1

Report to/Rapport au :

Transit Commission Commission du transport en commun

July 3, 2013 3 juillet 2013

Submitted by/Soumis par: Steve Kanellakos, Deputy City Manager, City Operations Directeur municipale adjointe, Opérations municipales

Contact Person/Personne ressource: John Manconi, General Manager, Transit Services Directeur général, Services du transport en commun 613-842-3636 x2111, John.Manconi@.ca

CITY WIDE / À L'ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE Ref N°: ACS2013-COS-TRA-0015

SUBJECT: EQUITY AND INCLUSION LENS REVIEW OF SEPTEMBER 2011 ROUTE CHANGES

OBJET : EXAMEN DANS L’OPTIQUE D’ÉQUITÉ ET D’INCLUSION DES MODIFICATIONS AUX CIRCUITS DE SEPTEMBRE 2011

REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Transit Commission approve:

1. The recommended application of the Equity and Inclusion Lens to Transit Services, as outlined in this report; and,

2. The amendments to the Evaluation of Possible Route Changes and Consultation on Proposed Route Changes service standards policies, as detailed in Document 5 and outlined in this report.

RECOMMANDATIONS DU RAPPORT

Que la Commission du transport en commun approuve :

1. la mise en œuvre recommandée de l’Optique d’équité et d’inclusion dans les services de transport en commun, comme il est exposé dans le présent rapport;

2. les modifications aux politiques sur les normes de service intitulées Évaluation des modifications possibles aux circuits et Consultation 2

concernant les modifications aux circuits proposées, comme il est expliqué en détail dans le document 5 et exposé dans le présent rapport.

BACKGROUND

On April 20, 2011, the Transit Commission approved changes to a number of bus routes across the system. As part of that decision, the Commission also adopted the following motion:

That OC Transpo staff report back to the Commission prior to the implementation of route changes in September on what impact studies will be undertaken on the impact of the changes to bus routes that would address the concerns of various groups within the City and deal with the following issues:

a. That OC Transpo conduct an impact study within 6 months of the bus route changes in order to measure the impact on ridership, in term of the number of riders, safety and accessibility taking into account the potential barriers faced by specific populations. b. That OC Transpo utilize the City of Ottawa Equity and Inclusion Lens to assist in assessing the impact on specific populations who may face barriers, for example: immigrants, low-income residents, youth, seniors, women, Aboriginal, people living with disabilities and rural residents.

The Equity and Inclusion Lens is a practical tool developed in 2009 by the City for All Women Initiative in collaboration with the City of Ottawa. Its creation was the result of a partnership grant between the City and Status of Women Canada. (See Document 1).

The Lens identifies 11 groups at risk of exclusion due to systemic barriers: seniors, persons with disabilities, people living in poverty, women, immigrants, visible minorities, Aboriginal peoples, Francophones, persons who are GLBT (gay, lesbian, bisexual, and trans), rural residents, and youth. Systemic barriers are defined as the obstacles that exclude groups or communities from full participation and benefits in social, economic and political life. They may be hidden or unintentional, but are built into the way society works, and can be reinforced by existing policies and practices.

As a complete package, the Lens assists City staff in understanding and responding to the needs and aspirations of Ottawa’s increasingly diverse population. Using it can help:  Generate better solutions by incorporating a diversity of perspectives, and recognizing and engaging the skills, experience and knowledge of all our residents;  Develop policies, programs and services that address systemic barriers and promote inclusion;  Create a more positive and respectful work environment; and  Achieve greater customer satisfaction.

3

DISCUSSION

Review of September 2011 Route Changes through the Equity and Inclusion Lens

Between the time that the initial recommendations for route changes were presented in March 2011 and the final recommendations in April 2011, staff conducted extensive public consultations. The level of public engagement in these consultations was significant. Approximately 1,100 people attended the open houses, 6,500 comments were submitted, and 16 petitions were received with a total of 4,102 signatures. In addition, staff attended advisory committee meetings, met with stakeholder groups, and participated in several public meetings organized by various Councillors. Many of the recommendations were altered to take into account the feedback that had been provided, and these amendments reduced the impact of the route changes in many ways, such as: better off-peak transit access for seniors; access to institutions including schools, hospitals, places of worship and specific workplaces; and modified hours of service to provide trips after work or school in the evenings at key hubs.

Then, following the direction of the Commission, consultations were conducted from March to August 2012 with groups and individuals representing groups identified in the Lens (See Document 2.). The emphasis of these consultations was on gathering a more in-depth understanding of the manner in which the changes affected the lives of individuals and the 11 Lens groups. Most consultations were in the form of town hall meetings and focus groups with specific community, advocacy and advisory groups, but there were also one-on-one interviews with individual customers personally affected by the route changes.

While the Lens lists 11 groups, individuals do not always fall neatly within just one group. In fact, during this review, it was far more often the case that individuals belonging to one group also belonged in others. The feedback received during the consultations indicated that the impact was felt particularly by individuals from a number of the Lens groups.

The study did not obtain reliable or accurate data to quantify the number of riders who may have been directly affected by the route changes, however it did obtain valuable qualitative input from people who were directly affected and who were able to identify their concerns through the Lens. Staff recommend applying the Lens in future business processes as it is a crucial tool to ensure that all customers are fully considered in all relevant aspects of the Transit Department’s work.

