconditional”, “temporary” and “conditional” cannot be used by a person with a disability because of eligibility. A specialized transportation service provider his/her disability and if there is no specialized may deny requests for specialized transportation services transportation service in the area.1 AODA requirements to persons who are categorized as having temporary for specialized transportation are identified below. eligibility or conditional eligibility if the conventional ► Hours of service: Provide specialized transit service, at a service is accessible to the person and the person has the minimum, for the same service hours as conventional ability to use it. transit service. ► Visitors: Make specialized transportation services

► Reservations: Provide same day service for specialized available to visitors. transportation users to the extent possible.

► Fare parity: Fares for specialized transportation must be the same or lower than the highest fare charged for conventional transportation in the same jurisdiction.

► Medical aids: Allow a person with a disability to travel with a medical aid.

► Companions and children: Allow persons with disabilities to travel with companions and children.

2.2 Demographics, Land Use and Growth

Demographics, land use and growth are important determinants of transit demand. This section highlights population and employment data and projections from the TMP 2013 that are relevant to the transit feasibility study.

1 As an example, a municipality could provide accessible taxi service as an alternative accessible method of transportation. There are no fare parity requirements for alternative accessible methods of transportation.

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study 6 MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009

Population and Demographics

The Town of Innisfil has experienced notable population growth in the last ten years. Between 2001 and 2011, the population increased by 15%, from 28,670 to 33,080, or 1.4% per year based on Census data. The number of households has increased at a similar rate over the past ten years, from almost 12,000 to almost 14,000. Population density for the Town as a whole has increased from 101 persons/km 2 to 116 persons/km2. However, there is significant variation in population density in different parts of the Town.

According to 2001 to 2011 Census data, there is also a demographic shift toward an older population in Innisfil. The proportion of the population aged 45 or older has increased from 34% in 2001 to 45% in 2011. This shift has occurred alongside a decrease in the proportion of the population aged 24 to 44, from 33% in 2001 to 24% in 2011.

Land Use and Growth

The Provincial Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2006) allocates population and employment targets to upper-tier municipalities within the Greater Golden Horseshoe, including to Simcoe County. In addition to these allocations, the Growth Plan contains policies that direct growth to built-up areas, provide for a range of land uses and dwelling types, and promote multi-modal transportation options.

In 2012, the Province released Amendment 1 to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. The Amendment addressed the Simcoe Sub-area and identified Alcona as a “Primary Settlement Area”, where the majority of future growth is to be directed. The Amendment also identified Innisfil Heights as one of four Strategic Settlement Employment Areas within the County.

Under the Provincial Growth Plan and Simcoe County Official Plan, the Town of Innisfil’s population and employment is projected to double between 2006 and 2031. The 2031 population and employment allocations for the Town of Innisfil are 56,000 people and 13,100 jobs. The growth in population and employment has been allocated between the Town’s settlement areas by the Town’s Water and Wastewater Master Servicing Plan (2012). The Town’s current Official Plan extends to the year 2026, and the Town is currently updating its Official Plan to extend to the 2031 horizon year.

In addition to the 2031 population forecasts from Simcoe County’s Official Plan, the Town’s Transportation Master Plan identifies an additional 1,600 units proposed within the Friday Harbour Resort (Big Bay Point), half of which are already under construction. This all-season vacation home community for GTA residents will include a large inland marina, 18-hole golf course, and Marina Village and boardwalk with shops, services and restaurants. An additional 5,000 people are also expected as part of the Sleeping Lion development project within the Alcona South expansion area, bringing the total Innisfil population forecast to 65,000 by 2031. The Sleeping Lion project would see the construction of almost 1,000 single-detached homes, more than 220 town homes, approximately 570 apartment units and a large area zoned mixed-use community commercial adjacent to the rail line with up to 16,000 square meters of office space and retail.

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study 7 MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009

Based on this information, Table 2 (reproduced from the 2013 Transportation Master Plan) illustrates the Town’s projected population and employment. The majority of the growth is projected to occur in Alcona, with approximately 15,000 people being added. Significant growth is also projected to occur in Lefroy – Belle Ewart, Big Bay Point, Sandycove and Cookstown. The small, historic, partially serviced Village Settlements of Stroud, Churchill, Fennell’s Corners and Gilford are not projected to experience significant growth.

Table 2 Population and employment projections (reproduced from the Transportation Master Plan)

Population Employment Settlement Area % growth % growth 2006 2021 2031 2006 to 2006 2021 2031 2006 to 2031 2031

Big Bay Point 2,743 6,983 7,356 +168% 205 500 1,233 +501%

Sandycove 3,405 3,405 9,551 +180% 255 200 303 +19%

Leonard’s Beach 1,232 1,237 1,238 0% 0 0 0 n/a Alcona North Existing Settlement 6,935 11,925 11,925 +72% 900 937 974 +8% Alcona South Existing Settlement 6,935 11,925 11,925 +72% 730 742 755 +3%

Alcona South Expansion Area 0 5,000 5,000 n/a 0 0 0 n/a

Big Cedar Point 806 806 819 +2% 0 0 0 n/a

Lefroy – Belle Ewart 3,063 6,098 8,218 +168% 269 402 534 +99%

Gilford – Degrassi Pt 1,826 2,141 2,141 +17% 161 150 139 -14%

Fennel’s Corner 196 196 196 0% 0 0 0 n/a

Churchill 620 620 761 +23% 114 135 155 +36%

Stroud 2,239 2,494 2,494 +11% 413 461 509 +23%

Cookstown 1,431 3,477 3,477 +143% 264 487 709 +169%

Innisfil Heights 321 321 321 0% 2,388 4,388 5,388 +126%

Innisfil Heights Expansion Area 0 0 0 n/a 0 0 2,400 n/a

Total 31,752 56,628 65,422 +106% 5,699 8,402 13,099 +130%

2.3 Modes of Travel and Destinations

This section draws on data from the Transportation Tomorrow Survey conducted in 2011 to analyze Innisfil residents’ travel patterns and modes of travel, building on the analyses included in the TMP. The

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study 8 MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009

Transportation Tomorrow Survey is a household travel survey conducted by telephone in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area every five years in conjunction with the Census or National Household Survey. The analysis of existing travel patterns and modes of travel supports the assessment of transit need and the design of transit networks.

Modes of Travel and Automobile Dependency

The automobile is the dominant mode of transportation in Innisfil. Over 85% of trips made by Innisfil residents during the morning peak period are made by private vehicle, either as a driver or passenger. Walking and cycling account for 5% of trips and GO transit accounts for 1% of trips. An additional 9% are made by other modes, the majority of which are trips by school bus (Figure 3). In the mid-day, the proportion of automobile passenger trips is considerably higher than during the morning peak period, which may be linked to non-drivers completing errands and shopping, attending appointments, etc. The mode split has remained relatively constant since 2001.

Figure 3 AM and Mid-Day Mode Split (2011)

The TTS data indicates that non-drivers within the Town of Innisfil may struggle to make trips and access opportunities. Residents age 16 and over who have a driver’s license make 50% more trips per day than residents who don’t have a driver’s license (Figure 4). The reduced rate of trip-making for all purposes suggests potential mobility challenges among non-drivers.

Figure 4 Number of Trips per Day by Driver’s License Status (2011)

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study 9 MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009

Innisfil households owned an average of 2.0 vehicles in 2011, a slight increase over ownership rates in previous years (Figure 5). These vehicle ownership rates are comparable to those of other rural municipalities in the area, but are higher than those in Barrie and other more urban municipalities.

Figure 5 Vehicle Ownership Trend 1996-2011

Travel Patterns and Destinations

The destinations of trips made by Innisfil residents vary by time of day. Trips within Innisfil account for the highest proportion of trips during the mid-day period (9:00am to 4:00pm). Trips to or from Toronto and York Region are most prevalent during the morning peak period (6:00 to 9:00am) and evening peak period (4:00pm to 7:00pm). Trips to or from Barrie are relatively stable during all periods of the day, as a proportion of total trips (Figure 6).

Figure 6 Trips Made by Innisfil Residents to/from Innisfil: Origins/Destinations by Time of Day (2011)

Figure 7 illustrates the total trips made by Innisfil residents to these destinations at different times of the day. Absolute trip making rates within Innisfil are highest during the morning peak period, while trip making rates to and from Barrie are highest in the evening peak period.

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study 10 MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009

Figure 7 Trips Made by Innisfil Residents to/from Innisfil Per Hour by Time of Day (2011)

2.4 Transit and Transportation Services

Local and regional transit integration can create synergies that generate improved travel options and increase the efficiency and effectiveness of services. This section inventories existing transit and transportation services in the area for reference in transit feasibility assessment and network development. Routes, schedules, fares and delivery mechanisms will be developed to support partnerships and take advantage of existing local and regional capacity.

GO Transit Service

The Town of Innisfil is served by GO Bus Route 68 that runs between the Newmarket GO Terminal to the south and the Barrie Downtown Transit Terminal to the north. The GO Bus travels through the Town along Yonge Street (County Road 4), with stops at Victoria Street in Stroud, Innisfil Beach Road and Killarney Beach Road in Churchill. The stop at Innisfil Beach Road functions as a “flag” stop only on the side of the road. The Town of Innisfil asked GO Transit to stop at the Innisfil Recreational Complex but was not able to accommodate this request due to concerns about entering and exiting the complex.

From Monday to Friday, the GO Bus runs on a one-hour frequency, increasing to a 30-minute frequency in the peak direction and peak period. On Saturday and Sundays, GO Bus Route 68 operates less frequently and with shorter service hours. Table 3 presents the schedule for GO Bus 68.

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study 11 MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009

Table 3 GO Bus Route 68 Departures from Stroud (Yonge and Victoria) as of June 2015

Day Northbound Southbound

Monday to Friday 7:04, 8:04, 9:09, 10:14, 11:04, 12:04, 13:04, 5:01, 5:26, 5:54, 6:29, 6:59, 7:24, 8:14, 9:14, 14:04, 15:09, 16:22, 17:27, 17:58, 18:28, 18:53, 10:14, 11:14, 12:14, 13:14, 14:09, 15:09, 16:09, 19:23, 19:54, 20:29, 21:09, 22:09, 00:05 17:14, 18:14, 19:14, 20:16, 21:16 Saturday and Sunday 10:02, 12:02, 14:17, 16:12, 17:12, 18:12, 20:09, 7:16, 9:14, 11:09, 13:09, 15:09, 17:14, 18:14, 21:55, 23:50 19:14, 21:16

There is also a GO Train service between Barrie and Toronto that passes through the Town of Innisfil. However, there are no stops in the Town of Innisfil. The two closest stations for Innisfil residents traveling south to York Region and Toronto are Barrie South GO Station, just north of Mapleview Drive and Yonge Street, and the Bradford GO Station located in Downtown Bradford. There are currently five southbound GO trains that operate during the weekday morning peak period and seven northbound GO trains that operate during the evening peak period.

Metrolinx/GO Transit has considered building a new GO Train Station in Innisfil. In 2005, Metrolinx/GO Transit conducted an Environmental Assessment (EA) that identified a potential GO Station at Belle Aire Beach Road (5th line) east of 20th Sideroad. Since that time, the 2012 Ontario Growth Plan amendment for the Simcoe area designated Alcona as a Primary Settlement Area. Given the importance of connecting Primary Settlement Areas with public transit, the Innisfil TMP suggested an alternative location for a future GO Station closer to Alcona, at 6th Line. Metrolinx has not made any commitments to the timing or funding of the station, therefore there is an opportunity to update the 2005 EA to consider alternative locations closer to Alcona.

The existing GO Transit service may meet the needs of Innisfil commuters who work in York Region or Toronto. However, it does not connect major destinations and residential areas within Innisfil. The majority of Innisfil’s population resides along Lake Simcoe and therefore has no access to public transit at this time.

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study 12 MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009

Figure 8 GO Transit System Map

Barrie Transit

Barrie Transit provides transit service within the City of Barrie, and several routes operate in the southeast corner of the City adjacent to Innisfil:

► Routes 1, 2 and 8 serve Park Place and the Barrie Molson Centre.

► Routes 3, 4 and 8 connect to the Barrie South GO Station.

► Route 7 extends south of Mapleview to Commerce Park Drive, just west of the 400.

► Route 4 serves the southeast of Barrie, extending east along Mapleview and Big Bay Point Road past Yonge Street to Prince William Way.

Barrie Transit will also be considering opportunities to serve the intersection of Huronia Rd. and Lockhart Rd. as part of a fall route review, either by extending an existing route or by developing a new route in partnership with Innisfil.

The City of Barrie has recently signed a twenty year contract with a new operator, MVT Canadian Bus, to deliver transit within the City. The City of Barrie also operates transit service in the adjacent Township of

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study 13 MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009

Essa as part of the same contract with MVT. Route 90 connects Barrie’s Allandale Waterfront GO Station with Canadian Forces Base Borden in Angus, Township of Essa, and has shorter hours than other Barrie Transit routes. The City and MVT have also indicated an interest in delivering transit service for the Town of Innisfil under a similar arrangement.

Barrie Transit routes operate on a 30-minute frequency on weekdays until 7pm and on Saturday. Routes operate on a 60-minute frequency on weekdays after 7pm and on Sundays. Cash fares are $3.00 for adults, students and children over the age of 5. Cash fares for seniors are $2.60. Monthly passes and multi-ride cards allow riders to pay less per trip. The Barrie Transit System Map is included as Figure 9, and the intersection of Huronia and Lockhart is illustrated with a red star.

Figure 9 Barrie Transit System Map

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study 14 MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009

Simcoe County Transit Feasibility Study

The County of Simcoe is currently conducting a Transit Feasibility and Implementation Study that explores options to provide an inter-municipal transit service. Building on the County’s Transportation Master Plan, the study responds to the challenge of supporting transit initiatives in and between smaller urban communities and the larger centres, as well as understanding and addressing the needs of vast rural areas and spread out geographically. It will assess the feasibility of a broader county transit service that:

► serves local communities;

► connects urban centres; ► facilitates local, inter-municipal and inter‐regional commuter travel; and

► supports the broader economic, environmental and social objectives of development in Simcoe County.

The County has completed its first round of public meetings and is accepting comments through July on the materials presented. A second round of consultation is expected to take place in November 2015. At that time, preferred options for transit will be presented. No preferred options have been developed at this time. The initial stage of the project has been to collect public input on the need, type and destinations for transit. The potential for a County-level inter-municipal transit service has been considered as part of the transit network plan.

Other Transportation Services

Other transportation services that are relevant to the Town of Innisfil include the following:

► Red Cross Simcoe Muskoka Branch provides non-emergency transportation to local medical appointments and medical appointments located in Toronto hospitals. Services are provided by volunteer drivers with their own vehicles or by wheelchair accessible vans with paid drivers. The service is available for older adults and adults with disabilities (minimum age of 18 years). Fees depend on the distance traveled.

► Parkbridge, the organization that manages Sandycove Acres, currently contracts a vehicle to bring Sandycove residents to and from doctors’ appointments and/or to shopping in Barrie. The bus usually has approximately 15 riders per trip, and riders pay $7.50 round-trip. There are two bus trips per week, one on Wednesday and one on Friday. On Wednesday the destinations are: Georgian Downs (OLG), Mapleview Shopping area, and Parkplace Shopping Center. On Friday the destinations are: Bayfield, Kozlov and Georgian Malls, then on to the Royal Victoria Hospital, Barrie Bus Depot and The Atrium Medicial Clinic. On alternate weeks the destinations are: Innisfil No Frills, LCBO, and Innisfil Beach Road. On both Wednesdays and Fridays, the vehicles depart at 9:00 am and return at 1:30 pm, providing riders with two to three hours at their destinations. Sandycove has a series of bus shelters throughout the property that are used by the existing transit service.

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study 15 MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009

► Lakeside Retirement home has one small cut-a-away style bus that operates every 3 to 4 days on determined routes, servicing No Frills, Bank, Barrie Walmart and Georgian Downs. Trips are pre- booked and no fare is charged.

► Georgian Downs Shuttle Service is operated by Angel Coaches of Canada and provides shuttle service between Georgian Downs and pick-up/drop-off points in Barrie Collingwood, Wasaga Beach, Newmarket and Bradford. There are no official pick-up/drop-off points in Innisfil. No fare is charged for the shuttle service. The Georgian Downs Shuttle Service uses coach buses that do not comply with the requirements of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA).

► Friday Harbour Resort is advertising that it will provide shuttle service to and from Barrie GO Station so that owners can arrive by train if they prefer.

► Private taxi service is currently offered in Innisfil by Innisfil Taxi, Global Taxi, Barrie Taxi and Deluxe Taxi. Private taxi service provides an additional mobility choice for Innisfil residents. Barrie Taxi has a fleet of three wheelchair-accessible taxis to serve Innisfil residents with disabilities. Global Taxi also has wheelchair-accessible taxis as part of its fleet. According to the TMP, key trip purposes and destinations for taxi service include recreational trips to Georgian Downs, shopping trips to Tanger Outlets in Cookstown and No Frills grocery store in Alcona, and medical trips to hospitals and medical centres in Barrie.

► School bus service for the Simcoe County District School Board and Simcoe Muskoka Catholic District School Board is contracted by the Simcoe County Student Transportation Consortium (SCSTC). Contracted operators in the area include Sharp Bus Lines, First Student, Sinton-Landmark, Switzer-Carty Transportation and Parkview Transit Inc.

Why Transit in a Small Municipality such as Innisfil?

► Mobility for seniors, youth, people with disabilities and other non-drivers. Seniors, youth and other residents without regular access to a vehicle currently struggle to get around Innisfil. In the short- term, they are among those who would benefit most from transit.

► Affordability of transportation. Vehicle ownership and use is very expensive. Transit provides an affordable transportation option for residents who struggle with the costs of vehicle ownership and use. This includes young people with student debt who are just entering the job market.

► Support for physical activity and public health. Studies indicate that public transit users obtain significantly physical activity benefits solely from walking to and from transit. 2 Public transit also

2 Studies include: Besser, L.M. and A.L. Dannanberg (2005). Walking to Public Transit: Steps to Help Meet Physical Activity Recommendations. American Journal of Preventive Medecine, Vol. 29 (4): 273-280.

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study 16 MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009

supports the use of walking and cycling for transportation, increasing the number of destinations that can be accessed with active transportation.

► Increased use of other Town services. Transit can enhance the use of other Town services, by making it easier for residents to access facilities such as the Recreational Complex.

► Resident attraction and retention. Transit would make Innisfil a more appealing place to live for older adults who will eventually give up their drivers’ license, for parents who want their children to be able to travel independently, and for millennials and other people who simply prefer to walk, cycle and use transit.

► Business attraction and retention. For businesses, the availability of transit may make Innisfil more attractive, as employees of all ages, abilities and socio-economic backgrounds can easily travel to work.

Finally, transit advances Innisfil’s long-term vision as “the place to be” – a forward-thinking, inclusive and welcoming place where all people can live, work and play.

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study 17 MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009

3.0 WHAT WE HEARD FROM THE PUBLIC

3.1 The Consultation Approach

Public and stakeholder engagement is a core component of the Transit Feasibility Study. It is important to understand the wants and needs of Innisfil residents in order to establish transit recommendations and solutions that respond to the key concerns and interests. At the beginning of the assignment, the consultant team worked with Town staff to establish a consultation and engagement strategy with the core aim of “bringing the information to the people” and “strategically engaging core groups”.

In the months of May and June 2015, the consultant team worked collaboratively with Town staff to undertake in-person and online / telephone consultation and engagement activities including:

► Project initiation workshop with Town staff;

► Telephone survey of Innisfil residents;

► Online survey of Innisfil residents;

► Stakeholder workshops with Nantyr Shores Secondary School, Sandycove Acres and the Innisfil Accessibility Committee;

► Two public open houses;

► An information booth at the Family Fun Fair; and

► Conversations with Innisfil business representatives, Barrie Transit, the County of Simcoe, Tanger Outlet Mall, Georgian Downs and others.

A figure illustrating the consultation timeline for the Feasibility Study is presented below.

With a short project timeline, emphasis was placed on complementing the consultation and engagement strategy with an aggressive promotion and outreach program. The consultant team worked with Town staff and other stakeholders to promote the study and the opportunities for involvement through a number of different promotion and outreach mechanisms including:

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study 18 MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009

Updates on the project Updates on the A promotional flyer that Advertisements on the Local newspapers webpage including Town’s twitter page was distributed at the local Radio station about posted the open house posting of relevant including promotion of Town’s offices and at the study and public notice and also project information the public open key locations open houses provided coverage of houses throughout the Town relevant study issues

Using a variety of promotional tools helped generate interest and support for the study, and also helped to identify transit champions in the community including seniors and students.

The following sections provide an overview of the different staff, public and stakeholder consultation activities that were undertaken to inform the development of the Transit Feasibility Study. For each of the consultation and engagement initiatives undertaken, the approach, date, time and location, number of respondents and key themes are summarized below. The information presented at each of the sessions was consistent to ensure that the input received could be compared and contrasted. The input received was documented in various forms and key themes were used to shape the proposed vision, mission, goals and service plan presented in sections 3 through 7.

3.2 Telephone and Online Survey

Environics Research conducted a statistically valid automated telephone survey of 477 Innisfil residents on June 8, 2015. The margin of error for a sample of 477 is plus or minus 4.5 percentage points (at the 95% confidence level). The telephone survey questions were also posted on the Town website as an online survey between June 5 and June 24, 2015. The online survey received 138 responses and though it is not statistically valid, the responses received enhance the statistically valid responses generated through the telephone survey.

The survey focused on the public level of support for transit and willingness to pay for transit. It also explored residents’ priority destinations for transit and the types of service models that would work for them. Concluding questions gathered socio-demographic information for respondents. For the online survey, two additional open-ended questions were added to obtain residents’ comments on why they support (or oppose) transit and on what else the Town should consider as part of the study. The following is a summary of responses from both the telephone and online survey which have been compared to highlight common themes and responses.

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study 19 MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009

Telephone Survey

Overall, the survey revealed that there is strong support for transit among residents, and that the majority of residents are willing to pay additional property taxes for transit. Specific findings of the telephone survey are as follows:

► There is widespread support (77%) for the introduction of a public transit service in Innisfil (Figure 11). More than half of survey respondents indicate that they “strongly support” the introduction of public transit in Innisfil.

► More than six in ten residents believe that an extra $25 a year in property taxes is reasonable to pay for transit.

► Overall, there is a slight preference (expressed by 54% of residents) for costs to be covered by additional property taxes on households whose neighbourhoods are served by transit. However, the view that costs should be shared by all residents increases with support for public transit (Figure 12).

► Residents stated that they would be more likely to use a fixed schedule bus service than an on- demand transit service; 37% said that they would be very or somewhat likely to use an hourly weekday bus service, as compared to 21% who would be very or somewhat likely to use a service requiring advance reservation.

► Residents were also asked what destinations they would like to see connected to the “core” destinations of Alcona and the Innisfil Recreational Complex. Barrie Transit/the south end of Barrie was by far the most frequently selected destination for transit to serve. The Tanger Outlet Mall in Cookstown was selected second most frequently (Figure 13).

Figure 10 Telephone Survey Results – Support for Introduction of Public Transit in Innisfil

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study 20 MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009

Figure 11 Telephone Survey Results – Who Should Pay for Public Transit, By Support for Public Transit

Figure 12 Telephone Survey Results – Destination Preferences

Though there was significant overall support for the introduction of transit within Innsifil, responses to questions related to assessing the different transit alternatives yielded less supportive results. Only 37% of residents indicated their support for a service that runs every hour on weekdays and only 21% noted that they would be interested in a service that required advance reservation (Figure 14)

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study 21 MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009

Figure 13 Telephone Survey Results – Likelihood of Using Different Transit Service Models

Additional education on the different transit service alternatives was also provided through public open houses and stakeholder sessions (summaries of input provided below).

Online Survey

Several key online survey results mirror the telephone survey results. Like the telephone survey, the online survey revealed a high level of support for public transit (over 70% who strongly support or somewhat support). Similarly, almost six in ten residents expressed a willingness to pay additional property taxes for transit. Like in the telephone survey, the connection to Barrie Transit in the south end of Barrie was selected as the priority destination to connect to Alcona and the Innisfil Recreational Complex, with the Tanger Outlet Mall in Barrie selected as a second choice.

