City of Clarence-Rockland Transit Feasibility StudyProject Number – 3414021 – O ctober 2014 1 1...

City of Clarence-Rockland Transit Feasibility Study

Final Report

October 2014

Final Report : Clarence-Rockland Transit Feasibility Study

ii Project Number – 3414021 – October 2014

City of Clarence-Rockland

Transit Feasibility Study

Final Report

MMM Project Number: 3414021

October 2014

Project Number – 3414021 – October 2014

i

Clarence-Rockland... a quiet, picturesque city nestled on the shores of the historic

Ottawa River, an important waterway for early explorers, fur traders and

missionaries. With its humble beginnings as a lumber town almost 140 years ago,

Clarence-Rockland has matured into a beautiful city of a little over 20,000 people.

Situated just 32 kilometers east of Parliament Hill and about 170 kilometers west of

Montreal, the area offers both the quiet of the countryside and the urban offerings of a

big city. Along with a healthy distribution of nature's splendor there's also plenty of

things to keep urbanites busy. We are a fully bilingual community with a full range of

churches, schools and sports facilities which offer endless choices for those who have

grown accustomed to essential amenities.

(From: http://www.clarence-rockland.com/index.php/en/ - July 7, 2014)


iii

Table of Contents

1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Purpose and objectives ................................................................................ 1

1.2 Organization of the report ............................................................................ 2

2 Community profile ...................................................................................................... 3

2.1 Geographic context ....................................................................................... 3

2.2 Policy Context ............................................................................................... 5

2.3 Demographic Profile ..................................................................................... 7

2.4 Employment and Housing Unit Growth Forecasts ................................... 10

2.5 Mobility Characteristics .............................................................................. 11

2.6 Existing Transportation Services ............................................................... 14

2.7 What this all means ..................................................................................... 17

3 Peer Review and Best Practices .............................................................................. 19

3.1 Peer Review ................................................................................................. 19

3.2 Other Models and Best Practices ............................................................... 26

3.2.1 Société des transports de Rimouski ...................................................................................... 26

3.2.2 Taxi-bus Thetford Mines ......................................................................................................... 27

3.2.3 Taxi-bus Victoriaville ............................................................................................................... 28

3.2.4 Conseil Intermunicipal de Transport du Sud-Ouest (CITSO) ............................................... 28

3.2.5 Town of Peace River, Alberta ................................................................................................. 29

3.2.6 Sou’West Nova Transit Association (SWNT) ......................................................................... 29

3.2.7 Ride Norfolk ............................................................................................................................. 30

3.2.8 Summary of Taxi-bus Characteristics .................................................................................... 30

3.3 Lessons Learned ......................................................................................... 31

4 Public Engagement ................................................................................................... 33


iv Project Number – 3414021 – October 2014

4.1 Stakeholder and Public Workshop Results ............................................... 33

4.1.1 Workshop Outline .................................................................................................................... 33

4.1.2 Data Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 33

4.1.3 Emerging Themes .................................................................................................................... 34

4.2 Survey Results ............................................................................................ 37

4.3 What this all means ..................................................................................... 47

5 Transit Service Analysis ........................................................................................... 49

5.1 Fixed Route Identification ........................................................................... 49

5.1.1 Red Route ................................................................................................................................. 51

5.1.2 Blue Route ................................................................................................................................ 52

5.1.3 Purple Route ............................................................................................................................ 53

5.1.4 Green Route ............................................................................................................................. 53

5.2 Analysis of Costs, Revenues and Ridership Required ............................. 55

5.2.1 Revenue Vehicle Hours ........................................................................................................... 55

5.2.2 Estimated Operating Costs and Revenues Required ........................................................... 56

5.2.3 Ridership Required .................................................................................................................. 57

5.3 Comparison of Fixed Route Options ......................................................... 58

5.4 Characterisation of Transit Demand .......................................................... 59

5.4.1 Transit Demand in other Jurisdictions .................................................................................. 60

5.4.2 Community Characteristics and their Influence on Transit Demand .................................. 60

5.4.3 What this all means ................................................................................................................. 61

5.5 Fixed Route vs. On-Demand Service ......................................................... 61

6 Recommendations .................................................................................................... 63

6.1 On-Demand Pilot Project ............................................................................ 63

6.2 Long-Term Transit System Development .................................................. 64


v

Figures

Figure 1: City of Clarence-Rockland ......................................................................................................... 4

Figure 2: Comparison of Population Growth 2001-2031 ......................................................................... 7