Document 3 of this report provides a full description of the results of the consultations. The main points raised were:  Seniors – The key impacts for seniors were increases in walking and travel distances, and an increased sense of isolation outside of peak-service hours.  Persons with disabilities – The key impacts for persons with disabilities, specifically those with physical disabilities, were increased walking and travel distances, and reduced access. 4

 People living in poverty – The key impacts for people living in poverty was reduced choice and reduced access for those with limited or no other transportation options.  Women – The key impacts for women centred on safety and the additional burden of changes to the customer experience as it pertained to their family responsibilities.  Immigrants and Visible Minorities – The key impacts for immigrants and visible minorities were similar to those outlined for low-income residents and women, including reduced choice for those with limited or no other transportation options, reduced access to the community and its amenities as it pertains to family responsibilities, and reduced sense of safety and security. An additional impact was confusion as it related to communicating route changes to customers whose first language was neither English nor French.  Youth – The key impacts for youth were reduced access for those with limited or no other transportation options, and reduced choice since they are more likely to use off-peak service.

Most of these key impacts were identified by staff or by public delegations when the route changes were originally presented to Transit Commission in March and April 2011. In other words, the consultations and the study did not identify any travel impacts on customers that had not been considered by the Commission at the time the September 2011 route changes were being approved. There were, however, three additional points that were not explicitly considered by the Commission and that were identified through this work. They were: 1) an increased sense of isolation, 2) a reduced sense of safety and security for customers as a result of longer walking distances and additional transfers, and 3) confusion related to the implementation of the route changes for customers who speak neither English nor French. In conclusion, the study of the key impacts of the 2011 route changes demonstrates an intersection of issues and experiences between the 11 Lens groups (as shown in the chart below).

Key impacts of 2011 route changes identified in reports or public consultations

Impacts Groups most affected Identified* A B C Increased walking distances and Seniors, Persons with Yes Yes Yes times disabilities, and Persons living in poverty Increased passenger volume on Seniors, Persons with Yes Yes Yes some routes (crowding) disabilities, Persons living in poverty and Women Increased number of transfers Seniors, Persons with Yes Yes Yes disabilities, Persons living in poverty, and Women Reduced off-peak/hours of service Seniors, Persons living in Yes Yes Yes poverty, Women, and Youth Increased sense of isolation Seniors, Persons with No Yes Yes disabilities, Persons living in 5

poverty, Women, Immigrants, Visible minorities, and Aboriginal peoples Reduced access to community Seniors, Persons with Yes Yes Yes facilities and amenities, including disabilities, Persons living in shopping, employment, medical poverty, Women, appointments, schools, etc. Immigrants, Aboriginal peoples, and Youth Reduced sense of safety and Seniors, Persons with No Yes Yes security disabilities, Women, Visible minorities, and Persons who are GLBT Confusion regarding the Immigrants, Visible No No Yes implementation of the route minorities and changes (for those whose first Aboriginal peoples language was neither French nor English) *Identified in: A – March 2011 report; B – 2011 Public consultation; C – 2012 Consultation with Equity and Inclusion Lens stakeholders

Applying the Equity and Inclusion Lens to Transit Services

Although Transit Services staff did not explicitly use the Lens during the 2011 service change process, the issues that were raised by staff in reports, addressed by the community during public consultations, and reflected in the final report to Commission in April 2011, were all consistent with the use of the Lens. In this case, applying the Lens may not have raised other issues or provided significant additional data, but staff believe that the Lens is a good tool to summarize the effects and more clearly delineate the different groups of customers who would be affected. As a result, Transit staff is recommending that they explicitly use the Lens in all future service planning and in making recommendation for major route changes.

As it relates to the March 2011 report on route changes, there are some examples which demonstrate the benefit of using the Lens. For instance, although staff reported that shortening routes would result in some customers “walking a short distance further to catch the bus,” application of the Lens framework in this context would have resulted in a more explicit recognition that increased walking distances may have a particular impact on certain Lens groups, such as seniors and persons with disabilities. Similarly, in the case of reduced hours of service for low-ridership routes, application of the Lens would have resulted in a more explicit acknowledgment of the impact the elimination of off-peak service may have on seniors and youth, who don’t necessarily use transit at peak times.

By applying the Lens to the analysis and consultation of future route changes, community engagement and policy development, the outcomes and decision-making in the future will be strengthened. 6

From the review of impacts on the Lens groups, some common operational themes emerged that have informed, and will continue to inform, the approach that staff take to service design, and other programs and initiatives. They include:  Safety – ensuring a secure customer experience from stop to station to destination  Access to employment areas – business parks, employment nodes, retail businesses  Access to health care services – medical appointments, hospitals, health centres  Access to food – grocery stores, fresh-food markets.

These transit considerations will ensure that the entire base of customers is included, including those beyond the 11 Lens groups (such as customers who speak languages other than English and French). These considerations will provide for an improved focus on specific customers who would benefit from expanded education about routes, using the system, improvements and changes.