However, there are also several differences between the online and telephone survey results. These differences likely stem from the online survey selection bias; strong opponents of transit seem to have been more likely to respond to the survey than residents without strong opinions. Furthermore, potential transit users seem to have been more likely to respond to the survey than those who have are not likely to use transit. The key differences are as follows:

► Significantly more online survey respondents indicated that they strongly oppose transit (22%, as compared to 9% of telephone survey respondents). However, in both surveys, 56% of respondents said that they strongly support transit.

► In line with the responses from those who strongly oppose transit, more online survey respondents indicated that they do not want to pay additional property taxes for transit (42%, as compared to 36% of telephone survey respondents). However, more online survey respondents also expressed a willingness to pay $50 or $100 in additional property taxes (28%, as compared to 22% of telephone survey respondents).

► More online survey respondents indicated that they would be likely to use a Town transit service. For fixed schedule transit, 51% of online respondents stated that they would be very likely or somewhat likely to use transit, as compared to 37% of telephone survey respondents. For on-demand transit requiring an advance reservation, 36% of online respondents stated that they would be very likely or somewhat likely to use transit, as compared to 21% of telephone survey respondents.

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study 22 MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009

The two open ended questions posted to only survey respondents generated a number of different results. Though the questions were optional, approximately 126 respondents provided additional details on why they support or oppose transit and around 90 respondents provided additional thoughts / comments that they would like considered as part of the feasibility study. Upon review of the responses, many of the key themes mirror sentiments expressed by the open house attendees. Unlike the set questions and responses of the telephone survey, the open ended questions of the online survey mimic the style of engagement used at the open houses – open platform for discussion. As such, many people felt comfortable providing their true opinions through both of these activities. The following table provides a summary of some of the most common responses in support of and in opposition of transit.

Table 4 Themes of Responses to Open-Ended Online Survey Questions

Reasons for Support Reasons for Opposition

Geography. The community is growing and needs to Geography. The Town is still significantly rural with people accommodate the growth with different transportation who leave the Town to work in cities that are too far to access alternatives. Connections are needed to surrounding areas via transit. People are not looking for “big city” transit and don’t including Barrie, Bradford and even as far as Newmarket and want the Town to expand to the size of Barrie or other Toronto. surrounding cities.

Demographics. There is a growing seniors population that Cost. Taxes already go up every year, additional costs are not require accessible transportation alternatives if they cannot needed. Affordable options should be the priority when drive. Students should also be considered as well as considering service options underprivileged populations. If the Town is looking to retain Underutilization. The perception is that a transit system would their residents they need to provide the transportation and be underutilized. With a population that relies on their personal employment opportunities. vehicles investing large amount of money into a system that will Community Benefits. By investing in Transit the Town and its not be used by residents would be considered a waste of various communities can decrease environmental impacts and money. can also help to draw other tourism and economic growth. Disconnection. Other than being geographically spread out Access to Community Destinations. Providing alternative there are also issues of disconnect between the communities transportation options will allow people to access the key following amalgamation. A system should be equitable to the destinations in the community e.g. shopping. different communities within Innisfil.

More options. There are limited transportation options in Innisfil. Transit would allow people to be less reliant on others (e.g. parents) and could access key destinations

In addition to the reasons for support and opposition, the following are some of the key areas of consideration that were highlighted in survey responses that should be considered when designing and implementing a transit system:

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study 23 MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009

► The Town should consider starting with an accessible service and then expanding to more wide spread service throughout the Town.

► The Town should consider other funding alternatives from the Province.

► Transit could be considered an attractive aspect for the Town for more tourists during the summer months.

► Consideration needs to be given for transit amenities such as bus stops.

The telephone and online survey questionnaire and responses are included as Appendix A.

3.3 Public Open Houses

Two public open houses were held in addition to the stakeholder workshops. The sessions were used to provide residents with an opportunity to review study materials, discuss with the study team and provide their input to inform the recommendations and proposed solutions identified. The sessions were held between 5:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. on Tuesday June 16, 2015 and Thursday June 18, 2015 and were located at key destinations throughout the community.

The study team used this approach to try and maximize the number of attendees at locations where they may be attending for other events. On Tuesday the study team held the open house at the public library on Innisfil Beach Road. Between 30 and 40 people were in attendance. On Thursday the session was held at the Innisfil Recreational Complex. As the information was displayed in the front entrance of the complex, tracking attendees proved to be more difficult. Over 25 people were engaged through this session.

The same materials were used to engage the public as were used to engage the stakeholder groups. There were a total of four interactive display boards which included mapping, ranking and open ended questions. The questions posed through the interactive displays were also used as the questions on the comment form for consistency. The following are graphics of the input that was provided using the interactive display boards.

One of the first interactive display boards asked attendees their initial thoughts and interpretations when they heard the word “Transit”. The following graphic is a wordle representing the most frequently provided. Many of the words identified as consistent with the key themes that have been identified through this summary.

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study 24 MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009

The mapping display boards provided a significant amount of information on the key destinations and origins throughout the Town. As part of our analysis, the study team prepared a representative graphic of the key origins and destinations throughout the Town based on the number of responses that were provided. The destinations were used to identify some of the stops along proposed routes and can also be used to inform future expansions to the network, should the Town wish to do so. The destinations were relatively consistent between the stakeholder workshops and public open houses with some variation based on the meeting locations e.g. many of the destinations identified by Sandycove residents were within southern Barrie and related to medical or day to day appointments.

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study 25 MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study 26 MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009

3.4 Stakeholder and Staff Workshops

Sandycove Acres

On June 9, 2015 the study team attended a meeting with the residents of Sandycove Acres. The meeting provided residents with an opportunity to learn about the intents and purposes of the assignment, review and understand the transit alternatives being considered and engage in discussions with the study team. Attendees were invited to participate in small group discussions and to document their input on comment forms and interactive display materials.

The workshop session was coordinated by the consultant in collaboration with local residents. Using the “home owners association” mailing list, the study team was able to distribute invitations to over 400 residents. In total over 30 residents attended the session between 1:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m.

Representatives from the community undertook their own survey which was conducted by the Home Owners Association. The survey results were provided to MMM Group and were reviewed and considered when undertaking the feasibility study. A key highlight from the survey was that:

“Our takeaway from this input…is that our residents are not so much concerned with provision of public transit in the Town as they are in ensuring the continuance of our local service…”

The findings of the internal survey were consistent with the responses and input gathered during the workshop session. Though some concerns were expressed, many attendees were interested in providing their input to ensure that their opinions were heard. The majority of the residents were interested in a fixed service with some deviations on a request by request basis.

The comments that were received ranged from strongly supportive to strongly opposing. Many of the opposing comments stemmed from a lack of information / understanding about the intents and purposes of the assignment and the different transit alternatives being considered. Many residents were of the opinion that a route had been confirmed and that they had no opportunity to provide input. Through one-on-one discussion with the study team many of the attendees were able to voice their interests and concerns which resulted in a better understanding of the project and next steps. Highlights from these discussions are illustrated in the table below.

Table 5 Sandycove Acres Residents’ Concerns and Interests

Concerns Interests

► Cost. Residents were concerned that taxes would be ► Improvements. Though Sandycove Acres currently has a increased and with some financial restrictions the impact shuttle, there are improvements that can be made to the would be significant. service frequency, timing and destinations to make it more ► Cancelled Service. Existing shuttle service provides rides useable. to and from key destinations two days a week. There is ► Accessible Service. Service should take into account and concern that the shuttle will be cancelled. should be designed with accessibility in mind. The design ► Minimal Access. A Town-wide service that aims to of the buses, stops and the service in general should

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study 27 MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009

Concerns Interests connect all key destinations was perceived to require consider a range of mobility needs. local residents to walk to a stop on the main road, which ► Better Access. There are destinations within the Town and is either impossible due to mobility issues or inconvenient in bordering areas that require better access e.g. the with shopping bags and other supplies. hospital, medical clinics, banks, etc. Coordinated access to these locations is needed. ► Personal Freedom. Many individuals still drive but understand that this may not be the case forever. When they are no longer able to drive transit service will be the means of achieving personal freedom and mobility. ► Transportation Alternatives. Similar to personal freedom, people are looking for more choices for transportation. If they are not able to use their car, other options should be available.

Individuals also keenly provided input on the primary origins and destinations that they would like to access using transit throughout Innisfil. Some of the primary destinations include:

► Park Place

► Bayfield Mall

► Kozlov Centre

► Walmart, Loblaws, No Frills & Sobeys

► Georgian Mall

► Big Bay Point

The maps to the right illustrates the origin (red) and destinations (green) identified by Sandycove Acres residents.

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study 28 MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009

Accessibility Advisory Committee

The accessibility advisory committee meeting was held on June 18, 2015 between 1:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m. It was held at the Town’s municipal offices and was coordinated through the Town’s committee staff representative. A total of four individuals were present at the meeting. Each of the individuals engaged with members of the team through a roundtable discussion and facilitated Q&A session.

The meeting started with a presentation to the committee which was followed by discussions related to two key questions; what transit means to each individual and the key origins and destinations throughout the Town. With such a focused group session, the team was able to engage on other key issues such as accessibility design considerations, transit service preferences and implementation priorities.

Key highlights from the group discussion include:

► Customer Service. The service provided by the transit providers and the bus drivers is an important consideration for people with mobility limitations. How the providers interact with users may need to be something that is mandated and enforced by the Town.

► Cost Effectiveness. The current cost to get to and from key locations for those with accessibility needs can be very high. Providing alternatives that are affordable, without compromising the level of service provided should be a key consideration.

► Accessible Amenities. The service is not just about the buses. Amenities including stops, ramps, storage for groceries, location for wheelchairs, etc. should be clearly defined and easily accessed by those who need it as well as those helping them.

► Flexible. Service is sometimes needed in short notice e.g. medical appointments. The service should be available with at least 24 hours’ notice and should accommodate door to door requests as well as supportive customer service (see above).

All of the attendees agreed that the Town should take advantage of “low hanging fruit” and should work towards implementing simple but cost effective solutions quickly with emphasis on providing accessible options as a first priority.

Nantyr Shores Secondary School Presentation & Engagement Session

MMM Group held a session with the grade 11 Leadership Class at Nantyr Shores Secondary School on May 26, 2015 to explore the need for transit, the destinations that should be served and the potential service models and network concepts. There were 15 students engaged through the workshop session.

The workshop session was broken into two parts. The first was a discussion around the overall need for transit, key destinations and points of interest and their current modes of transportation. The second part of the session focused on providing the students with information on the different types of transit being considered as part of this assignment – fixed and on-demand service. As part of the second session the students engaged in a group activity which asked them to map out their own transit routes for day to day activities throughout Innisfil.

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study 29 MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009

Key highlights from the first and second parts of the session are documented in the table below.

Table 6 Themes from the Workshop with Students of Nantyr Shores Secondary School

Part 1: Part 2:

Transit Justification & Current Mode Choice Transit Network Identification

Need for transit. Students strongly expressed the need for Key destinations. All four of the groups identified Alcona, the transit in Innisfil and the desire to be able to access Innisfil Recreational Complex, Sandycove Acres, Stroud, Lefroy destinations more easily. Students living outside of Alcona and Cookstown/Tanger Outlet Mall as key destinations. Three were particularly likely to describe a feeling of isolation; one of the four groups also connected their transit network to the student described “being on an island”, unable to access Town south end of Barrie, either the Barrie South GO Station or Park amenities. Students also raised the affordability of transit Place and the Barrie Molson Centre. Two of the four groups service as an issue; some identified $3.00 as an appropriate extended their network to the north of Big Bay Point Road. fare round-trip, others thought that $3.00 one-way would be Priority connections. All of the groups also identified Innisfil appropriate. Beach Road between Alcona and the Innisfil Recreation Current modes of transportation. Students in the Complex as the hub or top priority for the transit system. One Leadership Class currently get to school and around Innisfil by group identified the connection to Barrie as the second priority; school bus, being driven by family members, walking, running, another group identified the connection to Cookstown as the longboarding and occasionally cycling. One student also second priority. mentioned paying friends for a ride to a job in Barrie. Transit service models. All of the groups used fixed schedule Locations that they have trouble accessing. Students transit services to serve Alcona, the Innisfil Recreational identified a number of destinations that they would like to be Complex, Stroud and other core destinations. One of the able to access but that they currently have trouble getting to. groups included route deviations, while the other groups used These destinations include the Innisfil Recreational Centre, fixed routes. Two of the four groups also used “on-demand” Town Library, Lefroy Library and Community Centre, jobs in transit services to serve lower density locations (e.g. areas Barrie and at Tanger Outlet Mall, and friends’ houses. around Cookstown, Gilford, Big Bay Point Road, and the land Students also mentioned the challenge of walking or cycling to uses at Innisfil Beach Road and the 400). The other two groups the Innisfil Recreational Centre because of the lack of used fixed schedule transit to serve all locations. In subsequent sidewalks or bike lanes. discussions of the various transit service models, students indicated that the value of on-demand transit service would Other transit users. Students indicated that their parents and depend on how far in advance trips would need to be reserved. other family members would also want to use a Town transit They indicated that they could reserve trips two hours in service. They also identified elderly people as an important advance, but that booking further in advance would be a user group that otherwise struggles to access destinations. challenge for many types of trips.

Prior to the session with MMM, the Leadership Class had prepared a petition to Town Council requesting public transit in Innisfil. The class had collected 356 signatures from fellow students at Nantyr Shores Secondary School who supported the introduction of a transit service. This further demonstrates the importance of transit to high school students in Innisfil.

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study 30 MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009

Workshop with Town Staff

MMM Group conducted a project initiation workshop with Town staff from Engineering, Planning, Communications and Library on May 25, 2015. Eight staff members were in attendance at the workshop session. The workshop explored the goals and objectives for transit, transit service models, network concepts, routes, destinations and implementation-related considerations. Key themes which emerged from the staff workshop included the following:

► Key destinations. The two groups of staff both identified the following key destinations in mapping out their ideal transit network: Alcona, the Innisfil Recreation Complex, Sandycove Acres, Lefroy, Cookstown, the land uses at Innisfil Beach Road and the 400, and the south end of Barrie.

► Transit service models. One group used a fixed schedule, fixed route service to connect Alcona, the south end of Barrie, the Innisfil Recreational Complex and the land uses at Innisfil Beach Road and the 400. They used on-demand service to serve Cookstown, Gilford Beach, Sandycove Acres and Lefroy. The other group used a fixed schedule, fixed route service to connect Alcona, the Innisfil Recreational Complex and Sandycove Acres to the GO Bus route along Yonge Street. A separate fixed route connected the Tanger Outlet Mall to Fennell and the Yonge Street GO Bus. They used on- demand service to connect Lefroy, Cookstown, Gilford Beach and Innisfil Beach Road at the 400.

► Priority connections. When asked to identify the priority transit connections given budgetary constraints, both groups maintained a fixed schedule, fixed route transit service connecting Alcona and the Innisfil Recreational Complex. One group maintained a fixed route connection to Sandycove. The other group maintained a fixed route connection between Fennel’s Corner and Cookstown, and maintained on-demand transit service in Lefroy-Belle Ewart and Gilford.

They were also asked to undertake a visioning exercise which asked attendees to provide their input / thoughts on an overall vision for transit and a mission statement supporting future transit investment. The following table documents the input received related to these two project outcomes.

Table 7 Staff Feedback on Elements of a Vision and Mission for Transit in Innisfil Vision Statement Mission Statement

► Access to key destinations: Barrie, Bradford, the Innisfil Recreational ► Connecting people and places Complex/YMCA ► Customer focused service ► Access to employment, educational opportunities and social services ► Affordability for users and for the Town ► Cohesiveness and reduced isolation between Innisfil’s communities ► Connections to neighbouring communities, to trails and recreational Though not an element of the mission opportunities, to other transit network (e.g. GO Transit, Barrie Transit, any statement, it was acknowledged that future Simcoe County transit system) partnerships will be an important component of ► Transportation options that provide opportunities for healthier lifestyles facilitating the implementation of the mission including increasing walking, combining cycling and transit trips statement. ► A system and service that meets the current and future needs of youth and the aging population and retirement community ► Affordable transportation options – alternatives to taxis.

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study 31 MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009

3.5 Additional Consultation

In addition to the formal public and stakeholder consultation, the Town undertook additional consultation activities where they engaged with members of the public as well as select stakeholder groups, including:

► A booth at the Family Fun Fair;

► A session with the Lakeside Retirement Home;

► A session with the Stroud Seniors Group;

► Telephone conversations with the Tanger Outlet Mall management staff and Georgian Downs management staff.

The following is a summary of the activities and key themes and considerations that were highlighted.

Lakeside Retirement Home

Approximately 20 people attended this session on Monday June 29, from 2:00 to 3:00pm. Residents reported transportation challenges and provided the following comments:

► Some residents use Red Cross accessible service which has to be pre-booked 7 days in advance. Most cannot afford a car or not able to drive. Taxi service is expensive for residents (e.g. $12 for a short round trip to Shoppers Drug Mart in Innisfil and well over $25 one way to Barrie). There are no medical specialists in Innisfil so residents must travel to Barrie for appointments.

► Residents would like public transit service to Georgian Downs (at least 3 times a month), to the Innisfil Recreational Complex, to the Legion at Belle Ewart and along Innisfil Beach Road.

► The chair of the residents’ committee felt that transit is long overdue, and that hourly or 30 minute service should be a priority on Innisfil Beach Road, with a loop into Sandy Cove Acres.

► Accessibility in winter is a problem, snow clearing can be improved at intersections and would be required at bus stops.

► All should pay for transit in Innisfil, $3.00 fare would be reasonable.

► Residents suggested that the Lakeside-owned bus could be utilized more, possibly the Town should operate it. They also suggested that the Georgian Down shuttle buses could service Lakeside and Sandy Cove.

Stroud Seniors Group, Stroud Arena

Approximately 100 seniors attended a short 15-minute presentation that occurred during their regular monthly meeting on Tuesday June 30 at 1:00pm. Feedback included the following:

► Some want to travel between Barrie, Stroud and Innisfil, and there are currently no reasonable options, there is no accessible transit in Innisfil. Transit service needs to go across municipal boundaries, especially to Barrie and the Royal Victoria Hospital.

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study 32 MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009

► Transit fares should include senior discounts.

Tanger Outlet Mall

In a telephone conversation with MMM, Tanger Outlet Mall management staff identified a clear need for transit to help employees and customers access the mall. According to the Marketing Manager, many young employees from Alcona, Stroud, Barrie, Alliston and other areas would like to work at Tanger but have no way of getting to and from the mall. It is an issue that is raised very frequently by employees and by store managers. Tanger also receives emails from customers asking about transit services to reach the mall, though these are less frequent than the requests from employees and potential employees.

Georgian Downs

In a telephone conversation with MMM, Georgian Downs management staff identified a need for transit to help employees and customers access the racetrack and slot machines. Many of the facility’s younger employees live in Innisfil and struggle to get to work. The Georgian Downs Shuttle Service operated by Angel Coaches of Canada is for customers only. From a business perspective, management staff indicated that a transit service would also be beneficial to help customers access the facility.

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study 33 MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009

4.0 VISION, MISSION AND GOALS FOR TRANSIT IN INNISFIL

4.1 Vision and Mission for Transit

This section discusses the elements of a vision and mission statement for transit in Innisfil and proposes a draft vision statement and mission statement for the Town’s consideration. By developing a vision and mission statement as part of the transit feasibility study, the Town will be able to evaluate the extent to which different transit service and delivery options align with their mission and vision.

What is the Difference Between a Vision and Mission Statement?

A vision statement expresses the desired future state or mental picture of “what will be different”. Visions are intended to clarify the pathway forward. When effective, the vision statement has an illuminating quality that allows organizations to move fast and with great precision. A vision statement should not describe what an organization does. It should describe the resultant experience or outcome after the work is done. It can also describe the unique twist that the organization brings to the above outcome. Examples of vision statements from other leading transit agencies are as follows:

► “A transit system that makes Toronto proud”. (Toronto Transit Commission)

► “A better place to live built on transportation excellence”. (TransLink)

► “A fully integrated, progressive, easy-to-use public transit system that supports economic development and improves the quality of life in Edmonton”. (Edmonton Transit System)

A mission statement identifies the core purpose of an organization. Unlike a vision statement, it describes what an organization does and how it does its work. Examples of mission statements from other leading transit agencies are as follows:

► “Reliable, efficient and integrated network. To provide a reliable, efficient and integrated bus, streetcar and subway network that draws its high standards of customer care from our rich traditions of safety, service and courtesy.” (Toronto Transit Commission)

► “Together, we connect the region and enhance its liveability by providing a sustainable transportation network, embraced by our communities and our people.” (TransLink)

► “Customer-focused, safe, reliable and affordable public transit services that link people and places” (Edmonton Transit System)

► “Our team is committed to providing safe, accessible, convenient and environmentally responsible transit services in a friendly and courteous manner.” (Burlington Transit)

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study 34 MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009

Proposed Vision and Mission for Transit in Innisfil

Based on the definitions presented above and the results of consultation with staff, stakeholders and members of the general public, we have identified themes that are relevant to the vision versus those that are most relevant to the mission. These are presented in Table 8.

Table 8 Vision and Mission Statement Themes

Vision (“Outcomes”) Mission (“What” / “How”)

► Transit provides access to opportunities for people of ► A transit service that connects people and places all ages and abilities ► A transit service that is customer-focused and convenient to ► Transit supports growth, development, Alcona as a use vibrant urban core, and the Town’s vision of Innisfil as ► A transit service that is affordable for users and for the Town “The place to be by 2020” ► A transit service that is accessible ► Transit contributes to healthy lifestyles, community ► A transit service that is “made in Innisfil”, customized to the cohesiveness and a high quality of life Innisfil context and that evolves as Innisfil grows and changes

Based on these themes, we have developed a proposed vision and mission statement for consideration by the Town (Table 9).

Table 9 Proposed Vision and Mission Statements

Vision Mission

Transit supports the long-term vision of Innisfil as “the place to be”. To deliver an affordable, accessible, customer- Thanks to transit, Innisfil residents of all ages and abilities can focused Innisfil transit service that connects access opportunities and achieve a high quality of life. people and places.

4.2 Goals for Transit

To maximize the benefits of transit in Innisfil and fulfil the vision and mission, the transit service will be designed with the following goals and principles in mind:

► Clear target audience: The primary target audience for Innisfil’s transit service includes seniors, youth, people with disabilities, and residents without regular access to a vehicle. The service hours will therefore focus on schedules for shopping, errands, recreation and other “discretionary” trips. (A commuter-focused service is not recommended at this time given the large numbers of trips outside of Innisfil and the prevalence of travel by private vehicle.) Based on experiences in other municipalities, transit systems are most likely to be cost-effective when they are clear about their target audience.

► Convenience and customer focus: Regardless of service type, service levels or service hours, the transit service should have a strong customer focus. It should be easy to use; clean, safe and enjoyable; and customer service should ensure that riders feel respected and valued. The route and schedule should be designed for efficient and convenient travel.

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study 35 MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009

► Accessibility: This is a key consideration for those who experience mobility challenges as well as for the growing seniors’ population. The transit service will be designed to meet and/or exceed AODA requirements and will include supportive infrastructure e.g. customer service.

► Affordability: The service should be affordable for the Town and taxpayers and should leverage partnerships where possible to improve the value of the service. This means that service levels and operating expenses should be comparable or below those in other peer municipalities. All opportunities to build partnerships, reduce costs and explore creative revenue sources should be considered, while maintaining a customer focus and high standard of service.

► Fairness and efficiency: The costs and benefits of transit should be fairly distributed between the Town’s communities and between riders and taxpayers. This may mean that households only pay for transit if they are within the transit service area; this model is used in many Ontario municipalities including Milton, Belleville, Greater Napanee and Loyalist Township.

► “Made in Innisfil” approach: Innisfil has a small urban core and a large rural area. Different alternatives should be considered that reflect the unique aspects of the built up areas of Innisfil versus the rural areas. Phased implementation will also be considered to focus transit first in the areas that are most transit-supportive and where highest ridership is anticipated.