Figure 3: Population Growth to 2036 for Key Age Cohorts .................................................................... 9

Figure 4: Mode of Travel for Employed Workforce 1996-2011 ............................................................. 12

Figure 5 : Mode of Transportation Taken to Work (2011 National Household Survey) ..................... 13

Figure 6: Place of Work - 2001 to 2011 (Number) .................................................................................. 13

Figure 7 : CR Transpo Ridership by Month ............................................................................................ 16

Figure 8: Peer Review of Revenue Vehicle Hours (2012) ...................................................................... 24

Figure 9: Transit Travel Routes Identified by the Public ...................................................................... 50

Figure 10: Fixed Route Option 1: Red Route ......................................................................................... 51

Figure 11: Fixed Route Option 2: Blue Route ........................................................................................ 52

Figure 12: Fixed Route Option 3: Purple Route ..................................................................................... 53

Figure 13: Fixed Route Option 4: Green Route ...................................................................................... 54

Tables

Table 1: Population by Settlement Area to 2026 ...................................................................................... 8

Table 2: Household Income for Clarence-Rockland in 2010 (2011 NHS) ............................................ 10

Table 3: Employment Growth by Municipality, 2011 to 2031 ................................................................ 10

Table 4: Projected Increase in Number of Households by Municipality, 2011 to 2031 ...................... 11

Table 5: Distribution of Housing Unit Growth by Community in Clarence-Rockland........................ 11

Table 6: Commuting Duration in 2011 .................................................................................................... 14

Table 7: Time Leaving for Work in 2011 ................................................................................................. 14

Table 8: Peer Review - Fixed Route and Curb-to-Curb / On-Demand Service .................................... 21

Table 9 : Peer Review - Paratransit ......................................................................................................... 25

Table 10: Fare System in Rimouski ......................................................................................................... 27

Table 11: Route Length and In-Vehicle Travel Times ............................................................................ 55

Table 12: Travel Time and Speed (Including Dwell Time and Terminal Time) .................................... 56

Table 13: Headways, Number of Buses and Revenue Vehicle Hours ................................................. 56

Table 14: Daily Operating Costs - Total .................................................................................................. 57

Table 15 : Costs and Revenue per Trip (based on 50% Revenue-to-Cost Ratio) ............................... 57

Table 16 : Required Daily Passenger Trips (based on fare of $2.50) ................................................... 57

Table 17 : Comparison of Fixed Route Options (Unidirectional Service) ........................................... 58

Table 18 : Estimated Ridership Based on Average Demand in Other Municipalities ........................ 60


1

1 Introduction MMM Group Limited was commissioned by the City of Clarence-Rockland to conduct a Transit Feasibility Study (the Study) for an intra-city transit service. This report presents the results of the study, including recommendations for the implementation of a Pilot Project. This section describes the purpose and objectives of the study and provides an overview of the methodology and organization of the report.

1.1 Purpose and objectives

As of 2014, there are no local transit services operating within the City of Clarence-Rockland. Residents have access to a transit service that connects the City of Clarence-Rockland to the City of Ottawa; this service is mainly used by residents working or studying in Ottawa.

The purpose of the Study is to determine the demand for intra-city bus service within the City, and to identify the associated operational, financial and implementation requirements.

The following specific objectives define the Clarence-Rockland Transit Feasibility Study:

To identify the need/demand and options for local transit service and/or for special transit service within the City of Clarence-Rockland;

To determine the conditions, financial and otherwise, under which it may be feasible to initiate any transit service for the City of Clarence-Rockland;

To provide an analysis of the costs of the transit systems being investigated;

To identify the economic, environmental, social and other benefits to the City by implementing the above noted transit services; and

To identify potential connectivity between a local transit service and OC Transpo.

The potential intra-city transit service would help to achieve one of the core directions of the Clarence-Rockland municipal council: to support compact, transit-oriented development in regional community growth nodes and to connect these places with an integrated, customer focused regional transit system.


2 Project Number – 3414021 – October 2014

1.2 Organization of the report

The Study addresses a number of elements, which are organized as follows;

Community profile development (section 2). The community profile includes an analysis of geography, policy, demographics, and growth forecasts. It also includes an analysis of the travel patterns of Clarence-Rockland residents and describes the existing transportation services in Clarence-Rockland. The community profile provides an understanding of the local market and context for an intra-city transit service.