The Lens can be used for:  Diagnosis – to analyze the impact of the design and implementation of policies or programs and used to identify appropriate actions to address barriers;  Measurement – to measure whether policies and programs address issues and affect changes;  Monitoring and evaluation – to identify strengths and areas for improvement, help build equitable solutions, and monitor progress; and  Identifying and celebrating accomplishments – to create "best practices" and service innovations and improvements that can be shared and replicated.

Staff will integrate the use of the Lens into work throughout the Department. The areas where it will be considered are outlined in Document 4.

Applying the Equity and Inclusion Lens to Route Planning

As described above, Transit staff will now explicitly apply the Lens as they evaluate and examine possible route changes, the effects that a route change will have on each of the groups identified in the Lens, along with a summary of the ways that the route change has been adapted to address that group’s travel needs. When the area of a proposed route change contains high representation from particular Lens groups (higher than the city-wide average), consultation on the proposed route changes will be expanded to explicitly include representation from those particular groups.

In order to implement this change, staff are recommending changes to two of the policies (approved by Council on June 22, 2005) that guide the way route changes are planned and approved:  The policy on evaluation will be modified by adding the following new point: “All new service changes will be examined through the City’s Equity and Inclusion Lens. Staff will explicitly look at each of the diverse groups identified by the Lens, 7

and confirm that each group has been examined in the final recommendation of the service change.”  The policy on consultation will be modified by adding the following new point: “In cases where the percentage of the population of a group identified by the Equity and Inclusion Lens is 50 percent higher than the citywide average, the proposed service change will be discussed with appropriate contacts or networks for the group to ensure they are engaged in the consultation process.”

The full text of the recommended revised policies is contained in Document 5.

Route changes made since September 2011 to address travel needs of specific Lens groups

Since the major route changes of September 2011, changes have been made to several OC Transpo routes to address concerns raised by customers and to better address their travel needs, particularly those customers in the Lens groups. Some of those changes began in 2012 and were funded by re-allocation of resources within the 2012 transit service budget, and some of those changes began in 2013 and were funded by a new budget allocation for Lens-inspired improvements.

All of the changes made to improve transportation for groups of customers identified by the Lens are listed in the table below. For context, that table also includes similar services that have been provided since 2011 or earlier. The table shows the route on which the service is provided, the nature of the service, the groups of customers to whom the service is targeted, the number of customers who use the service, and the cost of the service.

The new services from 2013 will be evaluated after one year of operation, just as all new services are. Any changes that are recommended based on the evaluation will be brought forward to the Ward Councillor or to the Transit Commission as required, following normal procedures.

The following route changes have been made since September 2011 to improve mobility for specific groups based on needs identified through research and consultations. These enhancements included improved access to hospital locations, employment locations, and senior and youth mobility – with the pilot initiatives testing impacts on seniors, people with disabilities, people living on low income, and youth:

 Route 16 – New trips were added to connect Sandy Hill with shopping destinations on  Route 16 – New trips were added to connect Sandy Hill and Old Ottawa East and with the hospital complex on Smyth (these trips were part of Route 5 until April 2013).  Route 87 – Limited service was added on Route 87 connecting St. Patrick’s Home and other locations near Mooney’s Bay with Billings Bridge Station and , with two trips a day, seven days a week, to improve seniors’ mobility.  Route 106 – The routing at the hospital complex on Smyth was expanded to provide direct service to the Rehab Centre between 07:00 and 19:00, Monday to Friday. 8

 Route 106 – New overnight service has been provided seven days a week on Route 106, connecting downtown with CHEO and the Ottawa Hospital, General Campus, to improve access to health care for people with limited travel options.  Route 116 – Additional round-trips were provided on Saturdays and Sundays, to improve access to the Hunt Club/Riverside commercial area and the Auriga/Antares employment area employment area for people with limited travel options.  Route 153 – The number of trips connecting the Ambleside area with Lincoln Fields and Carlingwood has been increased, to improve seniors’ mobility.  Route 156 – Two Sunday-evening trips were added to provide service from the Sikh Gurdwara on Hunt Club to .  Route 171 – New limited Saturday and Sunday service in the central part of was added to provide greater access to the entire OC Transpo network at a youth-friendly time of the week.

The table below shows the above services as well as similar services that have been provided since 2011 or earlier. The table shows the route on which the service is provided, the nature of the service, the number of customers who use the service, and the cost of the service.

Route Service Days Trips/ Custome Cost/year week rs/year 2 Westboro-Carlingwood trips Mon-Fri 40 9,100 $38,000 5 Trips serving Garry J. 7 days 254 22,000 $44,000 Armstrong 16 Trips from Sandy Hill to Mon-Fri 20 6,000 $31,000 Hospitals 16 Trips from Sandy Hill to Rideau Mon-Fri 30 17,000 $47,000 Street 87 Trips to St. Patrick’s Home 7 days 28 5,500 $26,000 106 Trips serving Rehab Centre Mon-Fri 610 222,000 $264,000 106 Overnight service 7 days 46 3,800 $92,000 112 Trips to Featherston/Ryder Mon-Fri 60 19,000 $26,000 116 Extra trips to Hunt Sat/Sun 12 5,600 $15,000 Club/Auriga/Antares 118 Trips to Church and Temple on Sun 2 730 $4,000 Prince of Wales 144 Trips to Hindu Temple Sun 2 1,100 $5,000 153 Lincoln Fields-Ambleside- 7 days 114 74,000 $165,000 Carlingwood trips 156 Trips from Sikh Gurdwara Sun 2 160 $2,600 171 Weekend service Sat/Sun 12 2,900 $24,000 175 Sunday evening trip Sun 1 210 $1,600 201 Shoppers’ service from Mon 2 260 $11,000 Richmond 9