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study 36 MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009

5.0 TRANSIT SERVICE MODELS, PEER REVIEW AND MARKET ASSESSMENT

MMM Group conducted a review of transit systems in peer municipalities for two purposes. First, a quantitative peer review of key performance indicators informs the ridership estimates, recommended service levels and cost estimates. Second, a qualitative review of transit service models, including telephone interviews with three peer municipalities, provides Innisfil with an understanding of other models of transit services that are used in different jurisdictions. The results of the peer review are presented on the pages that follow..

5.1 Overview of Transit Service Models

The majority of transit systems use a fixed route, fixed schedule service model. However, this is not the only service model used by Canadian municipalities. In municipalities with lower population densities, flexible transit service models can provide cost-effective alternatives to fixed route, fixed schedule transit. Flexible service models can also supplement fixed route, fixed schedule transit service in select areas.

Transit service models can be divided into two categories: fixed schedule and on-demand. These categories and the variations within each category are discussed below. All of the transit service models discussed in this section can be offered by a range of vehicle sizes and types. Recommendations regarding vehicle size and specifications will be developed as part of the next phase of the project.

Fixed Schedule Transit Service Models

Fixed schedule transit services depart from a set start/end point at designated times, regardless of whether passengers are on board. A scheduled number of service hours is provided each day and each week. Fixed schedule transit services can feature routes that are 100% fixed, or routes that deviate based on passenger requests. This variation is illustrated schematically in Figure 15.

Figure 14 Variations on Fixed Schedule Transit Service

Fixed Schedule, Fixed Route

This is the service model that most people are familiar with. A transit vehicle leaves from a designated location on a fixed schedule (e.g. each hour) and follows a specific route, picking up and dropping off passengers along the way.

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study 37 MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009

Fixed route, fixed schedule service works well in higher density areas with a variety of trip origins and destinations concentrated along major corridors. Service is generally provided along major roadways where destinations are located. Passengers do not need to plan ahead. They can board spontaneously along the route at the scheduled time. Service levels, ridership levels and costs for fixed schedule, fixed route transit in other Ontario municipalities are presented in section 5.2.

Fixed Schedule, Route Deviations

With this variation on fixed route transit, transit vehicles still leave from key stops on a fixed schedule. However, the vehicle can deviate from its normal route to pick up or drop off passengers on demand at designated off-route locations. Passengers that board at scheduled stops do not need to make a reservation; they can request their drop-off point at the time of boarding. Only passengers wishing to board at request stops along the route deviation need to call in advance to make a reservation.

Fixed schedule service with route deviations can increase transit’s coverage, without requiring additional vehicles. Route deviations are particularly relevant to provide service to households in low-density areas that are located more than 800m from major roadways. An example of fixed schedule transit with route deviations provided by Winnipeg Transit is included in Table 10.

Table 10 Example of Fixed Schedule Transit with Route Deviations

Fixed Schedule Transit with Route Deviations: Winnipeg DART

Winnipeg’s DART service provides request bus service to residents living in selected areas of South and South East Winnipeg. The three DART routes operate during off-peak hours only, and generally connect to a fixed route transit stop. DART buses leave the transit terminal on a fixed schedule, and serve one or more additional fixed stops before entering the areas with route deviations. Within the route deviation areas, bus drivers plan their route according to the pick-up and drop-off requests that have been received.

Passengers wishing to make reservations call vehicle operators directly to book their pickup time and location. Passengers are picked up at their home, but are dropped off at designated stops along the route. DART routes average between 7 and 20 boardings per service hour.

On-Demand Transit Service Models

With on-demand transit service models, passengers make reservations in advance of their trips. Transit vehicles optimize their routes to pick up and drop off passengers at/near their origins and destinations.

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study 38 MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009

Transit vehicles only enter into service if a reservation has been made. On-demand (also called “dial-a- ride”) transit service is most commonly used for specialized transit. However, it is also used by several Ontario and Quebec municipalities for conventional transit.

On-demand transit service can work well as an alternative to fixed schedule transit in low-density areas where demand for transit is lower and destinations are more dispersed. It can also be used to connect passengers in lower density areas to fixed schedule transit “hubs”. On-demand transit systems may become increasingly common as technology evolves to support optimized routing and scheduling in real- time. Variations to on-demand transit service include the following:

► Vehicles can pick up and drop off passengers at designated stops;

► Vehicles can provide door-to-door service; and

► Vehicles can travel to and from a fixed start/end point only (e.g. a GO station or transit hub).

These three variations are illustrated schematically in Figure 16.

Figure 15 Variations on On-Demand Transit Service

Fixed Start/End Point

On-demand service is most frequently offered to/from a fixed start/end point (fixed route transit hub or GO Station). This limitation on trip origins/destinations makes it more likely that multiple passengers can share a single vehicle. Examples of on-demand service to a fixed start/end point offered by Milton Transit and Bradford West Gwillimbury are included in Table 11.

Designated Stops across the Municipality

In Quebec, municipalities including Alma and Rimouski offer on-demand service between designated stops across the municipality. Some larger municipalities also create geographic “zones” for on-demand transit. Riders can travel within a zone for a lower fare, or they can travel between zones for a higher fare. Table 11 also describes the Rimouski Taxi-Bus Service with designated stops in zones across the municipality.

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study 39 MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009

Table 11 Examples of On-Demand Transit

Town of Milton, ON Milton Transit uses both fixed route and on-demand transit service to meet community needs. Milton Transit is currently offering two different on-demand services, both of which connect riders to a fixed start/end point: Trans-Cab and GO Connect. Trans-Cab provides on-demand service for passengers in areas of reduced travel demand. It provides connections to and from Milton Transit’s fixed routes at a single designated transfer point. Milton Transit previously had a fixed route service in this area, and changed it to an on-demand service in 2011. They received mixed feedback from riders; some people did not like having to book their trip and then wait for the fixed route transit at the transfer point. However, overall, riders understood and appreciated the reason for the change. Ridership has grown steadily since the service’s implementation and is now just under 500 boardings per month. Rides are shared whenever possible, and Milton Transit guarantees service within one hour of reservation. Riders pay a $0.50 premium to use Trans-Cab. The service is sub-contracted to a local taxi company by Pacific Western, Milton Transit’s transit contractor. Milton Transit has also partnered with Metrolinx to launch GO Connect, a pilot project focused on GO commuters. Customers can book a trip to or from the GO station though a mobile app or website. Shared- ride taxis and shuttle buses are dispatched and routed dynamically to meet demand. Small fare reductions are offered to customers that are willing to change their travel time to reduce the number of vehicle trips required. The one-year pilot launched in April 2015 and ridership was approximately 50 trips per day as of June 2015. The service is only offered in the morning and evening peak periods, when GO trains operate. The service can accommodate up to 200 trips per day. Bradford West Gwillimbury, Taxi-to-GO Bradford West Gwillimbury established a municipal transit service for the first time in the spring of 2014. The transit service includes two fixed routes and an on-demand service to connect riders to the Bradford GO Station during peak hours. The on-demand service is called Taxi-to-GO and is operated by a local taxi company, Town Taxi, under contract to the municipality. Taxi-to-GO ridership has increased from 342 boardings per month in June 2014 to almost 600 boardings per month in April 2015. Town Taxi is required to fill one taxi before dispatching a second taxi; this is particularly feasible given the relatively small geographic area. Thus far, a second vehicle has rarely been needed. Bradford West Gwillimbury also offered the Taxi-to-Bond Head on-demand transit service for a three- month pilot period. This on-demand, shared-ride taxi service connected a fixed start/end point (the SmartCentres in Bradford) to two designated stops in the community of Bond Head. No riders used the service during the pilot, so the service was suspended after three months. Ville de Rimouski, QC, Taxi-bus and Taxi-bus-plus Société des transports de Rimouski uses both a taxi-bus and fixed-route bus system. The taxi-bus system was implemented in 1993 to replace expensive fixed-route service in low-demand areas. Rimouski has two types of taxi-buses. The standard taxi-bus travels between designated stops within zones, and allow users to transfer to fixed route transit services that connect different zones. Taxi-bus- plus, in contrast, allows passengers to travel across zones without having to transfer. Regular fares range from $3.60 for standard taxi-bus to $5.25 for taxi-bus-plus. Taxi-bus service is provided by a cooperative of all local taxi drivers and managed by a non-profit organization established by the City of Rimouski. Users must be registered with the City and must phone to make a reservation at least 1 hour prior to their trip. Pickups and drop-offs occur at designated stops.

Door-to-Door (Specialized) Transit Service

Door-to-door transit service is generally only offered as specialized transit, for riders with disabilities that prevent them from using conventional transit. Under the requirements of the AODA Act (2005) and section

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study 40 MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009

34(1) of the Integrated Accessibility Standard Regulation, transit service providers must either provide: door-to-door specialized transit service within the conventional transit service area; or an alternative accessible method of transportation if the conventional service cannot be used by a person with a disability because of his/her disability and if there is no specialized transportation service in the area.

The most common model for specialized transit service is to establish a separate transit service with dedicated vehicles that only provide door-to-door service. Ridership levels and costs for dedicated, specialized transit services in other Ontario municipalities are compared in section 5.3.

Innisfil also has the option of accommodating people with disabilities on its conventional transit service, with accessible vehicles making route deviations to pick up and drop off eligible riders who have made advance reservations within the service area. This is further discussed in section 5.4 and in section 6. Table 12 describes a dedicated specialized transit service in Collingwood as well as a community bus route in Prince George that uses route deviation to provide door-to-door accessible transit service. Finally, Innisfil has the option of connecting people with disabilities with accessible taxi service as an alternative accessible method of transportation.

Table 12 Accessible Transit Service Models

Dedicated Accessible, Door-to-Door Transit: Collingwood, Ontario

The Town of Collingwood, ON has contracted specialized transit service to the Red Cross. Specialized, door-to-door transit service is available to Collingwood residents with disabilities who are unable to use conventional transit. The Town owns the specialized vehicles (one converted minivan and one cutaway bus) and pays the Red Cross an annual fixed amount for operations and vehicle maintenance. The Town is responsible for establishing the eligibility criteria while the Red Cross manages the application process. The specialized transit service operates Monday to Friday from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Fares within Collingwood are $3.50 for a one way trip and $4.00 roundtrip or may vary. Riders are asked to try and book three days in advance, however emergency bookings can be made. Limitations to the service include the Red Cross’ inability to accommodate passengers under the age of 18.

Accessible, Door-to-Door Transit Provided by Route Deviations: Prince George Route 91

In Prince George, BC, the Carefree Society provides dedicated specialized transit in Prince George, BC and also operates one conventional bus route (#91) that uses route deviation to provide door-to-door service to residents with disabilities. Route 91 has been in operation since 2006. The operational policy for the route approved by the city permits one deviation per 1-hour cycle. The schedule for route 91 includes 6 minutes for deviation and recovery. The vehicle used is an Arboc with ramp access, which speeds up the loading/unloading process (vs a lift) for persons with a disability using a wheelchair. This means 2 to 3 minutes to load/unload, plus travel time for route deviation.

5.2 Peer Review of Fixed Route, Fixed Schedule Transit

In order to inform Innisfil on what can reasonably be expected of public transit in the region, MMM Group reviewed the existing transit systems of a number of similar sized municipalities across Ontario. The peer review consisted of two separate comparisons: one focused on conventional transit and another on

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study 41 MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009

specialized transit. Section 5.2 focuses on conventional transit, which can be defined as fixed-route scheduled service. This kind of service is the most common type of transit service, and can be found in both Barrie and Bradford West Gwillimbury.

The peer review uses data from the Ontario Urban Transit Factbook (2013 Operating Data). From the Ontario Urban Transit Factbook, MMM Group chose municipalities with small service area populations that are similar to Innisfil’s 2011 population of 33,080. Bradford West Gwillimbury is also included in the peer review, using data from the 2014-2015 year-end report after its first year of operation.

Figure 16 through Figure 21 outline key transit indicators that frame the level of service that can be provided for a given level of investment. Despite attempting to choose relevant and similar municipalities, a wide range can be seen within most indicators. This variety can be a result of many factors, including but not limited to: population density, topography, demographics, service delivery strategy and the maturity of the transit system. Innisfil should expect an implemented system to perform within the range of the compared municipalities, and it should further expect the system’s performance to most closely reflect the median of each indicator.

The first statistic that is highlighted is Transit Revenue Service Hours per Capita. This statistic is an indicator of how extensive a transit system is, and can be reflective of the age of the system. For instance, at the high end of the spectrum, Cobourg’s transit system has been operating since 1976, while Bradford West Gwillimbury’s system is at the low end of the spectrum having only recently been implemented. As shown in Figure 16, the values range from a high of 0.95 in Collingwood, to a low of 0.18 in Leamington. Niagara-on-the-Lake represents the median at 0.45.

Figure 16 Conventional Transit Revenue Service Hours per Capita (2013)

*2014-2015 data

While Transit Revenue Service Hours per Capita is reflective of how extensive a transit system is, Transit Trips per Capita shown in Figure 17 is more reflective of how well used a transit system is. The values

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study 42 MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009

range from a high of 12.1 in Owen Sound, to a low of 0.7 in Bradford West Gwillimbury. Port Hope represents the median at 3.8.

Figure 17 Conventional Transit Trips per Capita (2013)

*2014-2015 data

Conventional Transit Trips per Revenue Service Hour shown in Figure 18 is indicative of how well used a transit service is. The values of Transit Trips per Revenue Service Hour are intuitive to decipher. For instance, a bus operating for an hour in Owen Sound would accommodate 19 boardings. In contrast, a bus operating for an hour in Niagara-on-the-Lake would only accommodate 2 transit trips, which indicates a bus that is often empty. Tecumseh represents the median at 8 trips per revenue service hour.

Figure 18 Conventional Transit Trips per Revenue Service Hour (2013)

*2014-2015 data

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study 43 MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009

Cost per Vehicle Hour shown in Figure 19 is the operating cost per hour in service. This includes direct operating expenses (e.g. contracted service delivery) as well as administration, maintenance and auxiliary operating expenses. A large part of this cost is the cost of labour, which can vary significantly across Ontario. The values range from a high of $100 in Kawartha Lakes, to a low of $42 in Deseronto. Orangeville represents the median at $61.

Figure 19 Conventional Cost Per Vehicle Hour (2013)

*2014-2015 data

Total Operating Expenses are shown in Figure 20. The values range from a high of $1.6 million in Kawartha Lakes, to a low of $206,000 in Leamington. Port Hope represents the median value at $516,000. Owen Sound’s high expenses translate in to good ridership numbers as seen in Figure 17 and Figure 18, while Kawartha Lakes has high expenses with average ridership indicators.

Figure 20 Conventional Transit Total Operating Expenses (2013)

*2014-2015 data

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study 44 MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009

The last indicator highlighted for conventional transit is Revenue-to-Cost Ratio shown in Figure 21. Revenue-to-Cost Ratio shows what portion of total operating costs is paid for by revenue (primarily fare revenue). The remaining portion of costs is subsidized. The values range from a high of 45% in Deseronto, to a low of 9% in Kawartha Lakes. Cobourg represents the median at 21%.

Figure 21 Conventional Transit Revenue-to-Cost Ratio (2013)

*2014-2015 data

5.3 Peer Review of Specialized Transit Service

Specialized transit can be defined as a reservation-based door-to-door service that uses wheelchair accessible vehicles and can accommodate people with disabilities. As previously stated, all transit providers must provide specialized transit that meets the standards for accessible service provision as provided by the Ontario’s Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) (2005).

The peer review uses data from the Ontario Specialized Transit Services Factbook (2013 Operating Data). From the Specialized Transit Services Factbook, MMM Group chose municipalities with small service area populations that closely match Innisfil’s 2011 population of 33,080. Figure 22 through Figure 27 outline key transit indicators that frame the level of service that can be provided for a given level of investment. As with conventional transit, a wide range of values can be seen within most indicators. This variety can be a result of many factors. In addition to the factors of population density, geography and demographics mentioned for conventional transit, specialized transit may be affected by the various operating models under municipalities, not-for-profit societies, or contractors. It may also be affected by the level of visibility of the specialized transit service, the promotion and publicity provided, and the eligibility criteria.

The first statistic that is highlighted is Specialized Transit Trips Per Capita. This statistic is an indicator of how well used the specialized transit system is. As shown in Figure 22, the values range from a high of 1.01 in Perth East, to a low of 0.13 in Cramahe. Port Hope represents the median at 0.40.

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study 45 MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009

Figure 22 Specialized Transit Trips Per Capita (2013)

The Specialized Transit Active Registrants per Capita statistic shown in Figure 23 is a function of demographics, and may also reflect the level of promotion and ease of use of the registration process. The values range from a high of 0.078 in Perth East, to a low of 0.004 in West Elgin. Midland represents the median at 0.017.

Figure 23 Specialized Transit Active Registrants / Capita (2013)

Specialized Transit Trips per Active Registrant shown in Figure 24 represents the number of times per year that a registered user of the specialized transit service makes a trip by specialized transit. This metric of frequency of use is a key driver of total ridership and total costs. Dysart has the lowest number of trips per active registrant at 10, and Port Hope represents the median at 20.

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study 46 MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009

Figure 24 Specialized Transit Trips / Active Registrant (2013)

Total Specialized Transit Operating Expenses are shown in Figure 25. The values range from a high of $366,000 in Brockville, to a low of $22,000 in Dysart. Prince Edward County represents the median with operating costs of $137,000. High operating costs in Brockville, Pembroke and Perth East may be the result of high ridership, with over 10,000 passengers per year in each of these service areas.

Figure 25 Specialized Transit Total Operating Expenses (2013)

Figure 26 presents expenditures per passenger. Expenditures per passenger range from a low of $14 per passenger in Collingwood, to a high of $37 per passenger in Cramahe. Prince Edward County represents the median cost at $20 per passenger.

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study 47 MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009

Figure 26 Specialized Transit Expenditures / Passenger (2013)

The last indicator highlighted for specialized transit is Revenue-to-Cost Ratio shown in Figure 27. As with conventional transit, Revenue-to-Cost Ratio (R/C ratio) shows what portion of total costs are paid for by revenue (primarily fare revenue). The values range from a high of 38% in Perth East, to a low of 5% in Port Hope and Fort Erie. Bancroft represents the median with a 20% R/C ratio.

Figure 27 Specialized Transit Revenue-to-Cost Ratio (2013)

5.4 Transit Ridership in Innisfil

Based on the peer review and analysis of the transportation context, MMM Group has developed an estimated range for several key ridership metrics. In the tables below and throughout the study, we have used conservative ridership estimates. Table 13 and Table 14 present the anticipated ranges for conventional and specialized transit, respectively, and the factors that influence these ridership ranges.

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study 48 MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009

For conventional transit service, two primary metrics are used to estimate potential ridership:

► Boardings per hour – the number of passengers in an average revenue vehicle hour. It is calculated by dividing the total annual ridership by the total number of revenue vehicle hours (also known as transit service hours).

► Annual trips per capita – the average number of one-way transit trips that residents make each year. It is calculated by dividing the total annual ridership by the service area population.

It is very difficult to estimate ridership in the absence of a specific transit service, with routes and service hours. The estimates below are thus very broad; specific ridership estimates are developed for each transit network and route option in Section 6, based on the service option in question.

Table 13 Anticipated Ridership Ranges – Conventional Transit Anticipated Metric Discussion Range Higher trips per capita with more transit service hours and in areas of Annual trips per capita 1 to 5 higher population density Boardings per hour Higher boardings per service hour in areas with higher population 4 to 7 density; higher boardings per service hour when frequencies and routes make transit an attractive mode of travel Wide range as ridership is closely linked to route design and service Estimated annual ridership: 20,000- levels/service hours; estimated ridership will be provided for different service for residents of Alcona, 100,000 Stroud, Sandycove routes based on boardings per service hour Wide range as ridership is closely linked to route design and service Estimated annual ridership: 30,000- levels/service hours; estimated ridership will be provided for different service for all of Innisfil 150,000 routes based on boardings per service hour

For specialized transit, service design plays a less significant role in determining ridership. Ridership varies based on demographics, geography, eligibility criteria, and also to a significant extent based on branding and promotion of specialized transit services. Demand also varies significantly from municipality to municipality and increases over time as awareness of the service grows and a ridership base builds.

The estimates below are for a “standard” specialized transit service: a dedicated, door-to-door transit service that is well publicized by the municipality, well-established and that is eligible to all people who have difficulty using conventional transit.

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study 49 MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009

Table 14 Anticipated Ridership Ranges – Dedicated, Specialized Transit Service (Long-Term)

Indicator Anticipated Range

Active registrants per capita 0.015 to 0.025

Annual trips per active registrant 16 to 20

Annual trips per capita 0.25 to 0.5

Estimated ridership: service for residents of Alcona, Stroud, Sandycove 4,000 to 8,000

Estimated costs: service for residents of Alcona, Stroud, Sandycove $70,000-$150,000

However, in the first few years of service it is expected that ridership will be significantly lower than for a well-established specialized transit service. The financial plan (section 14.4) accounts for the anticipated ramp-up in specialized transit ridership over the first five years of service.

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study 50 MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009

6.0 SHORT-TERM TRANSIT SERVICE OPTIONS

MMM Group developed and analyzed a number of options to address Innisfil’s priorities for transit in the immediate future. These transit options were designed to be meet transit needs cost-effectively.

6.1 Service to Priority Destinations

Priority Destinations

Based on the analysis of Innisfil’s population and employment, travel patterns and consultation results, the priority destinations for transit were identified as follows, in order of priority:

► Alcona (along Innisfil Beach Road and through the urban area to Nantyr Shores Secondary School);

► Innisfil Recreational Complex and Town Hall; and

► South end of Barrie, with a connection to Barrie Transit.

All of the short-term transit service options connect these three destinations. All of the short-term options also enable connections with the GO Bus on Yonge Street. Several of the short-term transit service options also connect Sandycove Acres, for two reasons. First, Sandycove’s proximity to Alcona means that it can be added into several of the route options at no additional cost (maintaining the same number of vehicles and frequencies). Second, residents of Sandycove Acres expressed a strong interest in a transit service; though Parkbridge already offers a service twice a week, some residents expressed a desire for additional flexibility in their trips.

Within Alcona, several of the short-term service options include a loop south of Innisfil Beach Road, along Webster Jans Boulevard, Anna Maria Avenue and St. Johns Boulevard. This loop provides service to Nantyr Shores Secondary School and residential areas within Alcona. A stop at the corner of Webster Boulevard and Innisfil Beach Road would allow Alcona Glen Elementary School students to board and alight the bus approximately 300m (five minute walk) from the school.

At the Recreational Complex and Town Hall, it is anticipated that the bus would travel close to the building entrances, entering and exiting the complex from Yonge Street and Innisfil Beach Road. A recommended stop location will be identified and illustrated in the next phase of the project.

Regarding the connection to Barrie Transit in the south end of Barrie, two possible locations were considered: Barrie South GO Station and Park Place shopping mall. The Barrie South GO Station is closer to Alcona and the Innisfil Recreational Complex, therefore it is easier to connect with transit. However, it is not a destination for most of the day, as trains only depart in the early morning and return in the evening. By comparison, Park Place provides retail, employment and recreation destinations that may draw Innisfil residents at all times of the day. It is therefore seen as a preferred destination and connection point, given

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study 51 MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009

the target trips and audience for the transit service (youth, seniors and others who may not always have access to a vehicle, with a focus on discretionary trips).

Service Model

Fixed route, fixed schedule transit was identified as the preferred service model for a short-term transit service connecting the priority destinations. The priority destinations are well located relative to one another for fixed route, fixed schedule transit; they can be connected with routes ranging from 30 minutes to one hour, enabling good frequencies with minimal vehicles. Furthermore, residents expressed a clear preference for fixed schedule transit, rather than service models that require advance reservation. Finally, Alcona features population densities that support fixed route, fixed schedule transit; and this will be increasingly the case in the future as Alcona continues to grow.

Route Options

Four short-term route options were developed based on these priority destinations and a fixed route, fixed schedule service model. Two of these options can provide hourly service with only one transit vehicle; the other two options require two vehicles to provide hourly transit service. The four options are as follows:

► Option 1. Alcona to Barrie South GO: This route is less than 30 minutes in length; hourly frequencies can therefore be provided using only one vehicle. A loop through Alcona’s residential neighbourhoods south of Innisfil Beach Road can also be provided in one of the two directions, thus providing service to additional households and to Nantyr Shores Secondary School.