Peer review and best practice analysis (section 3). The Study included a review of 11 transit systems in comparable municipalities, and a comparison of key operating statistics (e.g. revenue-to-cost ratio, revenue-hours per capita, rides per capita, cost per vehicle hour, etc.) It also included a review of the key features of on-demand/taxi-bus systems in seven municipalities. The peer review informed the travel demand analysis, the cost and revenue analysis, and the options considered for Clarence-Rockland.

Public engagement (section 4). Two main activities were used to solicit input from the residents and stakeholders of Clarence-Rockland. First, two workshops enabled residents and stakeholders to provide input into the design of a potential intra-city transit system. Second, online surveys in both French and English provided additional information on likely uses and potential characteristics of the intra-city transit system. The public engagement provided an understanding of the community’s vision and the key characteristics of a transit system that would work for Clarence-Rockland.

Transit service analysis (section 5). The transit service analysis began with an assessment of fixed route service options for Clarence-Rockland. The study identified potential fixed routes and evaluated the demand that would be required for these fixed routes. The study compared these fixed route options based on feasibility and service quality. It then assessed whether Clarence-Rockland would be likely to generate the demand required for these fixed routes. Finally, fixed route options are compared to on-demand options considering the likely demand for transit in Clarence-Rockland.

Formulation of recommendations (section 6). Recommendations for Clarence-Rockland were developed based on the work carried out to date. This section presents short-term recommendations for Clarence-Rockland, including a suggested on-demand pilot project for the recommended transit model. It also includes a discussion of the longer-term options for Clarence-Rockland’s transit system, building on the results of the pilot project.


3

2 Community profile The community profile provides an understanding of the local market and context for transit in Clarence-Rockland. This section contains a description of the geographic context; the policies relevant to the provision of public transportation services; a demographic profile; and housing and employment growth projections. It also provides an overview of the mobility characteristics of Clarence-Rockland residents and describes the existing transportation services in the municipality. This information will inform the analysis of transit demand and transit options.

2.1 Geographic context

The City of Clarence-Rockland is a bilingual community located in the northwestern portion of the United Counties of Prescott and Russell. The Ottawa River forms the northern boundary of the city, which extends from the City of Ottawa to the west, the Nation Municipality to the south, and the Township of Alfred and Plantagenet to the east (see: Figure 1). The City is predominantly a rural area, with over 10,000 hectares of land designated for agricultural activities (34.4% of the total land area). The urban core is located in Rockland and historic villages are located throughout the rural area.

The municipality is quite large geographically, with an area of 298 square kilometres, which includes the urban area of Rockland, a number of historic settlement areas and a substantial rural area with over 10,000 hectares of land designated for agricultural activities (34.4% of the total land area).. The overall density is 78 people per square kilometre (based on the 2011 population of 23,220), which is very low. Rockland is home to about 40% of the total population and includes the urban core. The other 60% of the population lives in historic villages and throughout the rural area.

With a mix of rural and urban development, the city has a unique feel. The urban area of Rockland is expanding and is the focal point for much activity in the City. As the main commercial centre, Rockland is the primary destination for shopping, medical and social services, community services and employment.

The City has a road network typical of many Ontario municipalities. The major collector roads form a grid pattern established when the original lot and concessions were developed during the surveying of what is now Ontario. Blocks were created and land was divided and used primarily for agricultural purposes, a use that is still predominant in the City. Villages have grown up around these concession roads, which form the main arteries within each village. Within the blocks, local roads serve the local populations. With the existing grid pattern, vehicular travel is relatively easy and direct, particularly through the rural areas.

The local road networks in the residential neighbourhoods of Rockland and Bourget have a more curvilinear street pattern. The road network in the villages is limited, with Hammond having a few streets in a grid pattern. The rural subdivisions south of Rockland have limited roads, but do provide a connection between concession roads. Figure 1 on the next page illustrates this geographic context.



Clarence Creek

Saint-Pascal-Baylon

Bourget

Hammond

Cheney

Rockland

Clarence Point

Forest Hills

Figure 1: City of Clarence-Rockland

Rockland

Clarence Point

Forest Hills

Clarence Creek

Saint-Pierre-Baylon

Bourget

Hammond

Cheney


5

The City of Clarence-Rockland has developed goals, objectives and actions that relate to the provision of public transportation within the urban area and beyond:

1. A goal of the Plan is to encourage access to sustainable and active forms of transportation infrastructure through pedestrian links, bicycle paths and open spaces.