202 Shoppers’ service from Tue 2 520 $11,000 Cumberland, Navan 203 Shoppers’ service from Wed 2 730 $13,000 Dunrobin, Carp 204 Shoppers’ service from Thu 2 520 $9,000 Metcalfe, Greely 205 Shoppers’ service from North Fri 2 680 $14,000 Gower,

Next Steps To reinforce this approach to service planning and decision-making, Transit Services proposes to undertake a number of initiatives in support of the Lens, including training, communications to staff and commence applying this Equity and Inclusion Lens immediately. All staff, and particularly the Management Team and supervisors play a leadership role in applying the Lens. Transit Services will continually build capacity and understanding of the Lens and the opportunities to strengthen our work over time. It is recognized that the changes involved in implementing the processes and initiatives are in some cases significant and will take some time.

RURAL IMPLICATIONS

The initiatives outlined in this report will help promote greater inclusion of rural residents through the integration of the Lens framework into the planning, operations and public engagement initiatives of the Transit Services Department.

CONSULTATION

Consultations on the Network Optimization initiative were conducted from March to August 2012 in the form of town hall meetings and focus groups with specific community groups. A detailed list is included in Document 3.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

There are no legal implications associated with this report.

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

There are no risk management implications associated with this report.

10

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

A total of $500,000 was included in the 2013 budget for added Transit Service hours in support of the Equity and Inclusion Lens. This incremental expense was recovered from Community and Social Services and as such did not impact the overall cost of Transit Services operations. Any additional funding requirements identified will be outlined in future draft budgets for consideration.

ACCESSIBILITY IMPACTS

The initiatives outlined in this report will help to remove or prevent barriers to persons with disabilities through the integration of the EI Lens framework into the planning, operations and public engagement initiatives of the Transit Services Department. The use of the Lens will also complement existing practices and procedures at Transit Services already aimed at removing and preventing barriers.

TECHNOLOGY IMPLICATIONS

There are no technology implications associated with this report.

TERM OF COUNCIL PRIORITIES

This report supports the following objectives of the Term of Council Priorities: TM1 – Ensure sustainable transit services TM4 – Promote alternative mobility choices HC1 – Achieve equity and inclusion for an aging and diverse population SE1 – Ensure a positive experience for every client interaction SE2 – Improve operational performance

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

Document 1 - Equity and Inclusion Lens: A User’s Guide Document 2 - Consultations on the Impact of the September 2011 Route Changes Document 3 - Results of consultation with groups and individuals about September 2011 route changes Document 4 - Integration of Equity and Inclusion Lens into Departmental work Document 5 - Recommended Revised Service Standards Policies

DISPOSITION

Staff will undertake any further action and direction of the Transit Commission. 11

DOCUMENT 1

Equity and Inclusion Lens

Equity and Inclusion Lens: A User’s Guide

The Equity and Inclusion Lens is endorsed by the City Manager and is also central to supporting the City’s Service Excellence commitments and the priorities and objectives in the City’s 2011-2014 Strategic Plan.

The Lens consists of a User’s Guide and a series of diversity snapshots:

 The User’s Guide assists in applying the Lens, and includes questions for staff to reflect on to increase one’s knowledge and practice of inclusion. The guide also includes a diversity wheel to assist in better understanding diversity, and a worksheet to help build action plans for using the Lens.  The diversity snapshots are quick reference booklets on people in our community who are at risk of exclusion, including information on their contributions, the barriers they face and their vision of an inclusive city. These snapshots provide background on groups who may be excluded due to systemic barriers or inequities.

By using the Lens in staff’s day-to-day work, incorporating it in their strategies and frameworks, and reflecting it in their goals and outcomes, the City can demonstrate that Ottawa is a healthy and caring community that strives to be inclusive.. And in turn, the Transit Services Department can develop services, policies and procedures that are inclusive and responsive to the diverse groups of customers we serve.

12

DOCUMENT 2

Consultations on the Impact of the September 2011 Route Changes

Consultations on the impact of the September 2011 route changes were conducted from March to August 2012 to get the community’s feedback, and to assess their impact of on Equity and Inclusion Lens groups.

Most consultations were in the form of town hall meetings and focus groups with specific community, advocacy and advisory groups, but there were also one-on-one interviews with individual customers personally impacted by the route changes.