► Option 2. Loop - Alcona to Barrie South GO via Mapleview: This route is less than an hour in length; hourly frequencies can be provided using only one vehicle if service operates in one direction only; two vehicles are required to operate the service in both directions. Service along 25th Side Rd and on Lockhart Rd to Sandycove Mall provides service to certain households within Sandycove Acres; service along Mapleview Drive does not serve many Innisfil households or destinations.

► Option 3. Sandycove to Barrie South GO via Alcona: This route is less than an hour in length in each direction; hourly frequencies can be provided using two vehicles. The route serves Sandycove Acres and includes a loop within the residential neighbourhoods that passes by the clubhouses. A loop through Alcona’s residential neighbourhoods south of Innisfil Beach Road can also be provided in both directions, providing service to additional households and to Nantyr Shores Secondary School.

► Option 4. Sandycove to Park Place via Alcona: This route is less than an hour in length in each direction; hourly frequencies can be provided using two vehicles. The route serves Sandycove Acres and includes a loop within the residential neighbourhoods that passes by the clubhouses. A loop through Alcona’s residential neighbourhoods south of Innisfil Beach Road can also be provided in both directions, providing service to additional households and to Nantyr Shores. The route terminates at Park Place and Barrie Molson Centre, providing residents with shopping and recreation opportunities. Finally, the route serves the Huronia/Lockhart neighbourhood in Barrie, which is current not served by

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study 52 MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009

Barrie Transit. There may be opportunities for cost-sharing of this portion of the route with Barrie Transit. These routes are illustrated and further described in Table 15, Table 16, Table 17 and Table 18.

Table 15 Short-Term Service Option 1 1. Alcona to Barrie South Go (1 bus - hourly service) Description of Route:

- Departs from the Barrie South GO Station - Travel southbound on Yonge Street through the Town of Stroud to Innisfil Beach Road. - Serves Town Hall / Recreational Complex and travels eastbound on Innisfil Beach Road through Alcona to Webster Boulevard. - Turn left onto Jans Boulevard to serve the residential area and Nantyr Shores Secondary School then turn right onto Webster Boulevard. Travel north along Webster Boulevard and turn left to get back to Innisfil Beach Road. - Turn right onto Innisfil Beach Road and travel eastbound to Lakelands Avenue and use the roundabout to return westbound on Innisfil Beach Road. - Travel westbound on Innisfil Beach Road through Alcona to Town Hall / Recreational Complex at Yonge Street. - Turn right onto northbound Yonge Street and return back to the Barrie South GO Station.

Service Design:

 Hourly service can be provided with a single vehicle in service.  The total round trip travel time is 52 minutes long which provides 8 minutes for recovery between trips.  Note that service through Alcona is via a one-direction loop. Service in two directions cannot be provided via the Alcona South loop as it would increase the round trip travel time to 60 minutes. It would be difficult to sustain the hourly service without any recovery time. An additional vehicle would therefore be required in service. Similarly, it would be difficult to accommodate any other route deviation for example to serve a potential future GO Station at 6th Line Road.

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study 53 MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009

Table 16 Short-Term Service Option 2 2. Loop (1 or 2 bus - hourly service/ direction)

Description of Route:

- Departs from the Barrie South GO Station - Travel southbound on Yonge Street through the Town of Stroud to Innisfil Beach Road. - Serves Town Hall / Recreational Complex and travels eastbound on Innisfil Beach Road through Alcona to Webster Boulevard. - Turn right on Webster Boulevard and travel southbound, then turn left onto Jans Boulevard to serve the residential area and Nantyr Shores Secondary School. Travel north along Jans Boulevard and turn right to get back to Innisfil Beach Road. - Turn right onto Innisfil Beach road and travel eastbound to 25th Line Road. Turn left onto 25th Line road and travel northbound to Lockhart Road. - Travel westbound on Lockhart road to the Sandycove Mall. Return eastbound on Lockhart Road to 25th Line Road and travel northbound to Mapleview Drive. - Travel westbound on Mapleview Drive to Yonge Street and return to the Barrie South GO. - This loop service could also be operated in the reverse direction, or in both directions.

Service Design:

 Hourly service can be provided for a one direction loop with a single vehicle in service.  The total round trip travel time is 52 minutes long which provides 8 minutes for recovery between trips in the same direction.  Service in two directions could be provided with a second vehicle in service.  It is possible also to operate service in two directions with a single vehicle but the service would be reduced to a two-hour headway per direction. Also, the bus would no longer operate as a loop and would need to turn around for undertaking the return trip. This would not serve the through passengers that access the bus on one side of the turn around and are destined to the other side.  It would be difficult to accommodate any route deviation for example to serve a potential future GO Station at 6th Line Road or to better serve the Sandycove community.

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study 54 MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009

Table 17 Short Term Service Option 3 3. Sandycove to Barrie South GO via Alcona (2 bus - hourly service) Description of Route:

- Departs from the Barrie South GO Station - Travels southbound on Yonge Street through the Town of Stroud to Innisfil Beach Road. - Serves Town Hall / Recreational Complex and travels eastbound on Innisfil Beach Road through Alcona to Webster Boulevard. - Turn right on Webster Boulevard and travel southbound, then turn left onto Jans Boulevard to serve the residential area and Nantyr Shores Secondary School. Travel north along Jans Boulevard and turn right to get back to Innisfil Beach Road. - Turn right onto Innisfil Beach road and travel eastbound to 25th Line Road. Turn left onto 25th Line road and travel northbound to Lockhart Road. - Continue northbound on 25th Side Road to access Sandycove Main Street where the bus would turn left and travel through the development serving the residential area and Clubhouse. - The bus would exit the development onto Lockhart Road and would serve the Sandycove mall. - The bus then would return eastbound on Lockhart Road to 25th Line Road to undertake the return trip (southbound on 25th Side Road, westbound on Innisfil Beach Road to St Johns Road, serve the Alcona south residential area and secondary school, westbound on Innisfil Beach Road to Yonge Street. Northbound on Yonge Street to the Barrie South GO Station.

Service Design:

 Hourly service cannot be provided with a single vehicle in service; Two vehicles are required.  The total round trip travel time is 86 minutes long which provides 34 minutes for recovery between trips.  It is possible to accommodate route deviations to serve a potential future GO Station at 6th Line Road or to serve the Sandycove Main Street in two directions without requiring additional vehicles in service.

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study 55 MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009

Table 18 Short Term Service Option 4 4. Sandycove to Park Place via Alcona (2 bus - hourly service)

Description of Route:

- This alternative does not serve the Barrie South GO Station, however it does serve the Park Place shopping and employment node on Mapleview Drive west of Yonge Street. - Buses would depart Park Place and travel eastbound on Mapleview Drive to Huronia Road, southbound on Huronia to Lockhart Road and eastbound on Lockhart Road serving the emerging residential development on the north side. The bus would continue eastbound on Lockhart Road to Yonge Street. - The bus would then travel southbound on Yonge Street through the Town of Stroud to Innisfil Beach Road. Serves Town Hall / Recreational Complex and travels eastbound on Innisfil Beach Road through Alcona to Webster Boulevard. - Turn right on Webster Boulevard and travel southbound, then turn left onto Jans Boulevard to serve the residential area and Nantyr Shores Secondary School. Travel north along Jans Boulevard and turn right to get back to Innisfil Beach Road. - Turn right onto Innisfil Beach road and travel eastbound to 25th Line Road. Turn left onto 25th Line road and travel northbound to Lockhart Road. - Continue northbound on 25th Side Road to access Sandycove Main Street where the bus would turn left and travel through the development serving the residential area and Clubhouse. - The bus would exit the development onto Lockhart Road and would serve the Sandycove mall. - The bus then would return eastbound on Lockhart Road to 25th Line Road for the return trip (southbound on 25th Side Road, westbound on Innisfil Beach Road to St Johns Road, serve the Alcona south residential area and secondary school, westbound on Innisfil Beach Road to Yonge Street. Northbound on Yonge Street to Lockhart Road, westbound on Lockhart Road to Huronia Road, northbound on Huronia to Mapleview Drive, westbound Mapleview Drive to Bayview Drive, northbound on Bayview Drive to access the Park Place internal roadway system and connections to other Barrie Transit Bus routes.)

Service Design:

 Hourly service cannot be provided with a single vehicle in service; Two vehicles are required.  The total round trip travel time is 102 minutes long which provides 18 minutes for recovery between trips.  It is possible to accommodate route deviations to serve a potential future GO Station at 6th Line Road without requiring additional vehicles in service.  It is also possible to serve the Barrie South GO Station with northbound buses on Yonge Street continuing northbound to the Barrie South GO Station instead of turning onto Lockhart Road. After serving the station buses could travel southbound to Lockhart Road in order to complete the

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study 56 MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009

4. Sandycove to Park Place via Alcona (2 bus - hourly service) remaining of the route. This would require that the routing through Alcona be revised with the route staying on Innisfil Beach Road instead of serving the Alcona south residential area and secondary school. An alternative routing would have buses using Mapleview Drive from Yonge Street to Park Place, but this would impact the service provided for the residential development on Lockhart Road near Huronia Road.

6.2 Comparison of Options for Priority Destinations

Table 19 compares the short-term transit service options based on the following criteria:

► Service area: The comparison table highlights the destinations that each route serves. All of the routes operate between Alcona and the Innisfil Recreational Complex along Innisfil Beach Road. In addition to these “core” destinations, the comparison identifies the following additional destinations:

► Alcona South Loop, with a short (5-minute) loop in either one or two directions through Alcona’s residential neighbourhoods south of Innisfil Beach Road, providing service to additional households and to Nantyr Shores Secondary School;

► Barrie South GO and/or Park Place in Barrie;

► Sandycove Acres, on 25th Side Road and Lockhart Road only, or looping into the residential area;

► Stroud, served in either one direction or two directions; and

► A future GO Train Station on Sixth Line. (Note: while none of the routes currently serve this location, the comparison table identifies the routes that could make a detour to the proposed location without reducing frequencies or requiring additional vehicles. This criteria is a long-term rather than a short-term consideration.)

► Schedule and reliability: The comparison table identifies the frequencies provided by each route. It also identifies the recovery time per trip. Recovery time affects service reliability, or the likelihood of the bus remaining on schedule even with storms or unforeseen delays. Recovery time is also required if the Town chooses to provide door-to-door AODA service using conventional transit vehicles deviating from fixed routes when eligible riders make reservations; more recovery time means that more door-to-door trips could be accommodated before a dedicated specialized transit service is required.

► Ridership: Boardings per hour are estimated conservatively for each route based on the density of households and destinations along the route, and based on the convenience of using the service. In general, one-way loop service is expected to generate fewer trips per hour than two-way service, though the short (5-minute) loop through Alcona South is not expected to have a negative impact on ridership.

► Capital and operating costs: Service options that require only one vehicle to be operating at any given time are significantly less expensive than those that require two vehicles. Potential contributions from Barrie Transit for service to the Huronia and Lockhart area are also considered.

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study 57 MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009

Table 19 Comparison of Short-Term Options 1. 2a. 2b. 3. 4. Alcona to 1 Direction 2 Direction Sandycove to Sandycove to NOTES Barrie S GO Loop Loop Barrie S GO Park Place (1 bus) (1 bus) (2 buses) (2 buses) (2 buses) SERVICE AREA Option 1 & 2a serves Nantyr Shores Alcona South Loop Secondary School in one direction Option 2 serves SC Mall while 3 & 4 Sandycove (SC) serve Main Street (1-way) Option 2a serves Stroud in one Stroud direction on Yonge Street Option 4 could also serve Barrie S GO Train: GO (remove Alcona South or Barrie South Sandycove loop) Can additonal service to future GO GO Train: station be provided? (+13 min Future Alcona to&from Alcona South Loop) Service to Park Place offers retail Park Place Barrie and employment opportunities SCHEDULE AND RIDERSHIP All options provide houly service; 60 min – one- Option 2b only provides service in Frequency 60 min 60 min 60 min 60 min way service only one direction which makes trips significantly longer for riders Total recovery time available Recovery / trip 8 min 8 min 8 min/dir 34 min 18 min between trips Reliability Based on recovery time available

Ridership 6-7 boardings 2-3 boardings 3-4 boardings 4-5 boardings 5-6 boardings per Based on population density, Anticipated per hour per hour per hour per hour hour destinations and travel times COST 1 vehicle versus 2 vehicles; Option 4 Capital / Operating may have an opportunity for cost- sharing with Barrie Transit

MORE BENEFIT LESS BENEFIT

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009 58

6.3 Service to Additional Destinations

The telephone survey and online survey clearly identified the Tanger Outlet Mall as residents’ next priority for transit, after connecting the “core” destinations and the south end of Barrie. However, the demand for transit to the Tanger Mall is expected to be significantly lower than for the transit services identified above.

The MMM team has identified two short-term service options to connect Tanger Outlet Mall with Alcona: a fixed schedule limited service, and an on-demand service. These service options are also designed to increase the service area coverage. In addition to connecting Alcona and Tanger Outlet Mall, these services would connect Lefroy-Belle Ewart residents to Alcona and Tanger. Either transit service option could be delivered using small vehicles, such as taxis, or with larger vehicles such as community buses. Table 20 describes the fixed schedule option. Table 21 describes the on-demand service option.

Table 20 Short Term Service Option 5 5. Alcona to Tanger Outlet Mall via Lefroy (fixed route, fixed schedule, limited service pilot) A fixed route, fixed schedule transit service could connect the western edge of Alcona to Tanger Outlet Mall with a stop in Lefroy-Belle Ewart. This route could be operated at an hourly frequency. Due to the lower anticipated levels of demand, this route could be introduced as a pilot and operate for approximately six hours of the day (six trips in each direction). Based on conversations with Tanger Mall management staff, the peak shopping hours are from 10am to 5pm. Many staff work shifts from 9am to 5pm. Service hours of 8:00am to 11:00am and 3:00pm to 6:00pm are therefore proposed. Transit service hours can be extended at a later date if justified based on demand, or reduced/revised based on ridership and feedback from riders.

Description of Route: - Depart from the western edge of Alcona (No Frills plaza) via 20th Sideroad and Innisfil Beach Rd. - Turn left on 20th Sideroad and travel southbound to Killarney Beach Road. - Travel eastbound on Killarney Beach Road to Ewart Street. - Turn around via Barry, Cumberland and Ewart Street - Travel westbound on Killarney Beach Road to 20th Side Road - Travel south on 20th Side Road to Shore Acres Drive - Travel west on Shore Acres Drive and turns around via Tanger Mall Road

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study 59 MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009

Service Design:  Hourly service can be provided with a single vehicle in service.  The total round trip travel time is 54 minutes long including dwell time, which provides 6 minutes for recovery between trips.  With six trips per day, anticipated ridership is 2 to 4 trips per hour (10 to 20 trips per day).  It is possible to extend the route to Cookstown and to extend the route further into Alcona along Innisfil Beach Road by increasing the frequency to an hour and 30 minutes. However, this would be expected to reduce service quality and ridership; in section 7.3, one hour is recommended as the minimum frequency. Increasing the route length would also increase the cost of the service, if still providing four trips per day and per direction.

Table 21 Short Term Service Option 6 6. Alcona to Tanger Outlet Mall and Cookstown via Lefroy (on-demand service pilot) An on-demand transit service could connect the core of Alcona to Lefroy-Belle Ewart, Tanger Outlet Mall and Cookstown. There would be no scheduled departure times; trips would be provided based on reservations from riders. With this type of on-demand service option, it is recommended that pick-ups and drop-offs occur at designated locations on or near the route. Residents could request trips between any two designated stops. They would not be guaranteed the most direct route as routes would be planned to pick up as many riders as possible on a given trip. Drivers would be able to deviate from the route in the absence of ride requests from a particular area (e.g. the Lefroy area). All residents would be able to request trips; however, the service would likely only be used by residents who live within 1 km of the route. Given the anticipated ridership levels, it is expected that most trips could be accommodated with one taxi in service throughout the day. At many times of the day, it is likely that no trips would be booked and no vehicles would be required, thus reducing the cost of providing the service. At peak times, a second taxi could be added if needed to meet additional demand. Like with the fixed schedule transit service option between Alcona and Tanger Outlet Mall, the service could be introduced as a pilot to gauge demand.

Description of Route: - Route determined based on trip reservations; designated stops located along the route below.

Service Design:  Based on travel times, trip requests can be accommodated at least every 1.5 hours.

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study 60 MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009

 The on-demand transit service could be offered between the hours of 8:00am and 6:00pm.  Anticipated ridership is 15 to 20 trips per day, distributed over an estimated six service hours. Note: It is recommended that this on-demand transit service be operated through delegated service delivery with a local taxi company. This would enable the Town to only pay for the transit service at times of the day when rides have been requested, and would provide flexibility for scaling service levels up or down throughout the day based on demand. If justified based on demand, a fixed schedule fixed route service could be introduced at a later date.

6.4 Specialized Transit Service

The Town of Innisfil’s conventional transit service will be fully accessible, in line with Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) requirements, reducing demand for door-to-door transit and making it easier for residents with disabilities to travel within the Town. In addition, under the AODA and Integrated Accessibility Standard Regulation (IASR), the Town is committed to providing either a specialized transit service in the conventional transit service area or an alternative accessible method of transportation for people with disabilities who are unable to use the conventional service. It is recommended that the Town define the service area as within 800m walking distance of the conventional transit route. 3

The following accessible transit service models are options for further consideration.

► Alternative accessible method of transportation. The Town of Innisfil could provide accessible taxi service as an alternative accessible method of transportation. The IASR does not have requirements regarding fares for alternative accessible methods of transportation. As fare parity is not required, this option could be implemented with market rates for accessible taxi service. This would involve minimal cost to the City, but with minimal benefits for riders with disabilities.

► Dedicated, specialized transit service. As discussed in Section 4.4, a dedicated, specialized transit service that is well publicized by the Town would expect between 5,000 and 10,000 riders per year, at an estimated cost of $70,000-$150,000 per year. However, in the first few years of service, demand would likely be significantly lower.

► Specialized transit service through route deviations by conventional transit vehicles and taxi supplement. This option (also discussed in Section 4.4) would be designed to minimize use of door- to-door transit and encourage all residents who are physically capable of using conventional transit to do so; the eligibility requirements would therefore focus on providing door-to-door service to those

3 The more common walking distance standard in urban areas with dense transit networks is 400m. However, this would provide very limited coverage in the Town of Innisfil given the proposed transit routes. The result would be that some people with disabilities who live within the core area of Alcona would not qualify for specialized transit, while their neighbours who live a few blocks closer to Innisfil Beach Road would qualify for specialized transit. Furthermore, in areas that are less densely served by transit, there is evidence that people will walk further to transit, with 800m being a commonly cited walking distance.

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study 61 MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009

most in need. With this option, the Town would want to enter into an arrangement with a taxi company or other service provider to accommodate any “overflow” requests during high-demand time periods. This option is expected to attract fewer riders and minimize costs. Route deviations would not require any additional costs, and it is anticipated that overflow requests could be accommodated for approximately $25,000 per year. Note: This option could accommodate more riders with conventional Service Option 4 (23 minutes of recovery time) than with Service Option 1 (8 minutes of recovery time). Factoring in two to three minutes of wheelchair loading/unloading time, Service Option 1 could accommodate one door-to-door trip per hour. Service Option 4 could accommodate two door-to-door trips per hour.

Recommendation: Given the focus on seniors and people with disabilities, it is recommended that the Town implement a specialized transit service rather than an “alternative accessible method of transportation”. Furthermore, a dedicated specialized transit service is recommended due to the significant projected demand for specialized transit in the longer-term.

While less costly, the route deviation option may detract from the ability of the conventional transit service to meet riders’ needs, facilitate transfers to Barrie Transit and GO Transit, and remain on schedule. Furthermore, it requires additional management and coordination capacity by the service delivery provider(s), and is not an effective long-term option as ridership increases and the transit service expands.

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study 62 MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009

7.0 SHORT-TERM TRANSIT SERVICE RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 Service Plan

Conventional Transit Service

Based on this comparison of the options, the following two conventional transit routes are recommended for further consideration by the Town of Innisfil:

► One bus only: Short-Term Service Option 1, Alcona to Barrie South GO. This option connects the three core destinations in a cost-effective way, with two-way service at an hourly frequency. Higher ridership is expected given the higher population and destination densities along the route. Higher ridership (measured as boardings per hour) is also expected as the one-way travel time is only 30 minutes.

► Two buses: Short-Term Service Option 4 – Sandycove to Park Place via Alcona. This option goes beyond the core destinations. It serves Sandycove Acres and Park Place, providing larger numbers of Innisfil residents with direct access to retail, recreation and employment opportunities. There may also be an opportunity to share the cost of service provision between the Innisfil border and Park Place, as the service connects the Huronia/Lockhart neighbourhood to the Barrie Transit system.

The choice between these routes will depend on whether the Town is looking to provide a minimal core service or whether there is funding available to connect additional destinations. The one bus versus two bus options are compared with services in other municipalities in Table 22, assuming that the service operates Monday to Friday from 7am to 7pm and Saturday from 9am to 5pm. Service hours are further discussed in section 7.2.

Table 22 Short-Term Recommended Service Options: Service Option 1 or Service Option 4 Option 1 – One Option 4 – Two Median in Other Peer Metric Bus Buses Municipalities Service Hours 2,490 4,980 7,400

Service Area Population 16,109 19,514 18,300

Service Hours Per Capita 0.15 0.26 0.45

Vehicles Costs $200,000 $400,000 Unknown

Annual Operating Costs $320,000 $520,000 $525,000

If the Town would like to provide transit service to Tanger Outlet Mall and Lefroy-Belle Ewart as part of the short-term service plan, the service levels and additional costs of Short-Term Service Options 5 and 6 are identified in Table 23. For the on-demand service (Option 6), costs are estimated based on the delivery costs of Taxi-to-GO in Bradford West Gwillimbury.

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study 63 MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009

Table 23 Short-Term Additional Service Options: Service Option 5 or Service Option 6 Option 5 – Alcona to Tanger via Option 6 – Alcona, Lefroy, Tanger & Metric Lefroy Fixed Route Cookstown On Demand Service Hours 1,848 3,080 (available)

Additional Population Served 2,450 3,595 (Compared to Option 1 and 4)

Vehicle Costs $200,000 n/a

Annual Operating Costs $100,000 $92,000

Specialized Transit Service

The Town of Innisfil’s conventional transit service will be fully accessible, in line with AODA requirements, reducing demand for door-to-door transit and making it easier for residents with disabilities to travel within the Town. In addition, the Town is committed to providing accessible transportation in the conventional transit service area, in line with the requirements of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act. MMM Groups recommends that the Town implement a dedicated specialized transit service, and define the service area as within 800m walking distance of the conventional transit route. Delivery methods and costs for specialized transit service are further discussed in sections 9.0 and 13.1.

7.2 Service Hours and Schedule

It is recommended that the Innisfil transit service begin with service hours from 7:00am to 7:00pm on weekdays and 9:00am to 5:00pm on Saturdays. Initially, the highest ridership is anticipated in the mid-day period, based on the target audience for the transit service. However, it is expected that use of transit for commuting trips within Innisfil and to and from Barrie will increase over time. As demonstrated by the Transportation Tomorrow Survey data, the highest rates of trip-making occur in the morning and evening peak periods. Providing transit service during these peak hours will help to establish transit as a viable transportation alternative and will enable students and non-drivers to access a broader range of employment opportunities. Over time, it is expected that the Town will want to adjust service hours based on ridership levels and feedback from riders, as discussed in section 7.3.

The Innisfil transit service schedule should be easy to use, and aligned with the Barrie Transit and GO Transit schedules to the extent possible. A proposed schedule for Short-Term Service Option 1 (one bus) is provided as Table 24. This schedule times the arrival at the Barrie South GO Station to minimize wait times when transferring to and from Barrie Transit buses. Routes 8A Northbound, 8B Southbound, 3A and 4A all serve the Barrie South GO Station. All of these routes arrive and depart from Barrie South GO at 21- 25 minutes past the hour and 51-55 minutes past the hour. The proposed schedule for Innisfil Transit therefore includes a layover at Barrie South GO Station to enable Innisfil riders to transfer to these buses without waiting. (Alternatively, the Innisfil bus could arrive and depart at 35-40 minutes past the hour or at 5-10 minutes past the hour, for an average wait time of 15 minutes). The proposed schedule also considers the transfer to the GO Bus at Victoria Street or Innisfil Beach Road, where GO Buses travel

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study 64 MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009

south at 15 minutes past the hour. Innisfil riders traveling south to Bradford, York Region or Toronto will generally be able to transfer to the GO Bus with only a 5-10 minute wait time.