2. Through the Official Plan, the City will: a. Develop a compact pedestrian-oriented Commercial Core Area; b. Support initiatives to implement a public transit system within the

City of Clarence-Rockland; and

c. Promote the use of bicycles as a means of transportation.

The main north-south concession roads are:

County Road 21 (St. Jean Street / Baseline Road / Joanissee Road / Lacroix / Gendron Road)

County Road 8 (Landry Street / Labonte Street / Champlain Road / Clarence Cambridge Road).

The key east-west roads are:

CR 17

Laurier Street

Baseline Road

Labonte / Duquette Road

CR 1 (Du Golf Road)

La Croix Road

CR 2 (Russell Road / Laval Road)

Key village centres are situated at the following road crossings:

Hammond (Rte 21 - La Croix at Gendron)

Bourget (CR 2 at CR 8 Laval at Champlain)

Cheney (CR2 at Drouin Road).

Pascal-Baylon (CR 1 at Du Lac)

Clarence Creek (CR 8 - Landry at Labonte)

2.2 Policy Context

The City of Clarence-Rockland has two official plans, each one representing a different area of the municipality. One is for the Urban Area (predominantly Rockland) and the other is for the village of Bourget.

The Urban Area Official Plan supports the principles of sustainable growth, preservation of the quality of life and the management of future growth in Rockland. The urban area includes employment areas, elementary and high schools, commercial uses and large areas of residential uses. The Plan also supports the implementation of a public transit system within Clarence-Rockland and promotes the use of bicycles as a means of transportation.



Bourget is a village within the City that has unique characteristics and a vibrant nature. The vision established in the Official Plan describes a village that is self-sufficient, sustainable and inclusive.

Vision:

Bourget is and will continue to be a vibrant multigenerational village that is clean, safe and supportive of pedestrian and cycling connectivity. The village will experience moderate growth in the short term and will expand significantly over the longer term when municipal waste water infrastructure services are implemented. The village will be self-sufficient and sustainable, with small businesses that serve both residents and the surrounding rural area.

Objectives from the Official Plan include encouraging intensification within the village core through infill and redevelopment of under-utilized buildings and sites; promoting a mix and range of uses; and working towards an active, pedestrian-oriented streetscape.

As with all lower-tier municipalities in Ontario, Clarence-Rockland is subject to the policies of the upper-tier municipality, the United Counties of Prescott and Russell. The official plan(s) of lower-tier municipalities must be in agreement with those of the upper-tier and, rather than recreate the policies for the rural areas, can refer to those in the county Official Plan. This is the direction that Clarence-Rockland has taken.

The United Counties of Prescott and Russell are looking towards developing complete communities in which the impact upon the environment is minimized:

Complete communities are envisioned that will utilize existing services and infrastructure efficiently and minimize impact on the environment. These complete communities are envisioned to be vibrant, healthy, safe and able to sustain mixed-use development that reduce the reliance on the private automobile and encourage active modes of transportation and increased walkability. This is achieved by locating the majority of homes, job, shops, institutions

and services in proximity to each other.

The county also has a policy that allows them to acquire land to widen rights-of-way as shown in Schedule D of the Official Plan and includes providing for transit and rapid transit infrastructure, pedestrian facilities and cycling lanes. The county also states that proximity and access to transit services is part of the scope for the planning impact analysis and a built form principle under neighbourhood character.


7

This provides the policy framework within which to pursue a public transportation system to serve the needs of the residents of the community for a variety of purposes. The development of a public transportation service can reduce the reliance upon the private automobiles and give those who do not have access to a vehicle,

independence and access to services, social opportunities and employment within the City.

2.3 Demographic Profile

Clarence-Rockland is a growing municipality, and comprises over 25% of the total population for the United Counties of Prescott and Russell (UCPR) in 2011 (see Figure 2). Growth is projected to increase to 2031 and beyond. As a result, there will continue to be pressure within the City to provide services that will meet the varying needs of the community and expand their offering of services.

Figure 2: Comparison of Population Growth 2001-2031

Source: Statistics Canada: Census Data and * December 2012, Growth Forecast and Land Needs Analysis, United Counties of Prescott and Russell, Hemson Consulting Limited

19,512 20,790 23,185 27,520

31,470

76,446 80,184 85,381

99,020

111,490

2001 2006 2011 2021* 2031*

Year

City of Clarence-Rockland United Counties of Prescott and Russell



The population of Clarence-Rockland is projected to increase by over 9,000 over the 25-year period between 2011 and 20361 (see Table 1). This growth is significant in that the overall population for the municipality will increase by 39% over this time. The urban area (Rockland) which currently constitutes about 40% of the population will also continue to be the focus of growth until 2036.