Individuals, representatives and groups consulted (March to August 2012)

Adele Muldoon Barbara Carroll, Debra Dynes Family House Caroline Andrew, University of Ottawa, Centre on Governance Catherine Gardner, City of Ottawa Accessibility Advisory Committee Chris Bradshaw Christine Santele, City for All Women Initiative (CAWI), Women's Action Committee David Jeanes Diane Scrivens Dianne Breton, City of Ottawa Seniors’ Advisory Committee/The Council on Aging of Ottawa Elizabeth Kristjansson & M. Sawada, Ottawa Neighbourhood Study Erin Krekoski Euphrasie Emedi, South-East Ottawa Community Health Centre J. Dubois M. Powel Margaret Dunn, City of Ottawa Seniors’ Advisory Committee Michael Ircha, City of Ottawa Pedestrian Transit Advisory Committee Nathan Hauch, Spinal Cord Injury Ontario Reagan Walker, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Suzanne Doerge, City for All Women Initiative (CAWI) Valerie Assoi, City for All Women Initiative (CAWI) Valerie Collicott, Women’s Initiatives for Safer Environments (WISE) Adam Brown, City of Ottawa, Rural Affairs Office Kathy Riley, City of Ottawa, Transit Accessibility Specialist Lisa Petch, City of Ottawa, Strategic Community Initiatives Branch Nadine Jodoin, City of Ottawa, Strategic Community Initiatives Branch

Focus groups and Town Hall meetings (March to August 2012) Action Forum Focus Group and Town Hall (July-August 2012) One-on-one on-board interviews - Campus/Rideau (students and youth) One-on-one on-board interviews - One-on-one on-board interviews - Routes 4 and 5 Western Ottawa Community Resource Centre 13

Other consultations Sharmaarke Abdullahi, Michele Heights Community House Coordinator Rosemarie Hoey, St. Patrick’s Home Ron Rose, Director, Transportation Ottawa East Community Association

Reviews Route issues: 2X, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 12, 16, 18, 85, 87, 106, 111, 117, 156, 166 Older Adult Plan Consultation Findings Summary Report, City of Ottawa The Three Cities within Toronto Report, Centre for Urban & Community Studies, University of Toronto

14

DOCUMENT 3

Results of consultation with groups and individuals about September 2011 route changes

Seniors – The key impacts for seniors were increases in walking and travel distances, and an increased sense of isolation outside of peak-service hours.

In its March 2011 report to Transit Commission on the route changes, staff acknowledged that most of the route changes would increase walking distances and the number of transfers for customers. Staff also acknowledged that the changes would, where off-peak ridership was very low, result in the elimination of service or the discontinuation of certain sections of some routes.

Public feedback received in the March-April 2011 consultations on the route changes reinforced concern with these issues, with a number of customers identifying longer walks and reduced service as barriers to seniors’ access to the community and its amenities. For example, customers indicated that the removal of the former Communibus routes would result in a longer walk to services, particularly affecting seniors. As well, concerns were raised about reductions in service to the McEwen/Ambleside communities, and the removal of the Route 87 from and its impact on those living in Denbury and St. Patrick’s Home of Ottawa.

Transit’s 2012 review of the route changes through the Lens also confirmed these issues. It concluded that the direct impact of the service changes was seniors not being able to get out using transit as much, or at all. The more concerning indirect impact, however, was the sense of isolation that seniors experienced when they felt trapped in their homes. Eliminated routes meant greater walking and travel distances for seniors, and increased distances to a bus stop, which were too far for some. But the changes also resulted in: increased travel times, making some trips too long; increased number of transfers, which were confusing and too physically demanding; changes in service and frequency, which did not coincide with medical and other appointments; and increased crowdedness, which resulted in not getting a seat on the bus. As well, seniors historically travelled more during off-peak periods, using transit for personal outings, shopping excursions, medical appointments, and social engagements. While this off- peak travel strategy fit well in accommodating many of the travel concerns and limitations seniors faced, it failed with respect to the route changes, since several routes and segments with lower ridership were eliminated.

OC Transpo is a full partner in the implementation of the City’s Older Adult Plan, and a participant in The Council on Aging’s Ottawa Seniors Transportation Committee, which provide additional perspective on the impact of service change.

Persons with disabilities – The key impacts for persons with disabilities, specifically those with physical disabilities, were increased walking and travel distances, and reduced access.

15

Staff acknowledged these impacts in its March 2011 report on the route changes, stating that most of the route changes would increase walking distances and the number of transfers for customers. Staff also acknowledged that the shortening and consolidation of routes and reductions in hours of service might result in customers walking a shorter distance further to access certain neighbourhoods and employment areas, and/or the discontinuation of service to some areas.

Public feedback received in the March-April 2011 consultations also highlighted these issues, with a number of customers identifying longer walks and reduced service as barriers to persons with persons with disabilities. For example, customers noted that route changes would mean that there would no longer be easy access to CNIB offices, and customers identified the hill between Carling Station and Civic Hospital as a barrier that would hinder the longer walk for commuters and patients.

Transit’s 2012 review of the route changes through the Lens indicated that persons with disabilities experienced many of the same concerns as seniors, including a sense of isolation. However, in some instances, they differed from seniors in one important aspect. Their travel times and patterns did not necessarily coincide with those of seniors. Many persons with disabilities use peak service to access employment. This offered some measure of relief if the frequency of service was not reduced; however, all of the other service changes still represented a significant impact. A person using a wheelchair, for example, may encounter much greater difficultly accessing a stop that is farther away; a destination involving more transfers; or standing-room-only bus, due to overcrowding. The final assessment of the impact of the route changes on persons with disabilities was one of reduced convenience and reduced access.