Table 24 Proposed Weekday Schedule for Initial Implementation of One-Bus Service (Option 1)

IRC (Depart Lakelands Ave IRC (Depart Barrie South Barrie South Nantyr Shores IRC (Arrive) Eastbound) Turnaround Northbound) GO (Arrive) GO (Depart)

7:35 7:49 7:57 8:07 8:17 8:25 8:34 8:35 8:49 8:57 8:59 9:09 9:25 9:34 9:35 9:49 9:57 9:59 10:09 10:25 10:34 10:35 10:49 10:57 10:59 11:09 11:25 11:34 11:35 11:49 11:57 11:59 12:09 12:25 12:34 12:35 12:49 12:57 12:59 13:09 13:25 13:34 13:35 13:49 13:57 13:59 14:09 14:25 14:34 14:35 14:49 14:57 14:59 15:09 15:25 15:34 15:35 15:49 15:57 15:59 16:09 16:25 16:34 16:35 16:49 16:57 16:59 17:09 17:25 17:34 17:35 17:49 17:57 17:59 18:09 18:25 18:34 18:35 18:49 18:57 18:59 19:09 19:25 19:34

Note: The proposed service hours and schedule are not designed for commuters traveling by GO Train from Barrie South GO Station. Given the long travel time by GO Train to York Region and Toronto, it is unlikely that residents will want to add a 30 minute local transit trip at the start or end of their journey. There are therefore no connections to the morning GO Trains with the proposed schedule. However, the proposed schedule does enable riders on the first three evening GO trains to return to Innisfil by transit.

A proposed schedule for Short-Term Service Option 4 (two buses) is provided as Table 26. This schedule is timed to accommodate the transfer to the GO Bus at Victoria Street or Innisfil Beach Road, where GO Buses travel south at 15 minutes past the hour. Transfers to and from Barrie Transit buses at Park Place are easier for riders than at the Barrie South GO Station because Barrie Transit bus schedules are better distributed over the course of the hour. Time points at Park Place are as follows: Route 8A NB departs at 4 and 34 minutes past the hour; Route 8B NB departs at 12 and 42 minutes past the hour; Route 1A departs at 15 and 45 minutes past the hour; Route 2A departs on the hour and at 30 minutes past the hour. The Innisfil bus’ arrival at 28 minutes past the hour and departure at 38 minutes past the hour will facilitate a variety of connections to Barrie Transit with minimal wait times.

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study 65 MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009

Table 25 Proposed Weekday Schedule for Initial Implementation of Two-Bus Service (Option 4)

IRC Nantyr Nantyr Park Park Sandycove IRC Huronia/Lockhart Huronia/Lockhart IRC (Depart Shores Shores Place Place Mall (NB) (NB) (SB) (Arrive) EB) (NB/EB) (SB/WB) (Arrive) (Depart)

7:05 7:15 7:41 8:00 8:10 8:20 8:28 8:38 8:46 8:56 8:05 8:15 8:41 9:00 9:10 9:20 9:28 9:38 9:46 9:56 9:05 9:15 9:41 10:00 10:10 10:20 10:28 10:38 10:46 10:56 10:05 10:15 10:41 11:00 11:10 11:20 11:28 11:38 11:46 11:56 11:05 11:15 11:41 12:00 12:10 12:20 12:28 12:38 12:46 12:56 12:05 12:15 12:41 13:00 13:10 13:20 13:28 13:38 13:46 13:56 13:05 13:15 13:41 14:00 14:10 14:20 14:28 14:38 14:46 14:56 14:05 14:15 14:41 15:00 15:10 15:20 15:28 15:38 15:46 15:56 15:05 15:15 15:41 16:00 16:10 16:20 16:28 16:38 16:46 16:56 16:05 16:15 16:41 17:00 17:10 17:20 17:28 17:38 17:46 17:56 17:05 17:15 17:41 18:00 18:10 18:20 18:28 18:38 18:46 18:56 18:05 18:15 18:41 19:00 19:10 19:20 19:28 19:38 19:46 19:56

Before service begins, the Town of Innisfil should work with the Operator to test the routes and schedules and make any adjustments as needed to provide reliable service and smooth transfers.

7.3 Service Standards and Bus Stops

The characteristics of good service planning standards for a Town of Innisfil transit service are as follows:

► They draw on data that is (or will be) readily available to the Town;

► They are simple enough for Town staff to use regularly;

► They provide direction on which to base decisions without restricting the Town’s flexibility; and

► They reflect the Town’s goals and objectives.

The proposed service standards in Table 26 address service coverage, hours of service, frequency of service, route design, bus stops and bus shelters. They also address performance standards, which link to several other service standards.

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study 66 MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009

Table 26 Proposed Transit Service Standards

Category Proposed Service Standard

In larger municipalities, standards for service coverage specify the percentage of the population that should be within walking distance of a transit route. Service coverage standards sometimes conflict with performance standards; they require that transit service be maintained even where minimum performance standards are not achieved. Service Coverage A service coverage standard is not recommended for the Town of Innisfil at this point. Once the transit service is well established and all key destinations are served by transit, the Town may wish to develop a service standard that can guide further service expansion; for example, at least 90% of households in the Alcona Primary Settlement Area should have less than an 800m walk to a transit route. Alternatively, the Town can use ridership to guide transit service expansion. The initial weekday service hours of 7:00am to 7:00pm are proposed for the transit service. The first trip should begin service at or after 7:00am and no later than 8:00am, with the specific Hours of Service schedule determined to consider transfers to Barrie Transit and GO Transit service. The last trip should end at or after 7:00pm and no later than 8:00pm. On Saturday, service hours of 9:00am to 5:00pm are proposed. Frequencies of at least 60 minutes should be provided on all fixed schedule transit routes during Frequency of all service hours, if possible. Frequencies of 30 minutes should be considered for routes that Service achieve the proposed performance standards. All routes should be provided in both directions and should be as direct as possible. Routes Route Design should primarily be located along arterial and collector roads. Fixed bus stops should be placed at passenger generators and transfer points in urban areas. Bus stops should be at least 250 metres apart and should be maintained year-round. Fixed bus stops should gradually be upgraded for accessibility. The Town should consult with the Bus Stops municipal accessibility advisory committee in developing accessible design criteria for bus stops. Bus stops should be prioritized for upgrades based on factors such as: proximity to senior citizen residences; use by riders with disabilities; and use as a transfer point. “Flag” bus stop service should be used along rural sections of transit routes. Bus shelters and benches should be prioritized for installation based on factors that include: Bus Shelters and boarding levels; proximity to senior citizen residences and other institutions; use as a transfer Benches point; and exposure to inclement weather. A minimum performance standard for fixed schedule, fixed route transit of 3 trips per revenue service hour is proposed for the Town of Innisfil. Service should be revised or discontinued for service hours and routes not meeting the minimum performance standard. Performance The Town should consider increasing service frequencies from 60-minute to 30-minute service Standards for service hours and routes that meet the performance standard of 13 to 15 boardings per hour. Performance standards for the initial transit service should be evaluated only after two full year of transit service, based on the second full year of ridership data.

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study 67 MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009

7.4 Bus Stops and Shelters

Based on the proposed standards for bus stops, the MMM team identified a series of bus stops for the proposed routes. The one-bus Service Option 1 includes 40 fixed stops (Figure 28), while the two-bus Service Option 4 includes 60 fixed stops (Figure 29).

Figure 28 Proposed Fixed Bus Stops, Service Option 1

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study 68 MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009

Figure 29 Proposed Fixed Bus Stops, Service Option 4

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study 69 MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009

“Flag stop” service is recommended for the following rural sections of the transit routes: Innisfil Beach Road between the IRC and the GO rail line; Yonge Street between the IRC and Stroud; and along Lockhart Road. Flag stop service allows passengers to board and alight from the bus at any point along the route; passengers flag the approaching bus and request their stop when they board. This style of operation reduces the need for the installation and maintenance of fixed stops along rural roads without sidewalks. It is also minimizes walking distances to transit, making the use of the service more attractive for passengers in low density and rural areas who would be located further from a fixed stop.

Note: The Town is not required to upgrade or construct accessible bus stops under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA). The AODA requirements are as follows:

► Ensure that persons with disabilities are able to board or deboard a transportation vehicle at the closest available safe location, as determined by the operator, that is not an official stop, if the official stop is not accessible. ► Consult with the municipal accessibility advisory committee in developing accessible design criteria for bus stops and shelters.

However, it is recommended that the Town aim to increase the accessibility of bus stops over time by upgrading a few stops each year. Similarly, shelters can be provided at priority locations. The use of an advertising agreement to provide transit shelters is discussed further in section 14.2.

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study 70 MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009

8.0 LONG-TERM TRANSIT NETWORK

Destinations

The telephone survey and online survey clearly identified the Tanger Outlet Mall in Cookstown as residents’ next priority for transit service, after connecting the “core” destinations with short-term transit service options. Innisfil’s long-term transit service plan should also look to connect the larger communities within the Town, the communities that are expected to experience significant growth and the future employment areas. The key destinations for the long-term service plan therefore include the following:

► Tanger Outlet Mall;

► Lefroy – Belle Ewart;

► Cookstown;

► Innisfil Heights Employment Area and Georgian Downs; and

► Big Bay Point.

Like the short-term service options, the long-term transit service options also enable connections with the GO Bus on Yonge Street for travel to and from Bradford West Gwillimbury, York Region and Toronto.

Transit service options have not been developed for the village settlements that are not expecting significant growth (Gilford – Degrassi Point, Big Cedar Point, Leonard’s Beach, Churchill and Fennel’s Corner), unless they are located along the route between transit destinations.

Additional fixed route transit within Alcona may also be desirable as Alcona continues to grow. It is expected that a route such as Short-Term Service Option 4 will remain the core route through Alcona. Other routes to serve new and existing neighbourhoods north and south of Innisfil Beach Road may also be developed in the future, based on ridership levels and rider feedback.

Service Models and Recommendations

The destinations included in the long-term service plan are lower density and more dispersed than the core destinations connected by the short-term route options. A broader range of transit service models should therefore be considered. The following options were considered as options to connect the destinations that are included within the long-term service plan:

► Fixed schedule, fixed route transit;

► Fixed schedule transit with route deviations; and

► On-demand transit service.

Based on the analysis of options, three additional transit routes/services are recommended as part of the long-term service plan. These will supplement the fixed route transit service connecting Alcona, Barrie and the Innisfil Recreational Complex, discussed as short-term service options.

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study 71 MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009

1. Cookstown to Alcona via Lefroy and Tanger Outlet Mall

If the Town does not implement a transit service connecting Alcona to Tanger Outlet Mall as part of the short-term service plan, then this connection should be the priority for transit system expansion. Short- Term Service Options 5 and 6 are two options to connect these destinations. An on-demand taxi service (Service Option 6) would be a good starting point for evaluating demand. Thereafter, the Town could transition to a limited-hour fixed schedule service if justified based on demand (Service Option 5). Eventually, service levels could be increased to provide all-day service, to serve Cookstown and to extend further into Alcona. Request stops or route deviations could also be considered to increase the service coverage without increasing the route length.

2. Alcona to Innisfil Heights and Georgian Downs: Peak Hour Fixed Route Service

There are already a significant number of jobs at the Georgian Downs slot machines and racetrack. Once the Innisfil Heights Employment Area begins to develop, it is expected that there will be significant additional demand for transit for trips to and from work. Given the narrow geographic area and proximity to Alcona, a fixed schedule, fixed route service is recommended to connect Alcona residents to these jobs. The route would connect the core of Alcona to Georgian Downs and Innisfil Heights via Innisfil Beach Road, with the option of adding loops in Alcona and in the Innisfil Heights area to connect more residents and jobs This service would not need to operate all day; service hours could be focused on the peak hours when shifts change and employees are arriving and departing. Hourly service could be provided with one vehicle.

3. Alcona to Big Bay Point/Friday Harbour: On-Demand Service

Once the Friday Harbour resort community is developed, there may be a demand for transit for trips to and from Alcona, or to and from Barrie. Friday Harbour is advertising that there will be a shuttle provided to and from Barrie South GO Station. The Town of Innisfil should also consider offering an on-demand transit service to and from Alcona.

An on-demand transit service will enable Innisfil residents to work, shop or recreate at Friday Harbour. It will also enable Friday Harbour community members to travel to Innisfil and support local Alcona businesses. The service would be designed to pick up and drop off riders at a variety of locations in the Friday Harbour/Big Bay Point area; Sandycove Acres residents could potentially also be accommodated. All trips would either start or end at a fixed pick-up/drop-off location in Alcona. This service could be introduced on a pilot basis using small vehicles (e.g. taxis); it is anticipated that one vehicle would be sufficient to accommodate all trip requests. The service could be modeled on Bradford West Gwillimbury’s Taxi-to-GO and Bond Head taxi shuttle pilot programs.

Once the demand for this transit connection is proven, Innisfil could extend the core fixed route, fixed schedule transit service past Sandycove Acres north to Big Bay Point/Friday Harbour Resort. An additional vehicle will be required to maintain hourly frequencies.

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study 72 MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009

9.0 SERVICE DELIVERY

9.1 Service Delivery Options

Transit service delivery is not a one-size-fits-all approach. For some municipalities, contracting may be the most cost-effective way to provide service, because they can benefit from access to certain technologies or reduced labour, fuel, and insurance costs. For other municipalities, contracting may be impractical because of additional costs incurred from the bidding process and contractor oversight so in-house service delivery makes sense. It may also be feasible to only contract certain elements of a transit service (such as operations and maintenance or paratransit) and retain other functions in the municipality (such as asset ownership and management).

Four service delivery models are proposed for assessment:

► Contract Service Delivery

► Delegated Service Delivery - Taxi

► In-house Municipal Service Delivery – Town of Innisfil

► Municipal Partnership – City of Barrie

Each model will be described in summary and its key differentiating characteristics will be highlighted. The discussion does not detail the conflicting advantages and disadvantages of contracted (options 1, 2 and 4) and in-house (option 3) service delivery. Debates over the service quality, customer orientation, flexibility, control and accountability, risk and liability and safety attributes of contracted vs. in-house service delivery, to name a few, can be addressed equally well with thoughtful contract or organizational development.

The service plan components are assessed at the end of this section for best fit with the service delivery options and service delivery recommendations are made.

Contracted Service Delivery

Structured procurement and resulting contract with the successful proponent to operate and maintain Innisfil Transit Service.

Contracted operation of transit service is very common in smaller municipalities and regions. Canadian Urban Transit Association (CUTA) statistics show that about one-third of its member transit systems have some or all of their service delivered by private companies. The contract scope of the private company can vary:

► OMV – Operate, Maintain vehicle, Vehicle provision

► OM – Operate, Maintain vehicle only (Vehicle owned by municipality)

► O – Operate (Vehicle owned and maintained by municipality)

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study 73 MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009

The OM model for contracting is most typical. The vehicle type can range from a sedan (taxi) to a community bus/van to a full-size standard bus. When contracting transit service, the municipality maintains ownership of the service and authority over setting policies, such as fares and schedules

Key distinguishing characteristics:

► Regulatory authority – Operating authority is held by the municipality as fleet owner. Vehicle safety inspection, health & safety and environmental regulation responsibility is assigned to the contractor, with oversight and due diligence exercised by the municipality

► Asset ownership and management – Municipal, eligible for senior government infrastructure funding. Asset ownership by the contract company is a less common option that can be considered on a short- term basis (fast-track start-up of a new transit service) or on a more permanent basis (supported by cost-benefit analysis)

► Competition, qualified firms – A competitive environment with several qualified firms is beneficial to exploit the full potential of service contracting. There are a number of bus companies operating in the Innisfil/Barrie area delivering transit, student and charter services.

► Operational cost-efficiency, Cost-effectiveness – contracted bus companies are widely used to contain costs (compensation, work rules, IT innovation, performance management systems), but which incur contract administration expenses (procurement, oversight).

► Value-added services (access to contractor resources - performance management systems, IT, fleet, specialized training) – private companies often offer specialized recruitment & training, performance management systems, supply chain management economies of scale (for larger companies), IT innovation to support efficiency and effectiveness.

The plan’s fixed route / fixed schedule service and dedicated on-demand paratransit service, in the immediate term and long term, are suitable candidates for contract service delivery assessment.

Delegated Service Delivery - Taxi

Agreement with a taxi company(s) licensed in the Town of Innisfil to deliver all or segments of the Innisfil Transit Service

Taxis in Canada are most often used to deliver paratransit (specialized transit for persons with a mobility disability); integrated with a van-based paratransit service or as supplemental (user-side subsidy) service. The increasing numbers of accessible taxis, capable of transporting passengers with mobility devices, being introduced into Canadian taxi fleets are also providing market-based travel options to persons with a disability and to transit operators seeking accessible fleet options.

Shared-ride taxi service is also an emerging transit service delivery option for the general population. These services are expanding in Canada with branding like Trans-Cab (Milton, ON), Taxi-to-Go (Bradford West Gwillimbury, ON) or taxi bus (Rimouski, QC). The services are varied, but generally serve areas

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study 74 MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009

where it is not feasible to establish a regular bus service. These latter services may also be more formally contracted, as in section (a) above.

Key distinguishing characteristics:

► Regulatory authority – Operating authority is the taxi license and associated tariff. Taxis may be used for transit under contract with a municipality or dispatched (on-demand or subscription) by a municipality or its designee, both under authority of the taxi company’s license. The ‘designee’ can be the larger transit bus contractor or a transit broker (non-profit community organization). Vehicle safety inspection, health & safety and environmental regulation responsibility is held by the taxi company, with prudent, oversight and due diligence exercised by the municipality

► Asset ownership and management – Taxi company (eliminating senior government infrastructure funding)

► Competition, qualified firms – Problematic in areas with limited taxi service and due to industry challenges (standardized training and discipline, fraud mitigation). There are four primary taxi companies operating in the Town of Innisfil: Innisfil Taxi and Global Taxi, based in Innisfil, and Barrie Taxi and Deluxe Taxi, based in Barrie.

► Operational cost-efficiency, Cost-effectiveness – Taxis are widely used to contain costs for select, lower-volume services, offset by contract administration expenses (oversight).

► Value-added services (access to contractor resources - performance management systems, IT, fleet, specialized training) – larger fleet to address spikes in passenger demand, longer hours of operation to support extended services approved by a Municipality, established call centre, dispatching IT.

This option will be assessed for fit with the plan’s specialized transit service. It’s worth emphasizing that the option is based on taxi license authority/tariff and not contract service delivery by a taxi company discussed in subsection (a), above. In general terms, delegated service delivery by taxi is best suited to supplement core transit service.

Municipal Partnership – City of Barrie

Inter-municipal services agreement with the City of Barrie to extend Barrie Transit service to the Town of Innisfil.

City of Barrie staff have been receptive to discussing service provision for Innisfil and for other area municipalities under their contract with MVT. The City of Barrie has a 20-year term contract with MVT Canadian Bus for the provision of conventional and specialized transit service. The contract was the result of a rigorous procurement process administered by the City, with support from P3Canada and technical and legal advisors. The contract is performance-based with clearly defined service levels for on-time performance and customer service with penalties to motivate the service provider to meet the prescribed service levels. Under this same contract, Barrie Transit operates public transit service for the Township of Essa through an inter-municipal service agreement. This type of inter-municipal service delivery

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study 75 MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009

arrangement offers benefits to the Town of Innisfil related to Ontario Gas Tax funding, fare integration with Barrie Transit and service integration with Barrie Transit. Other benefits include availability of standby vehicles and existing capacity and technology to meet AODA requirements. Similarly to delegated service delivery by a taxi company, regulatory authority would be retained by the City of Barrie.

Key distinguishing characteristics:

► Regulatory authority – This could be most directly structured so all authority is retained in the Barrie / MVT Canadian contract

► Asset ownership and management – Municipal (Barrie or Innisfil)

► Competition, qualified firms – n/a

► Operational cost-efficiency, Cost-effectiveness – embedded in the Barrie / MVT Canada contract and subject to negotiation of the terms and conditions of the inter-municipal services agreement

► Value-added services (access to resources - performance management systems, IT, fleet, specialized training) – embedded in the Barrie / MVT Canadian contract The plan’s fixed route / fixed schedule service (with route deviation) and dedicated on-demand paratransit service, in the immediate term and long term, are suitable candidates for contract service delivery assessment.

In-House Municipal Service Delivery – Town of Innisfil

Municipal department for operation and maintenance of the Innisfil Transit Service.

In-house operation of transit service is very common in larger municipalities and regions. CUTA statistics show that about two-thirds its member transit systems have some or all of their service delivered by a municipality/transit agency, representing over 85% of transit service delivered in Canada (smaller transit systems predominantly contract for service delivery). Transit services in a municipality or region are usually organized in either a fully integrated transit department/utility/commission or a transit department with specialized, organization-wide ‘centres of excellence’ support functions (HR, Supply Chain Management, etc.).

In-house municipal transit service delivery includes conventional bus, community bus and paratransit.

Key distinguishing characteristics:

► Regulatory authority – Operating authority is held by the municipality as granted by legislation. Vehicle safety inspection, health & safety and environmental regulation responsibility is held by the municipality

► Asset ownership and management – Municipal, eligible for senior government infrastructure funding

► Competition, qualified firms – n/a

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study 76 MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009

► Operational cost-efficiency, Cost-effectiveness – Town employee compensation levels and work rules set basic operating costs, while the lack of economies of scale in a small municipality typically leads to higher cost.

► Value-added services (access to resources - performance management systems, IT, fleet, specialized training) – sophisticated organizational support in a municipality (HR, LR, financial, supply chain management, safety, environmental systems, etc.

The plan’s fixed route / fixed schedule service (with route deviation) and dedicated on-demand paratransit service, in the immediate term is not suitable for in-house service delivery.

9.2 Conventional Transit Service Delivery Recommendations

MMM assessed the options for conventional transit service delivery based on factors that include: municipal strategic direction and service plan, municipal vs contractor capacity, delivery costs, and revenue possibilities4. Based on this assessment, the contracted service delivery model is recommended. The potential financial and operational benefits for the Town to contract transit service include the following:

► Benefits of market competition – best price and quality.

► Savings in operating costs – competitive wages and benefits, more efficient use of labour and assets (integration with other company operations).

► Shift appropriate risk to the private sector.

► Flexibility to modify or cancel service more easily.

The MMM team also identified potential operators for the conventional transit service (Table 27). Three of the organizations were contacted regarding the delivery of an Innisfil transit service (MVT, Switzer Carty and Sinton Landmark), and all three organizations expressed an interest. Other potential service providers include coach bus companies, charter bus services and shuttle operators.

4 As part of the assessment, the MMM team conducted a preliminary evaluation of the likely costs and benefits of delivering the service through an inter-municipal partnership with the City of Barrie. With the City of Barrie as the service operator and “host municipality”, the Town of Innisfil would not be limited by the requirement that Ontario Gas Tax funding not exceed 75% of municipal contributions (including passenger revenues and grants). Furthermore, there are anticipated benefits related to fare integration, service integration and reduced administrative requirements. Based on the Barrie-Essa service agreement, the hourly operating costs for service delivered by Barrie/MVT may be higher than other potential service providers. With maximum annual Ontario Gas Tax Funding of $200,000 (conservative estimate), the increased hourly costs would outweigh the gas tax funding benefits for both the one-bus and two-bus transit service. Before issuing a RFP for transit service delivery and after finalizing service levels, the Town should obtain an up-to-date estimate of costs for conventional transit service delivery from the City of Barrie. If costs are roughly equal for service delivery by the City of Barrie versus by a third-party, then delivery by Barrie is recommended due to the benefits related to fare integration, service integration and administration.