Table 1: Population by Settlement Area to 2026

Settlement Area 2011 Population* 2036 Projection

Rockland 11,100 17,440

Clarence Point 1,010 1,250

Cheney 210 250

Bourget 1,010 1,380

Hammond 420 570

St. Pascal 200 240

Clarence Creek 550 850

Rural 8,220 9,810

Total 23,220 32,310 (+39%)

Age Cohorts

The segment of the population over age 65 is one of two major cohorts that experience

indicates can be well served by public transit in small towns and rural municipalities. This age

group represents retirees and seniors who still have travel needs but may not wish or are

unable to drive themselves. The other population cohort represents young people aged 15 to

24 who are developing independent travel needs and may not yet have a driver’s license, or

access to a vehicle.

From 2011 to 2036, there will be a significant increase in the number of people over the age of

65 in Clarence-Rockland and a decrease in the number of youth between 15 and 24 before

reaching 2011 levels in 2036 (see Figure 3). The chart below illustrates how the population will

change, in particular the dramatic growth in the population over the age of 65.

1 (As set out in Hemson Consulting Ltd, December 2012: Growth Forecast and Land Needs Analysis: United Counties of Prescott

and Russell).


9

Figure 3: Population Growth to 2036 for Key Age Cohorts

Source: Hemson Consulting Ltd, December 2012: Growth Forecast and Land Needs Analysis: United Counties of Prescott and Russell

Any public transportation service will need to be designed to meet the needs of these two

cohorts and be flexible to meet the changing demographics. The number of youth (aged 15 to

24) will decrease until 2026 at which time the percentage of the youth will increase and be at

2011 levels by 2036. However, during this same time period, the previously slow-growing over

65 demographic will increase significantly as a percentage of the total population by 2036 (at

which time this group will comprise almost 25% of the total population).

Current information indicates that as the population ages, access to travel decreases. As well,

current trends indicate a decrease in the number of youth obtaining their driver’s licenses and

not considering car-ownership as a requirement for independence and mobility. Therefore any

transit service that is developed will need to take into consideration not only the needs of an

aging population and provide them with access to shopping, medical and dental appointments,

social activities and community facilities, but will also need to consider the needs of young

adults who will want to access social and entertainment destinations, part-time jobs and extra-

curricular activities.

Households and Income Levels

The income levels in the City are higher than those of the province of Ontario, as shown below

in Table 2. As a result, evidence indicates that there will be a lower demand than other places

with lower overall incomes for public transit. It can be assumed, however, that there will be a

number of youth looking for publicly provided transportation services to meet their needs. .

3,290 3,210 2,510 2,500

2,870 3,300

2,790 3,550

4,500

5,690

6,980 7,630

2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036

15-24 >65



Table 2: Household Income for Clarence-Rockland in 2010 (2011 NHS)

Ontario Clarence-Rockland

Total Households 4,886,655 8,640

No. Households Income <$30,000

962,035 (20%) 995

(12%)

No. Households Income >$60,000

2,674,780 (55%)

5,715 (66%)

No. Households Income >$100,000 (included in >$60,000)

1,441,270 (29%)

3,250 (38%)

Median Income $66,358 $82,898

Average Income $85,772 $90,394

2.4 Employment and Housing Unit Growth Forecasts

The City of Clarence-Rockland has had stable employment growth over the last several years, as shown below in Table 3 that shows both historic and projected employment growth (to 2031). As can been seen, employment forecasts between 2011 to 2031 indicate that there will be an additional 580 jobs created, a growth rate of 10.6%, which is 2.0% more than for the United Counties of Prescott and Russell. As a result commuter traffic will be predominantly out of Clarence-Rockland, despite the growth in the number of households during the same time period.

Table 3: Employment Growth by Municipality, 2011 to 2031

Municipality 2011 2031 Increase %

City of Clarence-Rockland 5,470 6,050 580 10.6

United Counties of Prescott and Russell 29,680 32,240 2,560 8.6


In comparison, residential growth will increase substantially more during this time period, as previously mentioned. The growth rate for households in Clarence-Rockland will be 33.7% between 2011 and 2031 (as shown in Table 4). The demands on the road network and transportation services will be heavily biased toward commuter trips; however, the growth in households will also result in an increased demand for sustainable transportation options within the municipality, particularly with some major arterials being considerably congested. Data is available providing a breakdown of the number of units and land required in the settlement areas of Clarence-Rockland, with the majority of the growth to be within the Rockland Urban Area (see Table 4 below).