OC Transpo is a partner in the implementation of the City of Ottawa’s Municipal Accessibility Plan and a full participant in the City’s Accessibility Working Group, which provide additional perspective on the impact of service change.

People living in poverty – The key impacts for people living in poverty was reduced choice and reduced access for those with limited or no other transportation options.

Theses impacts were not specifically acknowledged in staff’s March 2011 report on the route changes. Staff did acknowledge that customers would need to use alternate routes and would have an additional transfer or longer walk to reach certain neighbourhoods and employment areas. As well service to some areas, at certain times of the day, would be less frequent or discontinued.

Public feedback received in the March-April 2011 consultations underscored these issues, with a number of customers citing reductions in service to areas of the community with a higher proportion of low-income residents and to employment areas. For example, some customers identified the removal of Route 154 as affecting the residents of three social housing communities, while others felt that service changes in Overbrook would force seniors and lower income residents, particularly those south of Queen Mary and west of the Vanier Parkway to walk further. Other customers encouraged Transit Services to retain the Route 116 in off-peak periods, since it 16 provided shift workers with access to employment areas in the vicinity of Auriga and Antares Drive.

Transit’s 2012 review of the route changes through the Lens found that persons living below the poverty line or of lower income were impacted by route changes not so much on a different scale, as on different social criteria. A person living in poverty often has no other transportation choice. Apart from walking excessive distances, the only mode of travel a person of lower income may be able to afford is public transit. The reported impacts on people living in poverty were similar to other groups – pertaining to longer walk times to bus stops, more transfers, crowdedness, etc. However, in the case of low-income households the impact often resonated around other situational factors or family dynamics in which having no other choice becomes the measure of impact severity. For example, a single mother of three living in poverty having to get groceries or take children to a medical appointment, feels a greater impact if the bus stop is farther away, frequency is reduced, if the route was combined with another route, or is more crowded. The impact severity is said to be exacerbated by feelings of desperation when a person living in poverty has no other transportation choice. Apart from the distinguishing factor of “no other choice,” the second way in which route changes had a negative impact on people living in poverty occurred where route changes occurred in neighbourhoods where more low-income people resided.

Women – The key impacts for women centred on safety and the additional burden of changes to the customer experience as it pertained to their family responsibilities.

These impacts were not explicitly acknowledged in staff’s March 2011 report on the route changes. Impacts on all customers were identified – as they pertained to walking farther/longer to get to a bus stop, waiting longer at a bus stop, making more transfers, etc. – but there was no recognition that this may contribute to women feeling less safe or secure using public transit, or to reduced access to the community and greater isolation.

These concerns were, however, acknowledged in feedback received in the March-April 2011 consultations, with a number of customers citing concerns about safety and security. For example, in regard to revised service in Vanier, some customers indicated that stopping service at 8 p.m. would cause personal safety issues, and in regard to service changes in employment areas in southeast Ottawa, others expressed that the walk up Lancaster from was not safe. Although it could be applied to a number of Lens groups, customers also identified isolation as a key impact, since reduced service meant that many were unable to reach shopping, recreational and leisure facilities.

Transit’s 2012 review of the route changes through the Lens found that safety remains a significant consideration for women using public transit. Although all customers have given relatively high ratings to OC Transpo on matters of safety and security, the 2011 OC Transpo Usage and Attitude Survey notes some significant differences between the sexes. Women (84%) versus men (72%) feel more safe and secure during the day compared to at night. Similarly, women (78%) versus men (65%) indicate feeling safer 17 and more secure once on the bus than waiting at the station. And finally, women (41%) versus men (35%) say that encountering large numbers of young people makes them feel less safe and secure. As it relates to the route changes, the feedback received from women during this study echoed the survey results. It goes hand-in-hand that women who may already feel less safe at night, waiting at a bus station, or around large groups of young people, will feel even less safe and secure if (as a results of route changes) they needed to walk farther/longer to get to a bus stop, wait longer at a bus stop or make more transfers. The feedback from women was quite clear in terms of their feeling less safe and secure, particularly for shift workers traveling at night. In addition, the second circumstance that increased the impact of route changes is the way in which some women access transit differently than men insofar as family responsibility is concerned. Particularly among single mothers, and low-income and immigrant women, there is a reported additional burden with regard to family responsibility. In these households it is more often the case that women have responsibility for getting kids to and from school, medical appointments, extra-curricular activities, in addition to grocery shopping and other family duties. This is not to say that in some households men do not bear these burdens, however, women generally take on a greater share or the sole share of these family responsibilities. Under these circumstances the route changes – with emphasis on route elimination, longer walk/wait times, and more transfers – had a greater degree of impact on women as compared to men.

Immigrants and Visible Minorities – The key impacts for immigrants and visible minorities were similar to those outlined for low-income residents and women, including reduced choice for those with limited or no other transportation options, reduced access to the community and its amenities as it pertains to family responsibilities, and reduced sense of safety and security. An additional impact was confusion as it related to communicating route changes to customers whose first language was neither English nor French.