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study 77 MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009

Table 27 Potential Conventional Transit Service Providers Potential Conventional Transit Service Providers MVT Provides conventional transit service within the City of Barrie, and operates transit service through their City of Barrie contract to Essa Township between Angus and Barrie. Switzer Carty Operates conventional transit service in Bradford West Gwillimbury Sinton Landmark Operates conventional transit service in the Town of Colllingwood, Town of Wasaga Beach, and between the towns of Collingwood, Wasaga Beach and Blue Mountains First Canada Operates conventional transit service in Orillia, Tecumseh and Orangeville Parkview Transit Operates school bus service in Simcoe County and Peel Region

A competitive procurement process using a publicly advertised request for proposal (RFP) is recommended to obtain the best price and quality for contracted service delivery. It is recommended that Innisfil contact potential service providers before it releases the Request for Proposal for the transit services contract. Notifying these companies of the Request for Proposal would increase the likelihood of these companies submitting a proposal. With a more competitive procurement process, Innisfil is more likely to obtain a high quality service at a competitive price.

Before soliciting bids, the Town may want to obtain an updated quote for conventional transit service delivery through an inter-municipal agreement with the City of Barrie.

Recommendations:

1. Contracted service delivery is recommended as the best fit for the Town’s short-term and long- term conventional transit service plans.

2. A competitive procurement process is recommended to obtain the best price and quality.

3. Additional recommendations on contract scope, term, payment model, procurement process and roles and responsibilities are included in the sections that follow.

Contract Scope, Term and Payment Model

Scope: The Operate-Maintain (O-M) model for contracting is most typical and is recommended for Innisfil, for the following reasons:

► Cost: Based on a comparison of the costs of purchasing vehicles versus leasing them from the operating company, purchasing vehicles is more cost-effective over a five-year period. However, the operating company is better positioned to perform vehicle maintenance, as they already have the staff, equipment and capacity for these activities.

► Potential service providers: The market is also usually more competitive when capital infrastructure requirements are excluded from the contract scope. Innisfil is more likely to obtain numerous proposals if vehicles are not included in the scope.

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study 78 MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009

► Minimizing conflict: OM bundles operations and maintenance under a single organization and management, thereby minimizing conflicting priorities that may arise between these functional groups. OMV also provides this benefit.

► Protection against disruption: If for any reason, Innisfil needs to terminate its relationship with one contractor and find another contractor, they could do this more quickly and without service disruption if they own the transit vehicle.

Contract Term: The contract term is usually a combination of a fixed term plus contract extension options. A shorter contract term is recommended for Innisfil as a new transit system – for example, a three-year fixed term and fixed pricing with two one-year contract extension options at the sole discretion of the municipality. With experience, a longer contract term may be considered in future procurements. A minimum fixed contract term of two years is recommended to ensure competitive pricing.

Payment Model: Under the majority of OM contracts, operating companies are paid based on the number of service hours delivered. This payment model is recommended for Innisfil due to its simplicity and widespread use. The operator will provide the hourly rate for service delivery in each year of their contract as part of their proposal. The operator will develop this hourly rate based on Innisfil’s planned revenue service hours. The hourly rate will factor in the operator’s fixed costs (e.g. management, facilities, overhead expenses and “deadhead” kilometres) as well as the variable costs (e.g. drivers’ wages and vehicle maintenance costs). Annual increases in operating costs can be linked to inflation, as measured by the Consumer Price Index.

The payment model should also address changes in service levels. Recognizing that the operator’s hourly rates are based on the planned number of revenue service hours, the contract should also enable adjustment of hourly rates when service levels change dramatically. For example, if service hours increase or decrease by more than 20%, the operator’s hourly rates can be re-negotiated. Payment can also be renegotiated if necessary based on audited costs.

Reporting Requirements: It is recommended that the contractor be asked to track and provide regular reports on key activities and indicators (e.g. on-time performance, service hours provided, training and maintenance activities conducted).

Procurement Process

The most common method of procuring transit services is a publicly advertised request for proposal (RFP). Under an RFP, the municipality describes the service it is seeking and openly solicits proposals from qualified companies. Responding proponents have the opportunity to be innovative and convincing about their capabilities. The RFP is not a tender and the transit agency typically asks the proponent for a proposal with two components:

1. Technical proposal that describes the company’s relevant experience and its business plan – operating history and capabilities, key management personnel, startup and operational plans,

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study 79 MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009

personnel hiring and retention programs, vehicle inspection and maintenance programs and customer service and communication plans.

2. Price proposal with hourly rates for years 1, 2 and 3 of service delivery, and total costs for the first three years of service based on the planned number of revenue service hours.

Each component is scored sequentially based upon a two-stage evaluation process, with evaluation criteria published in the RFP document. Typically, the technical component must meet a minimum number of evaluation points in order to proceed to evaluation of the pricing proposal. Proposals that do not meet this minimum are not evaluated further and the proponent’s price proposal is returned unopened. The evaluation criteria reflect a mix of quality and cost considerations, hence, the proposal with the lowest price is not necessarily the winning proposal. A 50/50 assignment of evaluation scoring to technical and price is common. There are systems with higher and lower assignments of technical/ price points but 50/50 represents a majority. A sample set of evaluation criteria is provided in Appendix B, Table A-1.

Procurement documents should include the following:

► RFP document issued by the Town of Innisfil to procure an operating company; and

► Draft transit contract(s) and associated schedules between the Town of Innisfil and the Operating Company. The final transit contract will be negotiated with the operating company selected to deliver the service.

Recommended Contractor and Town Responsibilities

A clear assignment of responsibilities between the contracting parties is important. The RFP and contract should clearly identify the responsibilities of the operating company and of the municipality. The details of each type of responsibility should be established by Innisfil as part of the development of the RFP and draft contract. Appendix B includes a detailed list of contractor and Town responsibilities for an Operate- Maintain (OM) contract model. Key recommended contractor responsibilities are identified in Table 28.

Table 28 Key Recommended Contractor Responsibilities Recommended Contractor Responsibilities Management ► Operate and oversee conventional transit service according to the route and schedule identified in the RFP ► Provide a local supervisor responsible for the system who can be reached during the transit operating hours and make decisions

Vehicles and ► Provide insurance for the Town’s transit vehicle and transit service to the levels prescribed in Facilities the contract ► Provide a standby vehicle that can deliver service in the event that the Town vehicle is unavailable during service hours ► Provide an indoor storage facility or area where the transit vehicle will be stored year-round

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study 80 MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009

Technology and ► Supply two-way radios or other equivalent communication technologies Fare Collection ► Supply GPS, AVL or other system to track vehicle location ► Deliver locked fare box canister with fares to the Town Office as specified in the contract

Maintenance ► Maintain buses to peak efficiency in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations ► Pay for all maintenance activities including but not limited to: replacement and repair of engine and transmission items caused by normal wear; lights; brakes; tires; upholstery; windows; mirrors etc. ► Recommended exception: For major components, the Town should establish the expected life for each component with proper maintenance, and should pay the contractor for replacement of these components at the end of their useful life. This will limit disputes and enable the Town to operate the vehicles for their full useful life. ► Plan maintenance to minimize the use of the standby vehicle

Customer ► Respond to customer questions or complaints (forwarded by the Town) within 24 or 48 hours Service ► Report questions or complaints received from customers directly to the Town ► Offer a polite, courteous and professional service ► Be familiar with the route and schedule and provide customers with accurate information

Contract ► Use a reliable and efficient accounting system to deliver timely and accurate billing Administration ► Track on-time performance / schedule adherence and other key performance indicators and Performance ► Provide quarterly or annual reports on key activities and indicators (e.g. on-time performance, Monitoring service hours provided, training and maintenance activities conducted) ► Work with the Town to deliver the best possible service (e.g. provide recommendations regarding routes, stops and schedules)

9.3 Specialized Transit Service Delivery Recommendations

As discussed in section 5.4, the demand for specialized transit in the Town will likely be low in the initial years of service, and will grow in subsequent years as awareness of the service increases and the ridership base grows. To limit the costs of providing specialized transit service in the first five years of service, a scalable service delivery model is recommended with costs based on the actual service delivered (vehicle hours or kilometres).

In line with this recommendation, the Town should delegate or contract service delivery to one of the organizations in the area that already operates wheelchair-accessible transit service and that has the staff, vehicles and capacity to meet varying levels of demand for specialized transit service. There are a number of organizations that would be well positioned to deliver specialized transit in Innisfil, as identified in the table below. The MMM team communicated directly with Barrie Taxi, Global Taxi, CHATS and the Red Cross about specialized transit service delivery, and all three organizations expressed an interest in a contracted or delegated service delivery arrangement.

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study 81 MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009

Table 29 Potential Specialized Transit Service Providers Potential Specialized Transit Service Providers Barrie Transit Provides Barrie Accessible Community Transportation Service (BACTS) within the City of Barrie, with service delivery contracted to MVT; Barrie Transit owns a fleet of 13 accessible vehicles Barrie Taxi Operates taxi service in Barrie and Innisfil; owns three accessible minivans Global Taxi Operates taxi service in Barrie and Innisfil; owns several accessible vehicles Red Cross Operates specialized transit service in the Town of Colllingwood; provides transportation to medical appointments for clients in the Town of Innisfil; owns and operates accessible vehicles CHATS Will be operating specialized transit service for the Town of Georgina; provides transportation to medical appointments for clients in York Region and Bradford West Gwillimbury; owns and operates accessible vehicles Parkbridge Operates a bus service for Sandycove Acres residents; owns and operates one accessible vehicle three days a week Lakeshore Retirement Operates a bus service for Lakeshore Retirement Home residents; owns and operates one Home accessible vehicle a few days a week

The Request for Expressions of Interest would be designed to enable creative service delivery methods and partnerships. For example, Barrie Transit could propose an extension of BACTS service into Innisfil, using the established BACTS application process to minimize administrative costs. Parkbridge and Lakeshore Retirement Home could propose a partnership where each would provide service on the days of the week when their vehicles are not in use.

Recommendations:

1. It is recommended that the Town issue a Request for Expressions of Interest to identify organizations with the required capacity for delegated or contracted service delivery.

2. The Town should avoid purchasing dedicated vehicles for specialized transit in the first few years of service. Instead, it is recommended that the operator provide the required vehicles.

3. A payment model based on vehicle kilometres or vehicle hours is recommended, so that costs are proportional to the service provided.

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study 82 MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009

9.4 Regulatory Requirements and Risk Management

The Ontario regulatory environment includes a number of requirements for an organization delivering public transit related to vehicle safety, worker safety, environmental responsibility and accessibility. Appendix B describes these regulatory requirements.

In addition to complying with relevant regulations, the Town has a responsibility as the owner of a contracted service to exercise appropriate contract oversight and due diligence to ensure safety and environmental protection provisions are upheld by the transit contractor. Recommendations related to due diligence are also provided in Appendix B.

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study 83 MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009

10.0 VEHICLES AND TECHNOLOGY

10.1 Vehicles

Primary Vehicle(s)

The short-term service recommendations require one or two vehicles to be in operation during service hours. The preferred vehicle will be one of the many types of approximately 18- to 24-passenger vehicles currently available on the market, and will preferably be a low-floor bus.

The vehicle specifications should address the following AODA requirements for transit vehicles, including those that come into effect in 2017:

► Allocated mobility aid spaces: Vehicles manufactured in 2013 or after must have two or more allocated mobility aid spaces (1.2 metres by 0.7m). ► Lifting devices: Vehicles manufactured in 2013 or after must be equipped with lifting devices, ramps or portable bridge plates; vehicles must be equipped with lights that illuminate the lifting device when the door is open.

► Storage of mobility aids: Ensure safe storage of mobility aids and devices within reach of the person who uses the aid.

► Courtesy seating: Provide clearly marked courtesy seating as close as practical to the entrance.

► Boarding and deboarding: Ensure that adequate time is provided to persons with disabilities to safely board and deboard transportation vehicles and that assistance be provided, upon request.

► Grab bars: Vehicles must be equipped with grab bars, handholds, handrails or stanchions at entrances and exits, courtesy seating areas, fare payment locations and mobility aid securement positions.

► Pre-boarding signage and announcements: Vehicles manufactured in 2013 or after must have signage displaying the route or direction or destination or next step. By 2017 – Provide electronic pre- boarding announcements of the route, direction, destination or next major stop.

► On-board announcements: By 2017 – Ensure that all stops or destination points are audibly announced through electronic means, and visually displayed through electronic means.

Costs for 18- to 24-passenger low-floor vehicles range that meet these accessibility requirements range from approximately $175,000 to $250,000, depending on the specific features requested (e.g. air kneeling versus ramps). High-floor vehicles with rear-entry wheelchair lifts can be purchased for $100,000 to $140,000. However, these are not recommended for Innisfil due to the large number of seniors that will be using the transit service. Fare boxes, bicycle racks and panels for advertising/signage can also be included in the vehicle specifications.

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study 84 MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009

The Town of Innisfil can issue a tender for the purchase of the vehicle(s). The tender will include the specifications, including: seating capacity; accessibility requirements; and fuel type. As part of the tender, Innisfil may wish to request prices for a more basic vehicle as well as for a more expensive vehicle. Alternatively, the Town can take advantage of the Metrolinx joint procurement initiative. This option is administratively efficient but may result in less flexibility with regard to vehicle specifications. The joint procurement initiative may also offer benefits including cost savings, extended warranty periods and access to fleet management services.

Standby Vehicle(s)

Spare vehicles will also be required in order to ensure service reliability in the event of vehicle mechanical failure, accident and for vehicle maintenance. The majority of transit systems that own their transit vehicles also own a standby vehicle. However, for a small transit system with only one or two vehicles, purchasing a standby vehicle in the first years of service is not recommended due to the high capital costs.

Instead, the contractor can be asked to provide one or more spare vehicles that meet the AODA requirements for accessible vehicles. The Town would only pay for the hours or kilometres that the vehicle is in service, which means that the vehicle costs would be distributed over a long time period. The requirements for provision of an acceptable spare vehicle for occasional use would be included in the RFP and contract.

After the first year or two of service, the Town can evaluate the pros and cons of buying their own standby vehicle based on the annual costs of the contractor-provided standby vehicle, the costs of purchasing an additional vehicle, and the availability of funding for the purchase of an additional vehicle.

Standby Vehicle Provided by Contractor: Collingwood/Wasaga Beach Transit Link Service, Ontario

An example of this model can be found in the nearby municipalities of Collingwood and Wasage Beach. The transit contractor, Sinton-Landmark Transportation, provides a standby vehicle for the Collingwood/Wasaga Beach Transit Link service, a one-bus service running on an hourly frequency. The Town pays only for the hours or kilometres that the vehicle is in service, which means that the vehicle costs are distributed over a long time period. The standby vehicle goes out into service least once a month so that maintenance can occur on the regular vehicle during normal business hours. For the most part, the standby vehicle is dedicated to the Collingwood/Wasaga Transit Link service. However, Sinton-Landmark occasionally uses the standby vehicle for other purposes in the evening and on weekends when transit service is not running.

Sample contract wording: “Have available and immediately supply at the Operator’s expense one (1) standby vehicle of a type and condition approved by the Town to provide and maintain regular service in the event that one or more of the vehicle fleet is out of service. The standby vehicle shall be used by the Operator while Town owned vehicles are temporarily out of service for repairs.” (Town of Wasaga Beach and Colllingwood)

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study 85 MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009

Use of Georgian Downs’, Sandycove Acres’ or other Organizations’ Vehicles

The MMM team evaluated the option of making use of vehicles that are already owned by organizations within the Town of Innisfil. These options are not recommended for conventional transit service.

The Georgian Downs shuttle is provided using coach buses that are not accessible. These buses therefore could not be used as Town of Innisfil public transit vehicles.

The Sandy Cove residents conveyed during consultation that their primary interest is in maintaining the customized service that brings them to and from destinations such as Royal Victoria Hospital (RVH) in Barrie. The options for use of the Sandy Cove bus would include:

► To maintain the existing Sandycove service and to limit the Town transit service to days of the week that the Sandycove service does not operate. This is not recommended as it would severely compromise the Town’s transit service.

► To replace the existing Sandycove service with a Town service, with potential sale of the transit vehicle to the Town and a small annual Parkbridge contribution to transit operating costs. This is not recommended, since Sandycove residents would likely be unhappy with a Town transit service that required a transfer to get to RVH and other Barrie destinations.

However, the recommended service delivery model for specialized transit service may provide an opportunity for use of the Sandycove and/or Lakeshore Retirement Home vehicle by a Town transit service.

10.2 Technology

An Automated Vehicle Location (AVL) system and Automated Passenger Counting system (APC) are recommended for the Town of Innisfil transit service. These can be included in the vehicle specifications as part of procurement, and are included in the estimated vehicle cost.

The APC system will provide the Town with valuable information on ridership at different times of day and along different sections of the route. This information can be used to modify and enhance transit service (e.g. service hours, routing, bus shelter location). The AVL system will enable the contractor and Town to track on-time performance. Once the service is established, the AVL system can also be used to provide web-based or mobile information to customers on the precise location of the bus, resulting in better customer service.

Pre-boarding signage and announcements and on-board announcements are other technologies that should be included in the vehicle specifications to comply with AODA requirements (discussed above).

If the Town proceeds with an on-demand service within the next five years (e.g. between Alcona, Lefroy, Tanger and Cookstown or between Alcona and Big Bay Point), mobile applications for trip booking and for

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study 86 MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009

dynamic routing should be investigated (e.g. RideCo, the Waterloo-based company providing Milton’s GO Connect service).

Within the next five years, the Town should also prepare to transition to an advanced smart card or mobile payment technology. Barrie Transit is researching advanced technology for implementation within the next two years. The Presto system is already being used by GO Transit and is in the process of being updated for greater flexibility. Innisfil should track these efforts and be prepared to participate when feasible. This will also allow for fare integration opportunities with Barrie Transit and/or GO Transit.

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study 87 MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009

11.0 MUNICIPAL ORGANIZATION AND STAFFING

Municipal transit management has dual roles: day-to-day transit service operations and contract administration. The transit service operations role requires open communications (phone, email, in-person) between the designated contacts for each party on an on-going basis. Contract administration includes oversight of contract compliance and payment.

The municipal staffing requirement and supervisory structure is modest with a well-structured service delivery contract. The contract management focus of the function could be incorporated in existing positions. The associated Transit Coordinator and Transit Clerk positions are described in Figure 30. The On-Street Operations Coordinator role is typically incorporated in an existing position within Roads Services. The Transit Coordinator can work with the Manager, Communications on marketing and communications, discussed further in section 12.0.

Figure 30 Municipal Organization and Staffing

Estimates of full time equivalent (FTE) staff requirements are provided for launch-related activities (implementation planning, procurement and launch) and for on-going operations (starting approximately three months after launch). These estimates are based on experiences in other municipalities, including

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study 88 MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009

Cobourg (total of 0.5 FTE), Niagara-on-the-Lake (total of 0.5-0.7 FTE), Leamington (total of 0.3 FTE) and Bradford West Gwillimbury (total of 1.0 FTE, increased since the launch of service).

A joint transit management committee comprised of the Town’s Transit Coordinator and the operating company Supervisor is also recommended. This committee can meet monthly or quarterly to address operational and contractual issues.

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study 89 MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009

12.0 MARKETING AND COMMUNICATION

12.1 Launch Marketing

Before and after the launch of the service, Innisfil will need to conduct significant marketing and community outreach to ensure that residents are aware of the service. In addition to raising awareness, these marketing activities will establish a positive brand and image for the Innisfil transit service. Marketing materials should convey that transit can benefit a variety of users – seniors, students, people with disabilities and general residents. Finally, these activities will provide residents with all of the information they need to use the service. A dedicated email address (e.g. [email protected]) and phone number should also be established to answer residents’ questions about the new transit service.

Table 30 presents the recommended launch-related marketing activities. Marketing efforts should begin two to three months in advance of the launch and continue for three to four months after the launch. Innisfil may also want to consider a “launch event” shortly after the launch date to generate excitement, potentially waiving fares for riders for the first day of service – and for up to two weeks after the launch of the service.

Table 30 Recommended Launch-Related Marketing Material/Activity Purpose Content Distribution Media Printed posters ► Raise awareness ► Route map (high-level) Post at the following locations: ► Establish brand and image ► Schedule and hours of ► Government facilities (Town Hall, ► Provide high-level information service (high-level) libraries, Recreational Complex, regarding the route and ► Launch date etc.) schedule ► Website and contact ► Other facilities (grocery stores, information local businesses, seniors’ communities and retirement residences, schools, etc.) ► Community events Printed ► Raise awareness ► Route map (detailed) Distribute at the following locations: brochures/ ► Establish brand and image ► Schedule and hours of ► Government facilities (Town Hall, handouts ► Provide detailed information service (detailed) libraries, Recreational Complex, regarding the route, schedule ► Launch date etc.) and fares ► Fares and fare media ► Other facilities (grocery stores, local businesses, seniors’ ► Where to purchase tickets communities and retirement and passes residences, schools, etc.) ► Website and contact ► Community events information ► Include in mailings (e.g. water bills or property tax bills)

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study 90 MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009

Material/Activity Purpose Content Distribution Media Website ► Raise awareness ► Route map (detailed) Website to be included in all ► Establish brand and image ► Schedule and hours of marketing materials ► Provide detailed information service (detailed) re. route, schedule and fares ► Launch date ► Provide service alerts (e.g. ► Fares and fare media delays, route changes, etc.) ► Where to purchase tickets ► Solicit community sponsors* and passes ► FAQs ► Service updates ► Contact information Booth at ► Raise awareness ► Posters Community events of all types community ► Establish brand and image ► Brochures/handouts events ► Provide detailed information ► Potential distribution of one re. route, schedule and fares free ticket to interested ► Answer questions from residents residents ► Solicit community sponsors* Social media ► Raise awareness ► Route map (high-level) ► Twitter ► Establish brand and image ► Schedule and hours of ► Facebook ► Generate discussion service (high-level) ► Answer questions from ► Launch date residents ► Website and contact ► Provide service alerts (e.g. information delays, route changes, etc.) - near real-time Advertisements ► Raise awareness ► Route map (high-level) ► Local radio and news stories ► Establish brand and image ► Schedule and hours of ► Local newspapers ► Provide high-level information service (high-level) regarding the route and ► Launch date schedule ► Website and contact ► Provide background info re. information history, delivery model, etc. (stories only) Transit email ► Answer questions from As required Contact information to be included in address and residents all materials phone number

In advance of the launch date, Innisfil will also need to design and print tickets and monthly passes. Innisfil should also design and print decals for the transit vehicle so that it can be easily recognized.

The Transit Coordinator should work with the Town’s Manager, Communications to develop and implement the launch-related marketing materials and activities. Either the Transit Coordinator or the Communications Manager can lead the effort, depending on workload. In most of the municipalities

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study 91 MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009

interviewed as part of the peer review, the Transit Coordinator plans and manages the marketing and communications activities with support from the Communications staff. These staffing arrangements would also apply to ongoing marketing and communication.

12.2 Ongoing Marketing and Communication

Once the service is well-established, Innisfil will be able to scale back the initial marketing activities. Ongoing marketing and communications efforts will service multiple purposes:

► Communication regarding service changes;

► Responses to customer inquiries; and

► Recruitment of new riders.

Communication Regarding Service Changes

Ongoing efforts will focus on keeping riders informed regarding changes to schedules or routes, and providing timely service alerts when routes are experiencing delays. The primary tools for ongoing communication with rider are as follows:

► Information regarding planned route, schedule and/or fare changes should be posted on the Innisfil transit website, in printed material on buses, and on social media platforms;

► Unplanned delays and service changes should be posted on the website and on social media platforms; and

► Alerts regarding service delays can be phoned into the local radio station by the contractor and posted on appropriate social media platforms.

When introducing new routes and transit services, the launch-related marketing approaches should be employed again to generate excitement and recruit riders from the areas that benefit from the new service.

Responding to Customer Inquiries

Innisfil staff will monitor the transit email address and phone number on an ongoing basis. Innisfil should develop a customer service policy of acknowledging all questions and inquiries within 24 business hours. When responses require contractor input, Innisfil staff can liaise with the contractor and solicit the required information from them (the contractor’s response period should be specified in the contract). Innisfil staff can then share the appropriate information with the customer.