11

Table 4: Projected Increase in Number of Households by Municipality, 2011 to 2031

Municipality 2011 2031 Increase %

City of Clarence-Rockland 8,640 11,550 2,910 33.7

United Counties of Prescott and Russell 33,120 41,780 8,660 26.1


Table 5: Distribution of Housing Unit Growth by Community in Clarence-Rockland

Gross ha Req’d

Based on Density Range UPGH

Gross ha supply

Gross ha Surplus or (short) at Density

Range UPGH

Settlement Area

Permits Share

Permits Share

Forecast Units 7 9 12 7 9 12

Rockland Urban Area

812 86% 86% 2438 348 271 203 215 (133) (56) 12

Clarence Point

18 2% 2% 54 8 6 5 218 210 212 213

Cheney 5 1% 1% 15 2 2 1 169 167 167 168

Bourget 50 5% 5% 142 20 16 12 215 195 200 203

Hammond 19 2% 2% 57 8 6 5 294 286 287 289

St.-Pascal-Baylon

5 1% 1% 15 2 2 1 231 228 229 229

Clarence Creek

34 4% 4% 113 16 13 9 139 123 127 130

Total 943 100% 100% 2834 405 315 236 4181 1076 1166 1244


2.5 Mobility Characteristics

With its proximity to the cities of Ottawa and Gatineau, there is a large percentage of commuters who travel to employment areas outside of the City and towards Ottawa and Gatineau. As shown below, a majority of these trips are made by private automobile, with approximately, 8.6 percent of residents using public transit for the commute to Ottawa.2 During a 15 year period, commuters from Clarence-Rockland have continued to choose driving as their preferred mode (see Figure 4); however, there was a slight decrease in driving about the same time that the commuter bus service (Clarence-Rockland Transpo) was introduced. The number of commuters taking public transit to work increased significantly in 2006 over previous years.

2 Statistics Canada. 2013. Clarence-Rockland, CY, Ontario (Code 3502036) (table). National Household Survey (NHS) Profile. 2011

National Household Survey. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 99-004-XWE. Ottawa.



Figure 4: Mode of Travel for Employed Workforce 1996-2011

The use of public transit for commuting purposes rose considerably upon the initiation of the commuter service, CR Transpo. This is indicative of a latent demand for a transit service originating within City limits and providing direct service to Ottawa and Gatineau. Transit ridership apparently grew at the expense of carpooling and walking or cycling to work. The number of those driving to work remained steady, It is believed that a major factor contributing to the success of the CR Transpo service is that it offers a shorter trip than driving and eliminates having to pay for parking in downtown Ottawa. Users save time and money by choosing this mode.

The chart below (Figure 5) shows the differences in travel mode by gender. As indicated below, there are more male commuters driving to work while there are more female commuters using transit.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

% working at

home

Travel to work: %

by car; truck or van

as driver

Travel to work: %

by car; truck or van

as passenger

Travel to work: %

using public transit

Travel to work: %

walking or biking

Pe

rce

nta

ge

usin

g M

od

e

Mode of Travel

1996 2001 2006 2011


13

Figure 5 : Mode of Transportation Taken to Work (2011 National Household Survey)

Within Clarence-Rockland, 81.4% of the employed labour force aged 15 years and over worked at their usual place, 4.8% worked at home and 13.7% had no fixed workplace address, as shown in the graph below (Figure 6).

Figure 6: Place of Work - 2001 to 2011 (Number)

Source: http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/as-sa/fogs-

spg/Pages/FOG.cfm?lang=E&level=4&GeoCode=3502036

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

Total

employed

population

aged 15

years

Car, truck

or van - as a

driver

Car, truck

or van - as a

passenger

Public

transit

Walked Bicycle Other

methods

Male

Female

815 25

1150

8740

755 20

1395

9170

635 20

1795

10680

Worked at home Worked outside Canada No fixed workplace

address

Worked at usual place

2001 2006 2011



The 2011 Census Data and National Household Survey did not contain data on the specific location that residents of Clarence-Rockland work. However, based on the data below, it can be assumed that many residents are traveling outside of the City for employment given the average time they are traveling and the time period that they are leaving for work. Both tables indicate how Clarence-Rockland compares to the United Counties of Prescott and Russell and Ontario (Table 6). The table shows that the commute for residents of Clarence-Rockland takes more time than the average commute for the UCPR and Ontario. On average, residents in Clarence-Rockland are more likely to leave between 5 and 7 am than those in the UCPR (see Table 7).