As previously noted, the impacts on all customers were identified in staff’s March 2011 report on the route changes, but there was no explicit acknowledgement that they may contribute to customer isolation, challenges in meeting family responsibilities, customers feeling less safe using public transit, and a lower level of awareness of the changes in households where little English or French was spoken.

Most of these concerns were acknowledged in feedback received in the March-April 2011 consultations, some of which have already been detailed in this report, and some of which was focused specifically in areas of the community with higher concentrations of immigrants and visible minorities. For example, issues of safety and security were raised regarding changes in and Leitrim, with customers expressing concerns that removing Route 142 from Athans Avenue would force them to take a longer walk in a dark and deserted area. Reduced access was raised with respect to changes in central Nepean which were to result in no direct connection to downtown for the residents of seven apartment buildings in the Hog’s Back-Dynes-Prince of Wales area. Again, customers identified isolation as a key impact, since reduced service meant that many were not able to reach shopping, recreational and leisure facilities – affecting family responsibilities. 18

Transit’s 2012 review of the route changes through the Lens found that some of the impacts of the route changes on immigrants and visible minorities were very similar to those of lower-income households and women. In particular, the impact on immigrant women insofar as family responsibility is concerned has been reviewed above. However, one additional factor regarding immigrants and visible minorities that was raised on numerous occasions throughout the impact study was the issue of communication surrounding the route changes. In households where very little English or French was spoken, lack of awareness, understanding or the implications of the changes resulted in a greater degree of confusion for some customers.

OC Transpo is a full participant in the City’s Immigration Network which provides additional perspective on the impact of service change.

Youth – The key impacts for youth were reduced access for those with limited or no other transportation options, and reduced choice since they are more likely to use off- peak service.

In its March 2011 report to Transit Commission, staff acknowledged that most of the route changes would, where off-peak ridership was very low, result in the elimination of service or the discontinuation of certain sections of some routes. However, reduced access with those with limited travel options was not addressed in the context of its impact on youth or the other Lens groups.

Feedback received during the March-April 2011 consultations identified access to educational institutions and employment, especially for those who were more likely to work shift or later hours, as impacts on youth. For example, concerns were expressed about revised service on Preston Street, since there would no longer be access to via the Hartwell Locks on Prince of Wales, and about service changes in Vanier that would adversely affect those who attended the University of Ottawa, Changes in were identified as meaning no access to Bell High School for students. As well, reduced hours of service were cited as a concern for shift workers who needed access to employment areas.

Transit’s 2012 review of the route changes through the Lens found that youth faced similar challenges as many of the other groups noted. The primary findings were that most youth have no option but to use transit. In this regard, youth were affected in a manner similar to other groups, such as seniors, persons with disabilities, people living in poverty, immigrants and visible minorities, and women. There is however a notable exception to be considered. The study also found that youth were among the most adaptable to the changes – by learning about them, taking alternative or new routes, or trying alternative means of transport (e.g. biking or walking). However, for some youth, transit is often considered as the lifeline that connects them to activities. While this is no different than for many other segments of the population, it bears repeating because for youth who have no other choice (many of whom aspire to having their own vehicle) reduced access to transit can have an undesirable effect on long-term ridership growth or retention. Youth are also among the group most likely to be using off-peak and late- 19 night service, due to educational, social or employment responsibilities. They noted that some routes that saw a decline in frequency late at night or on weekends complicated or negatively affected their transportation needs.

OC Transpo has engaged in the outcomes of the Mayor’s Youth Summit and is a full participant in the City’s Youth Action Plan which provides additional perspective on the impact of service change and youth requirements.

In conclusion, the study of the key impacts of the 2011 route changes demonstrates an intersection of issues and experiences between the 11 Lens groups (as shown in the chart below).

Most of these key impacts were identified initially by staff – either directly or indirectly – when the route changes were first presented to Transit Commission in March 2011. Other impacts were not highlighted by staff, primarily because they were more qualitative in scope. Despite that, these impacts were reinforced by feedback gained in public consultations in March-April 2011 and through targeted consultations with Lens stakeholders in 2012. 20

DOCUMENT 4

Integration of Equity and Inclusion Lens into Departmental work

In addition to the use of the Lens to retrospectively review the September 2011 route changes, staff will also move forward with the integration of the Lens into our work in several areas such as:

 Policy and program development – by identifying and defining the equity and inclusion concerns related to an issue; by ensuring that the groups most affected are consulted in the early stages of development; by determining if a program is designed and implemented to ensure that the full diversity of residents can participate and benefit with dignity; and, by communicating the policy or program so as to reach the full diversity of those affected.  Transit route planning – by identifying and defining the equity and inclusion concerns related to a route or service change and by identifying changes that can be made to ensure inclusion and remove barriers.  Public engagement – by determining the type of outreach needed to reach specific communities or groups; by identifying approaches or mediums that will help ensure everyone can participate fully; by developing an inclusive process that does not present barriers to people’s full participation; and by creating opportunities for people least likely to be heard to ensure they share their specific perspectives.  Marketing and communications – by ensuring that our messaging fosters inclusion, respect and equity; by making sure all possible target audiences are considered; by getting our materials out to organizations and networks that serve the diverse populations we need to reach; and by ensuring the medium is easily accessible and understood by the full diversity of our audience.  Evaluation and performance measurement – by considering what populations will be missed by only using certain methods of evaluation; by determining if the indicators are reflective of the diversity of the populations served; and by ensuring that customer satisfaction surveys include the demographics and socio- economic indicators included in the Lens.  Employee engagement – by fostering a safe, welcoming and respectful work environment; by identifying practices and attitudes that prevent some people from fully engaging in the workplace; by creating open dialogue between management and staff; and, by addressing systemic barriers and inequities in the workplace.  Employment – by determining if there are underlying assumptions or practices in our hiring process that would have a negative impact on candidates who face systemic barriers; by considering if job criteria unnecessarily limit who would qualify; and, by ensuring that interview panels are composed of individuals who bring diverse backgrounds and experiences relevant to the position.  Facility design and renovation – by ensuring that the facility is designed to ensure that the full diversity of residents can use it and benefit with dignity; by determining what changes can be applied to the design or renovation to ensure inclusion; and, by ensuring that the principles of universal design, relevant 21