Recruitment of New Riders

Efforts to recruit new riders should be continued at a lesser scale after the service is well-established. The launch-related marketing activities that are deemed most successful at attracting riders should be continued, with a particular focus on recruitment in the late spring and early fall of each year.

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study 92 MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009

13.0 FARE STRUCTURE AND RIDERSHIP PROJECTIONS

13.1 Recommended Fares

Based on a review of fares in other jurisdictions, a cash fare of $3.00 is recommended for all riders and destinations. The following discounts are recommended for other fare classes and fare media:

► 17% discount for adult ride cards, as compared to cash fares;

► 20% discount for senior and student ride cards, relative to adult ride cards;

► 40% discount for child ride cards, relative to adult ride card; and

► ~30% discount for monthly passes relative to ride card prices for all fare classes, based on 35 rides per month (approximately 8 rides per week).

The recommended fares for all fare classes and fare media are illustrated in Table 31. The fare class definitions are consistent with those of Barrie Transit. The recommended discounts are aligned with industry standards and with discounts in other small transit systems, as demonstrated in Table 32. Multi- ride cards are recommended rather than individual tickets to reduce sorting costs.

If possible, the Town of Innisfil should work with the City of Barrie to enable riders transferring between the Barrie and Innisfil transit systems to pay a single fare for the full journey. Barrie Transit would recognize Innisfil’s fares and transfers, and Innisfil’s transit service would recognize Barrie’s fares and transfers. This fare policy is expected to increase regional ridership, to the benefit of both municipalities’ transit systems.

Fare integration with GO Transit is not recommended for the Innisfil transit service at this time due to the challenges of implementation/enforcement and the low number of riders who are expected to transfer between systems. In the longer term, Innisfil may want to investigate the potential for co-fare arrangements with Metrolinx/GO Transit using a smart card fare system. With other operators in the region, Metrolinx covers 75% of the local fare when customers transfer to or from GO services. This is typically implemented through the PRESTO fare system.

Table 31 Recommended Fares Rider Eligibility Cash Fare Ride Card (10) Monthly Pass Adult n/a $3.00 $2.50 $60.00 Senior 65+ with valid ID $3.00 $2.00 $50.00 Student With valid ID $3.00 $2.00 $50.00 Child 6 to 13 (children 0 to 5 ride free) $3.00 $1.50 $35.00 Transfer or proof of purchase from Transfer Free n/a n/a Barrie Transit

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study 93 MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009

Table 32 Recommended Discounts Compared to Averages in Other Canadian Transit Systems

Discount Canada Population <50,000 Recommended Notes

Adult Tickets/Ride Cards as % of Adult 83% 82% 83% Consistent with average Cash Fare Student and Senior Ticket/Ride Card 79% 74% 80% Consistent with average as % of Adult Ticket/Ride Card Price Below average; encourages Child Ticket/Ride Card as % of Adult 74% 71% 60% parents to use transit, little Ticket/Ride Card Price influence on RC ratio Below average; encourages Monthly Pass as % of Ticket/Ride Card 90% 82% 69% frequent use of transit (e.g. Price (35 Rides Per Month) for commuting)

13.2 Ridership and Fare Revenue Projections

Ridership projections were developed based on observed ridership levels in other peer transit systems. As discussed in section 6.2, Innisfil can expect 4 to 7 trips per revenue-service hour in the first five years of the proposed transit service. With 3,488 annual service hours, year 1 ridership is projected to be approximately 17,000 for a one-bus service or 28,000 for a two-bus service. The associated 1.3 and 1.7 trips per capita are in line with ridership levels observed in other municipalities. By year 5, ridership is expected to increase to 25,000 to 40,000 annual trips.

Fare revenue projections were developed based on the ridership within each fare class. The proportion of adults (40%), seniors (30%) and students (30%) was estimated based on ridership data from other small municipalities. The use of monthly passes, tickets and cash fares varies significantly from place to place; as a conservative estimate, each fare media was assumed to account for one-third of trips. This yields an average fare of $2.25. Table 33 and Table 34 illustrate the projected ridership and fare revenue, along with average fares and trips per capita for the one-bus and two-bus service.

Table 33 Ridership and Fare Revenue Projections – One Bus Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Revenue service hours 3,488 3,488 3,488 3,488 3,488 Trips per revenue service hour 5 6 7 7 8 Total trips 17,000 21,000 23,000 24,000 26,000 Trips per capita 1.3 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 Average fare $2.24 $2.24 $2.24 $2.24 $2.24 Revenue total $38,000 $47,000 $52,000 $54,000 $58,000

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study 94 MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009

Table 34 Ridership and Fare Revenue Projections – Two Buses Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Revenue service hours 6,976 6,976 6,976 6,976 6,976 Trips per revenue service hour 4 5 6 6 6 Total trips 28,000 35,000 38,000 42,000 42,000 Trips per capita 1.7 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.6 Average fare $2.24 $2.24 $2.24 $2.24 $2.24 Revenue total $63,000 $78,000 $85,000 $94,000 $94,000

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study 95 MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009

14.0 FINANCIAL PLAN

14.1 Capital Costs

Capital costs include the cost of purchasing vehicles, estimated at $200,000 per vehicle, and include all required accessibility features and fare boxes (section 10.1).

Capital costs also include the purchase and installation of bus stop signs ($150 per sign). It is recommended that Innisfil install bus stop signs at fixed stop locations described in the previous sections. The signs need to have an appropriate design and size to be clearly visible to both customers and drivers. The estimated capital cost of each bus stop sign is $150, for a total cost of $6,000 (one-bus service) or $9,000 (two-bus service). Finally, capital costs include infrastructure upgrades to priority bus stops, such as construction of new sidewalks and curbs, installation of concrete pads and/or construction of bus bays where required.

Bus shelters and benches may be purchased by the Town of Innisfil in year 2 or 3 for priority stops, based on observed demand and rider feedback. Shelters and benches may also be provided through community and corporate sponsorship or through advertising agreements.

The total estimated capital costs for a one-bus and two-bus service are identified in the Five-Year Financial Plan.

14.2 Operating Costs

Total operating costs of $300,000 to $400,000 and $500,000 to $650,000 are anticipated in years 1 to 5 of service delivery for the one- and two-bus services, respectively. The breakdown of these costs is described below and presented in the Five-Year Financial Plan.

Service Delivery and Standby Vehicles

Hourly operating costs for contracted service delivery were estimated based on operating costs for other small transit systems in the area, including Bradford West Gwillimbury ($51 per hour) and Wasaga Beach ($47 per hour). Based on this analysis, a cost of $55 per hour of contracted service delivery was estimated for Innisfil in the first year of service. This cost includes fuel, mileage and vehicle storage facilities. A 2% rate of inflation was applied for the subsequent years.

Costs for contractor-provided standby vehicles were also estimated based on information from other small transit systems. A conservative hourly cost of $25 per hour was estimated based on standby vehicle costs in Bradford West Gwillimbury ($20 per hour) and Essa Township ($16 per hour). Usage of standby vehicles was estimated at three days per month per permanent vehicle in year 1, and an additional half day per month per vehicle in each subsequent year, based on information received about the Wasaga Beach/Collingwood Transit Link service.

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study 96 MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009

Staffing Costs

Section 11.0 presents the recommended staffing plan for the Town of Innisfil. Approximately 0.4 FTE will be required to manage the service on an ongoing basis. Additional staff time will be required during the first-year of operation (0.6 FTE). This includes significant effort on the part of the Manager, Communications to develop marketing and communication materials. The estimated salary of $70,000 per year accounts for the more senior Transit Coordinator position, the more junior Transit Clerk position and the Communications position. Again, a 2% rate of inflation was applied to salaries for the subsequent years.

It is also recommended that Innisfil seek external support for the preparation of the Request for Proposal and contract documents; the suggested budget of $10,500 is based on 2 weeks (75) hours of external support at a rate of $140 per hour.

Marketing Costs and Launch-Related Costs

In most transit systems, marketing costs account for approximately 2% of total operating costs. The ongoing marketing and communication costs ($5,000 per year) for the one-bus service are estimated based on this rule of thumb. The two-bus service may require some additional ongoing marketing due to the increased service coverage.

However, in the first year of service, launch-related activities will require significant additional investment – estimated at an additional $10,000, or 4% of operating costs. This will cover the costs of designing and printing posters, brochures, decals and transit tickets and passes. (In small municipalities, transit tickets and passes are generally designed in-house and printed by an external company, with minimal security features.) This additional budget will also cover the costs of advertising with local media outlets, setting up booths at community events and any other launch-related activities or promotions.

In the first year of service, there will also be minor costs to obtain license plates and permits, including a Public Vehicle Operating License for inter-municipal service.

Vehicle Refurbishment

The contractor will be responsible for all preventative maintenance and minor vehicle repairs. For major components, the Town should establish the expected life for each component with proper maintenance. The Town would then pay the contractor for replacement of these components at the end of their useful life. This will provide the contractor with a financial incentive to maintain vehicle components so that they meet the lifetime expectations. Establishing agreed-upon expected lifetimes for each component will also help to limit disputes with the contractor and enable the Town to operate the vehicles for their full useful life.

No annual maintenance costs linked to refurbishment are anticipated in the first year of service. In the later years of service, annual vehicle refurbishment costs averaging up to $15,000 per vehicle are anticipated.

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study 97 MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009

Bus Stop and Infrastructure Maintenance

Annual bus stop maintenance costs of $5,000 per year are estimated for the one-bus service, and costs of $7,500 are estimated for the two-bus service. This includes snow clearing and the occasional replacement of bus stop signs. It is anticipated that some of the bus stop locations (e.g. on existing sidewalks) are already being cleared of snow; maintenance costs are therefore estimated based on new maintenance requirements for 20 to 30 bus stops.

Facilities

No new facilities will be required in connection with the transit service, as the contractor will be asked to provide storage facilities for all transit vehicles. It is not anticipated that any park-and-ride facilities or transit hub facilities will be needed in the first five to ten years of service.

Capital Reserve Contribution

Given the estimated 5 to 7-year lifespan of the vehicle, it is recommended that Innisfil allocate $25,000 (one sixth of the vehicle cost) to a capital reserve fund in years 2, 3 and thereafter. This will enable Innisfil to replace the vehicle at the end of its lifespan.

14.3 Revenue and Funding

The following funding sources may be available to help the Town of Innisfil with the costs of a transit service.

Ontario Gas Tax Funding

Ontario’s Dedicated Gas Tax Funds for Public Transportation (Gas Tax) Program was launched in 2004 to provide a long-term, sustainable source of funding for Ontario municipalities that contribute towards a local public transit system. The purpose of the program is to increase municipal transit ridership through the expansion of public transportation capital infrastructure and levels of service. Ontario Gas Tax funding can be used by municipalities for either capital costs or operational costs.

Gas Tax allocations are based on a formula of 70% ridership and 30% population. A municipality that is not currently providing public transportation services, but decides to begin providing such services, may be eligible for funding. Notification of the municipality’s intent to provide public transportation services and specific commitment to annually fund such public transportation services is generally required prior to October 1, along with a municipal by-law indicating its intent to provide public transportation services.

Based on the allocation parameters for the 2014/15 program, the Ministry of Transportation has indicated that a population of 30,000 would translate into an allocation of approximately $240,000. This figure is meant to be illustrative only, based on the 2014/15 program year. Gas Tax funds provided to each municipality cannot exceed 75% of municipal own spending on transit. Municipal own spending includes

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study 98 MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009

passenger revenues, donations if applicable, and municipal contributions to operating and capital expenses, and is derived from data reported to CUTA.

As a conservative estimate, an annual Ontario Gas Tax allocation of up to $200,000 has been included in the Five-Year Financial Plan. For the one-bus service, the Town would receive approximately $150,000 annually based on the cap at 75% of total municipal expenditures.

County of Simcoe Funding

In recent years, the County of Simcoe has provided grants for public transit to several local municipalities. The Town of Innisfil obtained a grant of $38,000 from the County to conduct the Transit Feasibility Study. The Township of Essa and the Town of Penetanguishene also received $50,000 in funding in 2015 for transit systems that are in operation. The County of Simcoe transit funding is intended for capital costs and studies. The Township of Essa has received this funding annually for three years; however, annual funding is not guaranteed. The availability of funding for implementation of a Town of Innisfil transit service in 2016 will depend on the County’s 2016 budget and the number of local municipalities that apply for transit funding. County funding has been included as a potential revenue source in the first year of the Five-Year Financial Plan.

Cost-Sharing with the City of Barrie

The recommended two-bus service option travels within the City of Barrie for approximately 20 minutes and serves a neighbourhood within Barrie that is not currently served by transit (just east of the intersection of Huronia and Lockhart Road). The City of Barrie is willing to discuss a cost-sharing agreement for this section of the route. The cost-sharing agreement could involve the City of Barrie paying for 50% of the contracted service delivery costs for this third of the two-bus service. A cost-sharing agreement has been included as a potential revenue source in the Five-Year Financial Plan. However, like the County of Simcoe Funding, it is not guaranteed.

Other Sources of Revenue

Three other potential sources of revenue have been identified and are as follows:

► Development charges. In Ontario, development charges are charges imposed by municipalities on developers to pay for increased capital costs related to growth. Development charges provide municipalities with a tool to help fund the infrastructure needed to serve new growth. They help finance the growth-related capital costs of providing important services like roads, water and wastewater services, police, fire and transit. The Town of Innisfil may choose to increase municipal development charges to recover the capital costs of an Innisfil transit service.

► Advertising. Local municipalities such as the City of Barrie and Bradford West Gwillimbury have successfully negotiated contracts with outdoor advertising companies for advertising space on transit vehicles and at bus stops. Often, advertising companies provide and maintain shelters and benches in

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study 99 MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009

return for the right to sell advertising space on these elements. The Town should investigate this opportunity, keeping in mind that administrative resources are required to manage advertising contracts. Advertising opportunities must be promoted, advertising agreements developed, advertisements printed on sturdy media, and advertisements installed on transit vehicles.

► Community and corporate sponsorship. It is recommended that the Town of Innisfil solicit sponsorship from local business and community organizations. In other municipalities, service clubs and community organizations have made financial donations to local transit systems. Local businesses have also made financial or in-kind donations (e.g. printing decals for the exterior of transit vehicles). Municipalities have recognized these sponsors by including their logos on the website, on marketing materials and on the exterior of transit vehicles. Sponsors receive visibility and are recognized for their contribution to the community, while the Town receives additional funding and support.

► Sponsorship or partnership with Tanger Outlet Mall. The Tanger Outlet Mall management staff have indicated that there is a need for transit to serve the mall, and they are very interested in helping the Town make transit service to Tanger a reality. If the Town chooses to pursue a transit service to Tanger Outlet Mall in the short-term, Town staff should engage management staff in a discussion about potential Tanger contributions to transit.

Potential revenues from development charges, advertising and sponsorship are not included in the Five- Year Financial Plan.

14.4 Five-Year Financial Plan

This section provides five-year financial plans for the one-bus and two-bus transit services. The plans incorporate the capital costs, operating costs, revenues and funding sources identified in the previous sections. A summary of the total costs (capital and operating) and revenues for the one-bus and two-bus services is included as Table 35.

Table 35 Summary of Costs and Revenues, One Bus and Two Bus Services One-Bus Transit Service Two-Bus Transit Service Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total Costs $560,000 $355,000 $375,000 $400,000 $420,000 $980,000 $610,000 $640,000 $680,000 $710,000

Total Revenue $290,000 $200,000 $210,000 $230,000 $240,000 $375,000 $340,000 $350,000 $360,000 $360,000

Net Costs $270,000 $155,000 $165,000 $170,000 $180,000 $605,000 $270,000 $290,000 $320,000 $350,000

One-Bus Service

The five-year financial plan for the one-bus service is summarized in the tables that follow, incorporating the estimates and assumptions described above. Table 36 identifies the total capital and operating costs.

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study 100 MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009

Table 37 identifies the net costs, considering anticipated fare revenues and potential funding sources. Table 38 presents the key performance indicators associated with these costs and revenues for conventional transit only.

Table 36 Year 1 to 5 Total Costs – One Bus Total Costs Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Capital Costs Vehicles (1) $200,000 - - - - Bus Stop Signs (40) $6,000 - - - - Bus Stop Construction $25,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 Total Capital Costs $231,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 Operating Costs Contracted Service Delivery Conventional Transit Operating Hours 3,488 3,488 3,488 3,488 3,488 Hourly Cost - Operations $55 $56 $57 $58 $60 Conventional Transit - Annual Cost $192,000 $196,000 $200,000 $204,000 $208,000 Specialized Transit - Annual Cost $40,000 $48,000 $58,000 $70,000 $84,000 Standby Vehicle - Annual Cost $10,000 $12,000 $14,000 $16,000 $18,000 Total: Contracted Service Delivery $242,000 $256,000 $272,000 $290,000 $310,000 Staffing Costs Staffing Level (FTE's) 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 Salary Level $70,000 $71,000 $72,000 $73,000 $74,000 Internal Staffing Costs $42,000 $28,000 $29,000 $29,000 $30,000 Staff Benefits, Training, Cell, etc. $15,000 $12,000 $12,000 $12,000 $12,000 External Support $11,000 - - - - Total: Staffing $68,000 $40,000 $41,000 $41,000 $42,000 Other Operating Costs Launch marketing, licensing and permits $10,000 - - - - On-going marketing $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 Vehicle refurbishment/major repairs $0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $15,000 Bus stop maintenance $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 Capital Reserve Contribution - $33,000 $33,000 $33,000 $33,000 Total: Other Operating $20,000 $48,000 $53,000 $58,000 $58,000 Total Operating Costs $330,000 $344,000 $366,000 $389,000 $410,000 Total Costs - Capital and Operating $561,000 $354,000 $376,000 $399,000 $420,000

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study 101 MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009

Table 37 Year 1 to 5 Net Costs – One Bus Net Costs Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total Costs Total Capital Costs $231,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 Total Operating Costs $330,000 $344,000 $366,000 $389,000 $410,000 Total Costs - Capital and Operating $561,000 $354,000 $376,000 $399,000 $420,000 Revenue Sources Fare Revenue $39,000 $47,000 $51,000 $55,000 $59,000 Ontario Gas Tax Funding* $200,000 $152,000 $161,000 $171,000 $180,000 Gas Tax as % of Municipal Spending* 62% 75% 75% 75% 75% Simcoe County funding** $50,000 - - - - Total Revenue $289,000 $199,000 $212,000 $226,000 $239,000 Net Costs $272,000 $155,000 $164,000 $173,000 $181,000 * Gas Tax funds provided to each municipality cannot exceed 75% of municipal own spending on transit. Municipal own spending includes passenger revenues and municipal contributions to operating and capital expenses. As a result of this 75% cap, the Gas Tax funding available to the Town would decrease after year 1 as total costs of the transit service would be lower. **Potential revenue source; availability depends on 2016 budget and other municipal applications

Table 38 Year 1 to 5 Key Performance Indicators – One Bus, Conventional Transit Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total Operating Cost per Service Hour $83 $85 $88 $91 $93 Cost Recovery Ratio 13% 16% 17% 17% 18% Net Cost per Passenger* $17 $14 $14 $14 $13 *Total operating cost minus fare revenues

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study 102 MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009

Two-Bus Service

The five-year financial plan for the two-bus service is summarized in the tables below. Table 39 identifies the total capital and operating costs. Table 40 identifies the net costs, considering anticipated fare revenues and potential funding sources. Table 41 presents the key performance indicators associated with these costs and revenues for conventional transit only.

Table 39 Year 1 to 5 Total Costs – Two Buses Total Costs Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Capital Costs Vehicles (2) $400,000 - - - - Bus Stop Signs (60) $9,000 - - - - Bus Stop Construction $30,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 Total Capital Costs $439,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 Operating Costs Contracted Service Delivery Conventional Transit Operating Hours 6,976 6,976 6,976 6,976 6,976 Hourly Cost - Operations $55 $56 $57 $58 $60 Conventional Transit - Annual Cost $384,000 $391,000 $399,000 $407,000 $415,000 Specialized Transit - Annual Cost $45,000 $54,000 $65,000 $78,000 $94,000 Standby Vehicle - Annual Cost $20,000 $24,000 $28,000 $32,000 $36,000 Total: Contracted Service Delivery $449,000 $469,000 $492,000 $517,000 $545,000 Staffing Costs Staffing Level (FTE's) 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 Salary Level $70,000 $71,000 $72,000 $73,000 $74,000 Internal Staffing Costs $42,000 $28,000 $29,000 $29,000 $30,000 Staff Benefits, Training, Cell, etc. $15,000 $12,000 $12,000 $12,000 $12,000 External Support $11,000 - - - - Total: Staffing $68,000 $40,000 $41,000 $41,000 $42,000 Other Operating Costs Launch marketing, licensing and permits $10,000 - - - - On-going marketing $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 Vehicle refurbishment/major repairs $0 $10,000 $20,000 $30,000 $30,000 Bus stop maintenance $8,000 $8,000 $8,000 $8,000 $8,000 Capital Reserve Contribution - $67,000 $67,000 $67,000 $67,000 Total: Other Operating $24,000 $91,000 $101,000 $111,000 $111,000 Total Operating Costs $541,000 $600,000 $634,000 $669,000 $698,000 Total Costs: Capital and Operating $980,000 $610,000 $644,000 $679,000 $708,000

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study 103 MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009

Table 40 Year 1 to 5 Net Costs – Two Buses Net Costs Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total Costs Total Capital Costs $439,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 Total Operating Costs $541,000 $600,000 $634,000 $669,000 $698,000 Total Costs: Capital and Operating $980,000 $610,000 $644,000 $679,000 $708,000 Revenue Sources Fare Revenue $67,000 $84,000 $92,000 $101,000 $101,000 Ontario Gas Tax Funding $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 Gas Tax as % of Municipal Spending 26% 49% 45% 42% 39% Simcoe County Funding* $50,000 - - - - City of Barrie Cost-Sharing* $58,000 $59,000 $60,000 $61,000 $62,000 Total Revenue $375,000 $343,000 $352,000 $362,000 $363,000 Net Costs $605,000 $267,000 $292,000 $317,000 $345,000 *Potential revenue sources; availability unconfirmed

Table 41 Year 1 to 5 Key Performance Indicators – Two Buses, Conventional Transit Performance Indicators Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total Operating Cost per Service Hour $71 $78 $82 $85 $87 Cost Recovery Ratio 14% 15% 16% 17% 17% Net Operating Cost per Passenger $17 $15 $14 $14 $14 *Total operating cost minus fare revenues

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study 104 MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009

15.0 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

Figure 31 on the next page illustrates the key activities and schedule for implementation of the Innisfil transit service. Important elements of this schedule are as follows:

► A target launch date of August 1, 2016 has been used for planning purposes. This date would enable the Town to figure out any final service delivery details before September, when school resumes and transit demand tends to increase. It will also position the Town for a strong marketing push in September. Launching transit services in the winter months is not recommended.

► Manufacturers have indicated that 18- to 24-seat, low floor cut-away transit vehicles can take up to six months for delivery after they are ordered. The schedule illustrates the Town ordering the vehicle in early January of 2016 and receiving the vehicle in late June of 2016. This will provide a month for vehicle testing, driver training, decal application, etc. Tendering and ordering the transit vehicle is expected to be the most time-sensitive element of the schedule. The Town will need to proceed with tendering and ordering the vehicle promptly after Council approval in order to achieve a launch date of August 1, 2016.

► The Ontario Gas Tax program coincides with the fiscal year, running from April 1 to March 31. With a projected transit system start-up of August 1, 2016, the Ministry of Transportation has indicated that there will be adequate time for the Town of Innisfil’s transit service to be considered for inclusion in the 2016/2017 Gas Tax program. There are no firm deadlines for the Ontario Gas Tax program. Town staff should contact the Ministry for advice on next steps after two decisions have been made: the decision to proceed with a Town transit service, and the decision regarding whether the Town will operate a system on their own or partner with a neighbouring municipality. To participate in the program, the Town would need to pass a municipal by-law indicating its intent to provide public transportation services and commit to annual funding of public transportation. The schedule on the next page is based on Council approval of the transit service in November of 2015.