Table 6: Commuting Duration in 2011

Commuting Duration (minutes) Clarence-Rockland UCPR Ontario

Average 33.2 30.2 27.6

Table 7: Time Leaving for Work in 2011

Time leaving for work

Clarence-Rockland UCPR

Commuters % Commuters %

Total 12,465 100.0 41,855 100.0

5 to 6:59 am 5,575 44.7 16,715 39.9

7 to 9:00 am 4,855 38.9 19,140 45.7

After 9:00 am 2,035 16.3 5,995 14.3

2.6 Existing Transportation Services

The City of Clarence-Rockland offers several transportation options. These include taxi services, bus services and VIA Rail.

Public Transportation

The City of Clarence-Rockland introduced a commuter transit service for its residents in 2003

with one route and then expanded to a second route. The CR Transpo service is partially

subsidized by the City and is run by a private bus company, Leduc Bus Lines. The residents

who commute into Ottawa-Gatineau for work are able to take advantage of a total of 16 runs on

two routes, each weekday, throughout most of the year (during the summer months, service is

decreased slightly).


15

One route, Route 535, serves the villages of St-Pascal-Baylon, Hammond, Cheney and Bourget and runs 2 to 3 times per day depending upon the time of year (there is reduced service during the summer months). The second route, Route 530, serves Clarence Creek, Clarence Point and Rockland which runs between 8 and 11 times per day, depending on the time of year. Route 530 also has a scheduled run into Ottawa and Gatineau starting in Clarence Point at 2 pm. Average monthly ridership in 2013 was 12570 with the total for the year reaching 151,918. The monthly ridership pattern is outlined in Figure 7.

Since there is an established commuter service, the focus of the transit feasibility study is not on commute trips. Rather this report is concerned about the needs of residents undertaking daily activities within the City of Clarence-Rockland. However, the CR Transpo ridership (Figure 9) does provide some indication of appetite for public transit among Clarence-Rockland residents.



Figure 7 : CR Transpo Ridership by Month

Taxi

Allo Taxi is head quartered on Laurier Street in Rockland, providing the urban area and surrounding communities on a 24 / 7 basis. The company also provides transportation services to Montreal and Ottawa3

Capital Taxi also serves the entire city of Clarence-Rockland, and is headquartered on Hannah Street in Ottawa

Intercity Travel

VIA Rail does not stop in Clarence-Rockland but does stop in Casselman and is thus of practical value for residents in the southern part of the city. A vehicular trip from downtown Rockland to Casselman is about 40 to 45 minutes. According to the schedules on the VIA website, there are four scheduled services that stop at the station in Casselman.

3 . Source: Allo Taxi’s Facebook page

JanuaryFebruar

yMarch April May June July August

Septem

berOctober

Novem

ber

Decem

ber

AM 7623 6860 6740 7355 7175 6180 5347 4745 6818 7509 7001 5267

PM 7198 6528 6343 6967 6746 5775 4935 4307 6367 6785 6438 4909

Total 14821 13388 13083 14322 13921 11955 10282 9052 13185 14294 13439 10176

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000


17

School and Charter Bus Services

There are several school bus companies operating in the Clarence-Rockland area serving the 11 schools (and 4 school boards) within the municipality. Most of the companies also provide a charter bus service.

2.7 What this all means

Clarence Rockland has a population of about 23,000 people, and a low population density of 78 people per square kilometre. About 40% of the population lives within the urban Rockland area and the rest of the population lives within the five smaller villages or rural areas of the city. The low population density and dispersed population will pose a challenge as the municipality seeks to develop a transit system that serves all residents.

The urban population is growing much faster than the rural areas. The demand for public transit in Rockland is therefore likely to increase alongside this growth. Clarence-Rockland is also expecting significant growth in the population aged 65. Public transit will therefore become increasingly important to independence and quality of life, as older residents may no longer want to or be able to drive.

Communities are connected by a concession road grid that provides generally straight linkages from place to place, supporting direct transit connections. Despite the automobile dominated travel patterns, residents have demonstrated an interest in using transit for commuting purposes, especially where it offers advantages in travel time and cost savings. However, it is not clear whether this will transfer to local, intra-community transit services. Finally, the City’s transportation policies support local transit.