accessibility and CPTED (Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design) standards and guidelines are applied.  Transit safety and enforcement – by ensuring safety and security programs and initiatives have considered issues of equity and inclusion; and by consulting with stakeholders to ensure diverse perspectives are sought prior to program implementation;.  Vehicle procurement – by identifying and defining the equity and inclusion concerns related to the purchase; by ensuring that the needs of groups most affected by the purchase are taken into account in the specification and procurement process; and by ensuring that the vehicles accommodate customers with a wide range of abilities.  Customer service and experience – by ensuring that staff interact and communicate with customers in a manner that considers their diversity; by ensuring that facilities and tools used for the delivery of front-line services (such as call centres, sales and information centres, website, information technology, etc.) consider the diversity of customers; and, by developing inclusive processes for customer transactions and interactions that do not present barriers to full participation.  Training and capacity building – by ensuring staff receive adequate education and development to understand and apply the Lens; by ensuring trainers have knowledge and experience on equity and inclusion; by ensuring the learning objectives consider the strengths and insights of all participants, including those who may have experienced exclusion; by ensuring people who risk exclusion are able to fully participate in the training; and by ensuring training approaches include awareness on how to create a barrier-free learning environment.

22

DOCUMENT 5

Recommended Revised Service Standards Policies

These new versions of two service standards policies would replace the versions adopted by Council at its meeting of June 22, 2005. The new parts of the new versions are shown in bold text.

Evaluation of Possible Route Changes

 New services are introduced to bring transit service to newly-developed areas of the city or to improve travel choices for current transit customers in other parts of the city. Any new service must provide a measurable travel benefit to customers, sufficient to attract new customers to the transit system. A forecast of new ridership is made, based on the population of the area, the demographic characteristics and travel patterns of the residents, and whether there are other alternative services that would meet their travel needs. New services that are not extensions of the base route networks must meet the minimum financial performance standard.  Service changes must provide a greater benefit than inconvenience to transit customers. Benefits and inconvenience are normally measured by examining the changes in walking time to or from the nearest stop, waiting time at the stop, travel time on board the bus or train, the number of transfers required, and the reliability of service.  Major service changes are introduced through the planning and consultation process described later in this report. A service change is considered to be a major route change if the change would result in operation on a street currently with no transit service (except for new streets designated for transit service through the development approval process) or if the change would result in a longer walk, a longer travel time, or an additional transfer for more than 100 customers each day.  (New) All proposed service changes will be examined through the City’s Equity and Inclusion Lens. Staff will explicitly look at each of the groups identified by the Lens, and will confirm that each group has been considered in the final recommendation of the service change.  All new services and major service changes are reviewed after one year of operation. If the ridership and financial expectations set out initially are met, then the service will continue as a regular part of the transit network. If not, and if the actual results do not meet the minimum financial performance standard, then changes are made to increase ridership or reduce costs.

Consultation on Proposed Route Changes

 A service change is considered to be a major route change if the change would result in operation on a street currently with no transit service (except for new streets designated for transit service through the development approval process)

23

or if the change would result in a longer walk, a longer travel time, or an additional transfer for more than 100 customers each day.  The proposed changes are presented to transit customers that would be affected and to residents in the areas where new services would be added.  A process of consultation is conducted, to gather customers’ and residents’ views on the proposals: 1. Initial consultation with the Councillors whose wards are affected, to outline major issues, to discuss the effects on customers, including those identified in the Equity and Inclusion Lens, and to determine what form of consultation with customers is appropriate; 2. The proposal is published on octranspo.com and on leaflets which are distributed on-board buses ; 3. (New) In cases where the percentage of the population of a group identified by the Equity and Inclusion Lens is 50 percent higher than the citywide average, the proposed service change will be discussed with appropriate contacts or networks for the group to ensure they are engaged in the consultation process; 4. A public open house is held in the area affected, if required; 5. Comments from transit customers and area residents and businesses are collected, compiled, and examined to determine whether the proposal should be revised; 6. Consultation with the Councillors whose wards are affected, to discuss the results of the consultation and any revisions which have been made to the proposal, and to determine whether the Councillor concurs with the proposal; 7. If the Councillor does not concur, a staff report with a recommendation may be presented to the Transit Commission.

Every major service change is reviewed after one year.