Final Report | Town of Innisfil Transit Feasibility Study 105 MMM Group Limited | September 2015 | 1515009

MMM Group Limited | September 2015 MMMSeptember | Limited Group Study Feasibility Transit Innisfil | Report Final Activities Schedule Implementation Innisfil FeasibilityTransit Study 7.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 Transit ServiceTransit Launch Communication and Marketing Preparation Infrastructure Service and Planning RFP Contracting Preparation and Vehicle Procurement Ministry Notification and Council Approval Negotiate finalize and contract with preferred proponent Evaluate select and proposals preferred proponent Issue Request for Proposal notifyand potential service providers Prepare Request for Proposal, draft schedules contract and Secure external (ifsupport desired) Receive vehiclevehicle prepare for and service Apply for required licenses Select order vehicleand Develop vehicle specifications issue and tender Obtain Council municipalapproval, pass by-law notifyand the MTO Develop Service request for OperatingLevel Change 2016 Budget Continue to deliver transit service work and withservice and Launch to operatingrefinecompany service meeting(s)Conduct pre-launch test and withruns operating company Deliver launch-related marketing Design print and tickets monthly and passes Prepare launch-related marketing materials Prepareinstall stopsand bus stop signs bus Finalize with stops route, and schedule contractor

01-Sep-15 Legend: 01-Oct-15

01-Nov-15 Activity 01-Dec-15

01-Jan-16

01-Feb-16

01-Mar-16

01-Apr-16 Major Milestone 01-May-16

01-Jun-16

01-Jul-16

01-Aug-16

01-Sep-16 106

APPENDIXA

Appendix A includes the following:

► Telephone survey questionnaire and summary of responses; and

► Online survey summary of responses to close-ended questions.

–

SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

AND

RESULTS

Innisfil Transit Survey June 2015 Executive summary

• There is strong majority support (77%) for the introduction of a public transit service in Innisfil. • Overall, there is a slight preference (expressed by 54% of residents) for costs to be covered by additional property taxes on households whose neighbourhoods are served by transit. However, the view that costs should be shared by all residents increases with support for public transit. • Six in ten believe that an extra $25 a year in property taxes is reasonable to pay for transit; the proportion willing to pay more drops sharply. A minority (36%) don’t want to pay at all, and this skews to those opposed to transit. • Residents are more likely to say they would use an hourly weekday bus service (37% very or somewhat likely) than a service that requires an advance reservation (21%). Among residents likely to use either option, a slight majority would find it difficult to plan trips around a schedule that had buses going to different destinations on different days. • Barrie Transit is by far the most preferred destination for transit to serve (79%), followed by Tanger Outlet Mall in Cookstown (42%).

Innisfil Transit Survey 2 Methodology

• Environics conducted an Interactive Voice Recognition (IVR) telephone survey of 477 Innisfil residents on June 8, 2015. • The data are statistically weighted by age and gender to reflect the demographic makeup of Innisfil according to the 2011 Census. • The margin of error for a sample of 477 is plus or minus 4.5 percentage points (at the 95% confidence level). The reader is cautioned that margins of error are larger for subsamples of the population (e.g., for gender, age groups). • In this report, results are expressed as percentages unless otherwise noted. Results may not add to 100% due to rounding or multiple responses.

Innisfil Transit Survey 3 Support for public transit Most residents support the introduction of public transit in Innisfil

Support for introduction of public transit in Innisfil

77% support 21% oppose

56%

21% 12% 9% 2%

Strongly support Somewhat support Somewhat oppose Strongly oppose dk/na

Nearly eight in ten residents support introducing public transit in Innisfil, including nearly six in ten who strongly support it. Two in ten oppose the introduction of public transit in the Town.

There is majority support for transit in Innisfil across all population segments, although strong support is particularly high among women (65%) and those under 60 (61%).

Q2. The Town of Innisfil is considering whether to introduce a public transit service that would connect key destinations in and around Innisfil. To what extent do you support or oppose public transit in Innisfil?

Innisfil Transit Survey 5 Paying for public transit The view that all households should share in the cost of public transit increases with level of support for the transit plan

Who should pay? By support for public transit

Total 44% 54% 3%

Strongly support 55% 45% 1%

Somewhat support 41% 55% 3%

Oppose 18% 75% 7%

All households Only if transit serves their neighbourhood Don't know

Overall, a slight majority (54%) believe residents should pay additional property taxes for transit only if it serves their neighbourhood, compared to just over four in ten (44%) who believe the costs should be spread across all households.

However, this pattern varies by support for public transit, with residents who strongly support transit for Innisfil (representing 56% of residents) most likely to say all households should share in the costs (55%).

Q3. Introducing a transit service in Innisfil will require an increase in property taxes. Which households should pay additional property taxes to cover the costs of public transit? If you think the costs should be spread across all households, press 1. If you think households should only pay if public transit serves their neighbourhood, press 2.

Innisfil Transit Survey 7 Six in ten say $25 is a reasonable amount to pay in additional property taxes, and this increases to eight in ten of strong transit supporters

Reasonable amount to pay for transit

63%

36%

22%

$0 $25 $50 $100

Six in ten (63%) residents say $25 is a reasonable amount for their household to pay in additional property taxes each year for public transit. This drops to one in five (22%) who would be willing to pay $50 and only five percent who say $100 is reasonable. There is a minority of residents (36%) who don’t want to pay any additional taxes at all, which is highly skewed to those who oppose public transit for Innisfil (77%).

The view that $25 is a reasonable tax increase is most widespread among strong supporters of public transit (80%), but is also held by a a majority (59%) of those who strongly support the plan (vs. only 20% of those who are opposed to public transit). Among strong supporters, only three in ten (29%) say it would be reasonable to pay $50 and seven percent would pay $100, and these proportions are even smaller among those who somewhat support or oppose transit.

Q4. What would be a reasonable amount for your household to pay in additional property taxes each year for public transit if it served your community?

Innisfil Transit Survey 8 Options for public transit Residents are more likely to use an hourly weekday bus service than a service that requires an advance reservation

Likelihood of using transit service Very/ somewhat likely

Runs every hour on weekdays 18% 19% 22% 41% 1% 37%

Requires a reservation in advance 6% 15% 34% 40% 4% 21%

Very likely Somewhat likely Not very likely Not at all likely Unsure

Close to four in ten (37%) residents say that someone in their household is very or somewhat likely to use an hourly weekday bus service, compared to two in ten (21%) who would likely use a service that requires an advance reservation.

The likelihood (very or somewhat) of using an hourly weekday bus service is higher among women (42%) and residents under 45 years of age (45%), while likelihood to use an advance reservation service does not vary by subgroup.

Not surprisingly, reported likelihood of using both service options is higher among strong transit supporters. Even among this group, preference is twice as high for a regularly scheduled bus service (61% vs. 29% who would use a reservation-based service).

Q5. The Town is considering various options for public transit. How likely are you or someone else in your household to use a bus that runs through your community every hour on weekdays? Q6. How likely are you or someone else in your household to use a service that requires you to make a reservation in advance of your trip?

Innisfil Transit Survey 10 A majority of residents who are likely to use public transit would find it difficult to plan trips around a varied destination schedule

Perceived ease of planning trips around varied destination schedule Among those who are likely to use either public transit option (44% of total sample)

43% easy 55% difficult

32% 33% 22%

10% 2%

Very easy Somewhat easy Somewhat difficult Very difficult Unsure

Among residents who are likely to use public transit (either regularly scheduled or by reservation), a majority (55%) would find it difficult to plan trips around a schedule that had public transit going to different destinations on different days of the week; four in ten (43%) would find it easy to plan around this type of scheduling.

Residents aged 60+ are more likely than younger residents to say they’d find this type of scheduling easy to navigate (62%).

Subsample: Very or somewhat likely to use either regularly scheduled transit or transit that requires an advance reservation Q7. Another option is for public transit to go to different destinations on different days of the week. How easy or difficult would it be for you to plan your trips around this kind of schedule?

Innisfil Transit Survey 11 Barrie Transit is the preferred destination for transit to serve, followed by Tanger Outlet Mall

Destination preferences – 1st and 2nd choice Destination preferences – combined

Connect to Barrie Transit 60% Connect to Barrie Transit 32% 79% Tanger Outlet Mall Tanger Outlet Mall 15% 42% (Cookstown) 31% (Cookstown) Commercial lands at Innisfil Sandycove Acres 10% 22% 13% Beach Rd/400 Commercial lands at Innisfil 8% Sandycove Acres 21% Beach Rd/400 15%

Lefroy 2% Lefroy 4% 2% First choice dk/na 6% dk/na 6% 8% Second choice

Barrie Transit is by far the preferred destination for transit to serve, with eight in ten (79%) indicating it would be their first and/or second choice. Tanger Outlet Mall in Cookstown is the next most preferred destination, by four in ten (42%) residents. About one in five each would like transit to serve the commercial lands at Innisfil Beach Road and the 400 (22%), or Sandycove Acres (21%). Few (4%) want to see transit service to Lefroy.

Barrie Transit is the top destination across the board, but there is a greater preference for transit to Tanger Outlet Mall among those aged 16 to 59 (49%) and a greater preference for Sandycove Acres among those aged 60+ (40%). Residents most likely to use an hourly weekday bus service express greater preference for service to the commercial lands at Innisfil Beach Road and the 400 (36%, essentially equal to their preference for Tanger Outlet Mall at 35%), while those who are somewhat likely to use the service are more inclined to want service to Tanger Outlet Mall (57%). Q8. The Town is considering various routes connecting Alcona and the Innisfil Recreation Complex to different destinations. In addition to Alcona and the Recreation Complex, which one of the following five places would you most want transit to serve? Q9. Which one of the following five places would be your second pick for transit to serve?

Innisfil Transit Survey 12 Questionnaire

Sarah Roberton Senior Associate, Corporate and Public Affairs [email protected] 613-230-5089

Innisfil Transit Survey 16 The Town of Innisfil is considering whether to introduce a public transit service that would connect key destinations in and around Innisfil. To what extent do you support or oppose public transit in Innisfil? 135 out of 138 people answ ered this question

1 Strongly support it 75 / 56%

2 Strongly oppose it 30 / 22%

3 Somewhat support it 22 / 16%

4 Somewhat oppose it 8 / 6%

5 No opinion on the subject 0 / 0%

Introducing a transit service in Innisfil will require an increase in property taxes. Which households should pay additional property taxes to cover the costs of public transit? 131 out of 138 people answ ered this question

1 The costs should be spread across all households in Innisfil 70 / 53%

2 Households should only pay if transit serves their neighbourhood 61 / 47%

What would be a reasonable amount for your household to pay in additional property taxes each year for public transit if it served your neighbourhood? 137 out of 138 people answ ered this question

1 I don't want to pay for transit 57 / 42%

2 $25 41 / 30%

3 $50 22 / 16%

4 $100 17 / 12%

The Town is considering various options for public transit.

How likely are you or someone else in your household to use a bus that runs through your community every hour on weekdays? 137 out of 138 people answ ered this question

1 Not at all likely 52 / 38%

2 Very likely 47 / 34% 3 Somewhat likely 23 / 17%

4 Not very likely 9 / 7%

5 Unsure 6 / 4%

How likely are you or someone else in your household to use a transit service that requires you to make a reservation in advance of your trip? 136 out of 138 people answ ered this question

1 Not at all likely 61 / 45%

2 Somewhat likely 29 / 21%

3 Very likely 20 / 15%

4 Not very likely 19 / 14%

5 Unsure 7 / 5%

Another option is for public transit to go to different destinations on different days of the week. How easy or difficult would it be for you to plan your trips around this kind of schedule? 134 out of 138 people answ ered this question

1 Very difficult 49 / 37%

2 Somewhat easy 28 / 21%

3 Somewhat difficult 25 / 19%

4 Unsure 21 / 16%

5 Very easy 11 / 8%

The Town is considering various routes connecting Alcona and the Innisfil Recreation Complex to different destinations. In addition to Alcona and the Recreation Complex, which one of the following five places would you most want transit to serve? 124 out of 138 people answ ered this question

1 Connect to Barrie Transit in the south end of Barrie 67 / 54%

2 Other 23 / 19%

3 Tanger Outlet Mall in Cookstown 18 / 15% 4 Sandycove Acres 7 / 6%

5 Commercial lands at Innisfil Beach Road and the 400 6 / 5%

6 Lefroy 3 / 2%

Which of the following five places would be your second pick for transit to serve? 124 out of 138 people answ ered this question

1 Tanger Outlet Mall in Cookstown 47 / 38%

2 Other 31 / 25%

3 Connect to Barrie Transit in the south end of Barrie 27 / 22%

4 Commercial lands at Innisfil Beach Road and the 400 12 / 10%

5 Sandycove Acres 5 / 4%

6 Lefroy 2 / 2%

Last question of this type - what would be your third pick for transit to serve? 125 out of 138 people answ ered this question

1 Other 38 / 30%

2 Commercial lands at Innisfil Beach Road and the 400 28 / 22%

3 Tanger Outlet Mall in Cookstown 22 / 18%

4 Connect to Barrie Transit in the south end of Barrie 17 / 14%

5 Sandycove Acres 15 / 12%

6 Lefroy 5 / 4%

What is your age? 137 out of 138 people answ ered this question

1 45-59 46 / 34%

2 30-44 45 / 33%

3 60-74 19 / 14% 4 20-29 14 / 10%

5 16-19 8 / 6%

6 75+ 3 / 2%

7 Under 16 2 / 1%

What is your gender? 137 out of 138 people answ ered this question

1 Female 101 / 74%

2 Male 36 / 26%

APPENDIXB

Appendix B provides the following additional information related to contracted service delivery:

► Recommended Contractor and Town responsibilities;

► Sample evaluation criteria for a competitive procurement process; and

► Information on regulatory requirements and risk management.

–

CONTRACTING AND PROC

UREMENT

Recommended Contractor Responsibilities

The RFP and contract should also clearly identify the responsibilities of the contractor. With an O-M contract model, it is recommended that Contractor responsibilities include the following:

► Operation and management

► Operate and oversee conventional fixed route and “flag stop” bus service according to the route and schedule identified in the RFP

► Provide a local supervisor responsible for the system who can be reached during the transit operating hours and make decisions

► Provide qualified drivers, maintenance staff and operations staff to operate the system

► Develop driver schedules and vehicle assignments

► Report all accidents or service disruptions immediately to the Town, insurance agent and police as appropriate

► Vehicles

► Provide insurance for the Town’s transit vehicle and transit service to the levels prescribed in the contract

► Fuel vehicles as per the contract terms

► Provide a standby vehicle that can deliver service in the event that the Municipal vehicle is unavailable during service hours. (Optional: The Town may choose to pay the Contractor for each hour of service provided by the standby vehicle. This will limit the risk for the Contractor associated with provision of a standby vehicle.)

► Technology

► Supply two-way radios or other equivalent communication technologies for communication between bus and a base station

► Supply GPS, AVL or other system to track vehicle location

► Fare collection

► Be familiar with fares and ensure that all passengers pay an appropriate fare

► Verify monthly passes and associated photo identification

► Deliver locked fare box canister with fares to the Town Office daily, or as specified in the contract

► Maintenance and cleaning

► Keep monthly maintenance records on file that can be made available at the Town’s request

► Clean buses inside at the end of each day; wash the outside of buses at least twice per week

► Plan maintenance to minimize the use of the standby vehicle

► Maintain buses to peak efficiency in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations

► Pay for all maintenance activities including but not limited to: replacement and repair of engine and transmission items caused by normal wear; lights; brakes; tires; upholstery; windows; mirrors etc.

► Recommended exception: The Town should pay for any major repairs or vehicle refurbishments (e.g. engine refurbishment) required to keep the vehicles in operation. This will limit disputes with the contractor and enable the Town to operate the transit vehicles for their full useful life.

► Participate in annual vehicle inspections, or on an as needed basis

► Return vehicles in a repaired, serviced and maintained condition upon termination of the contract (and potentially supply a Certificate of Fitness).

► Facilities and infrastructure

► Provide a storage facility or area where the transit vehicle will be stored year-round

► Licensing and training

► Ensure all drivers have received all necessary licensing and training under provincial and federal legislation, regulation, standards and codes for the vehicles they are operating

► Ensure all drivers have received training in customer service and in Innisfil transit service provision

► Finance and contract administration

► Keep accounting and operating records and provide monthly billings and reports that indicate: the vehicles operated, the hours of service, the distance travelled, the litres of fuel consumed and the average cost per litre during the month

► Use a reliable and efficient accounting and invoicing system to deliver timely and accurate billing

► Service planning, system management and performance monitoring

► Take manual passenger counts during each shift, and provide monthly information on ridership

► Track on-time performance / schedule adherence and other key performance indicators

► Participate in quarterly meetings to review performance, address issues and ensure the system is operating effectively

► Provide quarterly or annual reports on key activities and indicators (e.g. on-time performance, service hours provided, training and maintenance activities conducted)

► Work with the Town to deliver the best possible service (e.g. provide recommendations regarding routes, stops and schedules)

► Customer service, communications and marketing

► Respond to questions or inquiries from the Town and customers (forwarded by the Town) within 24 or 48 hours

► Document complaints or comments received directly from customers

► Offer a polite, courteous and professional service

► Be familiar with the route and schedule and provide customers with accurate information

► Contact the Town and/or local radio station immediately when the bus is experiencing delays

► Display or distribute notices, advertising or information provided by the Town on the transit vehicle

► Implement permanent or temporary service changes; provide service on new routes and/or according to new schedules, provided enough notice from the Town, at the tendered hourly rate

► Compliance with all applicable legislation and regulations

► Comply with all applicable legislation and regulations. (Section 9.4 further describes the regulatory requirements. The RFP and contract should list specific requirements and also include a blanket statement such as, “The Contractor shall comply with all legislation and regulations which may be applicable to the Services, including but not limited to the following…”)

Recommended Town Responsibilities

The RFP and contract should also clearly identify the responsibilities of the Town. With an O-M contract model, it is recommended that Town responsibilities include the following:

► Operation and management

► Work with the contractor to ensure efficient and effective daily operations

► Notify the contractor of any planned activities that could disrupt service (e.g. construction)

► Establish traffic control by-laws, transit priority measures, etc. to support transit service

► Vehicles

► Provide the primary transit vehicle(s) with all vehicle specifications required to meet AODA requirements

► Obtain all necessary vehicle licenses and permits

► Fare collection

► Provide fare boxes

► Establish fares and issue tickets and monthly passes

► Process and deposit fares delivered by the contractor

► Maintenance

► Perform annual vehicle inspection

► Pay for vehicle refurbishment and major repairs required to extend their useful life

► Service planning, system management and performance monitoring

► Prepare service plans (routes, schedules and stops)

► Participate in regular meetings to review performance and address issues

► Track key performance indicators (e.g. Revenue-Cost Ratio, boardings per hour)

► Report to Council on service plans and performance (ridership, KPIs, financial)

► Revise service plans in response to KPIs and customer and contractor feedback

► Customer service, communications and marketing

► Respond to customer questions and complaints; forward questions and complaints to the contractor when their input is needed for response

► Develop marketing and information materials, including schedules, route maps, website, social media accounts, etc.

► Finance and contract administration

► Review reported service hours and identify any issues or discrepancies

► Process monthly billings and pay contractor within an agreed-upon timeframe

► Establish annual operating agreements with the contractor

► Facilities and infrastructure

► Install, maintain and inspect bus stops and signs

► Provide a customer service facility where customers can obtain information, retrieve lost items, and purchase tickets and monthly passes

Procurement Process - Sample Evaluation Criteria

Table A-1 provides sample evaluation criteria for a competitive procurement process to select a transit service operator.

Table A-1 Sample Evaluation Criteria RFP CRITERIA POINTS AVAILABLE Part A: Technical Proposal 50 System Management and Supervision 5 (Organization chart, description and resumes for key management positions) Operations and Service Delivery 15 (Plans for operations, customer service, technology, fare collection and security) Facilities and Maintenance Plan 10 (Garage, standby vehicle, vehicle maintenance plan) Performance Management , Cost Management & Reporting 5 (Billing, accounting and cost controls; performance tracking and reporting) Staffing Training, Health and Safety and Regulatory Compliance 5 (Human resources management, System Safety and Training Plan, regulatory compliance) Past Experience, Operating History and References 10 Innovation and Value-Added 5 (Proposed innovative services not stipulated in the RFP but deemed to be added value) Minimum 35 points required for evaluation of Part B Costs Part B: Price Proposal 50 The Proponent’s total combined Proposal costs for the first 3 years 50 Total Score 100

Regulatory Requirements

The Ontario regulatory environment includes the following requirements for an organization delivering public transit:

► Vehicle Safety Inspection: The Carrier Safety and Enforcement Branch, a division of the Ministry of Transportation Ontario (MTO), administers a comprehensive safety inspection program for public transit vehicles with a seating capacity of 10 or more passengers and accessible buses designed or modified to transport persons with disabilities. Requirements are monitored, audited (random and scheduled inspections) and enforced by the MTO.

► A transit service delivery organization must register and hold a copy of a valid Commercial Vehicle Operator's Registration (CVOR) certificate on all vehicles in its fleet. The CVOR system monitors an operator's safety record over a 2-year period and the MTO may intervene and administer sanctions for poor safety performance. (Note: a CVOR is not required by an organization operating accessible vehicles designed to carry less than 10 passengers.)

► Annual and semi-annual safety inspections are prescribed by the MTO, each with an inspection sticker that must be displayed in all public transit vehicles.

► Note: There is an exemption for public transit (operated within a municipality and within 25 kms of its boundary) from regulatory daily (pre-trip) safety inspections required under Regulation 199/07 “Commercial Motor Vehicle Inspections” of the Act. Nevertheless, such inspections are a good safety practice and should be part of a transit system’s policies and standard operating procedures.

► Worker Safety Legislation: The Ontario Ministry of Labour enforces the Occupational Health & Safety Act, and holds responsibility for the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB):

► The Ontario Ministry of Labour (MOL) is committed to working with its workplace partners to eliminate all workplace injuries. Its province-wide strategy is based upon enforcement, compliance and partnerships. In the workplace, MOL requirements and best practices are designed to build a strong workplace health and safety culture. The Ministry maintains that “workplace safety is everyone’s business”. Relevant safety issues for transit include first aid, WHMIS, fall protection, general safety and violence in the workplace.

► The Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) is an agency of the Government of Ontario, accountable to the Ministry of Labour. It is legislated to administer and enforce the Province’s no- fault workplace compensation system under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act (the “WSIA”). WSIB promotes workplace health and safety and provides collective liability insurance coverage to employers. If injury occurs, WSIB administers a timely return to safe and healthy work for those injured. WSIB coverage is mandatory for the public transit industry.

► Environmental Legislation: The Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOE) administers the Environmental Protection Act which includes the care, management and control of substances that are harmful if released in the environment (diesel fuel, other fluids). Reporting of any release of a substance into the environment must be reported to MOE, as per the Environment Act.

► Accessibility Legislation: This is discussed throughout the report.

Recommendation: Include legislative requirements for licensing authority, vehicle safety, worker safety, environmental protection and accessibility provisions in organizational structure, management processes and business plans and/or procurement and transit contract documents.

Liability and Risk Management

The previous section outlined the key elements of the Ontario regulatory system for public transit. This section presents a strategy for contract oversight if the transit service is contracted. The Town has a responsibility as the owner of a contracted service to exercise appropriate contract oversight and due diligence to ensure safety and environmental protection provisions are upheld by the transit contractor. Due diligence objectives can be achieved with Operating Company reporting requirements in the transit contract and follow-up contract management action, as required.

Table A-2 Due Diligence Reporting Framework

Due Diligence Report or Document

Upon Upon Occurrence Monthly year / Twice Annual a. Written certification of insurance coverage X b. Vehicle safety inspection reports X c. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) clearance letter X d. Occupational Health & Safety investigation reports and Orders X e. Joint Health and Safety Committee (JHSC) minutes† X f. Written notification of passenger/worker/general public/vehicle accidents and X incidents g. Environmental spill reports X h. Accessibility Compliance Report

In addition to regulatory due diligence, the municipality can mitigate liability and risk by ensuring Operating Company compliance of its key risk management plans - System Safety & Training Plan (SSTP) and the Environmental Management Plan (EMP) - and stipulating higher insurance coverage than the regulatory minimums. Contract compliance can be monitored on an annual basis.

Recommendation:Due diligence reporting by the Operating Company to the municipality is recommended, as outlined in Table A-2.