19

3 Peer Review and Best Practices

3.1 Peer Review

A review of transit systems in similarly sized communities is a valuable means of obtaining a high-level look at operating conditions in situations that may be similar to those in Clarence-Rockland. This section presents a review of 11 transit systems in Canada that offer joint fixed-route and point-to-point (para-transit) services in communities roughly comparable in size to Clarence-Rockland.4 The selected communities are:

Airdrie AB

Grand Prairie AB

Leduc AB

Brandon MB

Cornwall ON

Stratford ON

Whitehorse YK

Timmins ON

Welland ON

Yellowknife NT

North Bay ON

Two methods were used to conduct the peer review. One was an online survey that was provided to selected communities. There were 7 responses to the survey. The other was a review of data from the CUTA Factbook. Both data sets provide valuable information on each service. All of the transit systems reviews are small in scale and serve less than 55,000 individuals.

A direct comparison between municipalities is not intended by this review, nor is it advisable, since every municipality is possessed of its own characteristics and circumstances which affect the functioning of its particular transit system. Therefore, the objective of this peer review is to derive an understanding what is offered in other municipalities, learn about their operating characteristics, and gain insights from their experience. This can provide as a basis for understanding what might be possible in Clarence-Rockland and what the likely ridership and costs might be. 5 The peer review is presented in two sections: general characteristics (population served, type of operation, hours of service, fares and ridership – Table 9) and performance indicators (ridership and costs per vehicle hours and per capita – Table 10). The table presents the findings of the peer review and the next section provides a summary of the findings.

4 The average population in the peer review was 41,015. Though this is somewhat higher than Clarence Rockland, it was deemed

acceptable due to the rapidly growing population nature of the city: if Clarence Rockland continues its current (2006-2011) rate of growth of 12 percent, it will reach about 40,000 people by 2036.

5 The findings are derived from CUTA’s Canadian Transit fact Book (2012) which contains data about most transit operations in

Canada except for British Columbia and Quebec, for which data at the municipal level are not available. Data for paratransit were supplemented by an online survey, of which seven operators responded.



General Characteristics

The following is a summary of the peer municipal system characteristics.

Population –Municipal populations in the peer group ranged from 19,888 (Leduc AB) to

55,000 in Grand Prairie AB. Generally speaking, the actual population is the same as the

population served.

Population served – the population served by the transit service will vary depending on

the size of the community. Where the area served by transit is less than the population,

it typically indicates that there is a rural population that is not served. Seven of the 11

peer-reviewed communities serve 100 percent of the population. Overall, the average

population served is 97 percent.

Method of operation – six of the peer-reviewed municipalities offer transit services as a

line department, while the remainder contract their transit systems to a private operator.

In this sample, the size of the community does not seem to affect the decision to

contract out. For example, in Whitehorse (19,888 people) the service is operated by the

municipality, while in Grand Prairie (55,000) it is contracted out.

Fleet Size and Peak Vehicles – fleet size ranges from 3 to 22 vehicles (Leduc and

Brandon respectively), and the number of vehicles operated in the peak service period

ranges from 3 (Leduc) to 115 (Welland and Brandon). Most of the municipalities have

one or more vehicles as a spare. Leduc does not have its own fleet, as the service is

contracted out to Edmonton Transit.

Number of Routes – the average number of routes is 8, with Welland, Ontario offering

as many as 14 routes and Leduc offering as few as one. Leduc’s system is closer to the

commuter service currently operating between Clarence-Rockland and Ottawa, though

fare prices are somewhat lower.

Span of Service – weekday hours of operation are typically 14 to 16 hours per day,

from around 6:00AM to 10:00PM with shorter hours on Saturday. Only four systems

offer Sunday service.

Ridership – ridership ranges from 41,603 in Leduc to 1133962 in Brandon. Four of the

systems have ridership under 500,000 (average about 190,000) while six have ridership

between 500,000 and 1,000,000 annually. Only Brandon serves more than a million

passengers per year; the average annual ridership of all ten peer municipalities was a

little under 575,000.

Revenue Vehicle Hours –the total number of hours of transit service provided annually

ranges from 3,078 in Leduc to 61,361 in North Bay. The average (10 services reporting)

is 33,384 hours per year.

Total Operating Expense – Leduc and Yellowknife had the lowest operating expenses,

at about $600,000 and $860,000 respectively while the highest was North Bay at just

over $5.9 million. The average was about $3 million.

Passenger Revenue – varied from $140,666 in Leduc to just over $3 million in North

Bay. The average was about $1 million.


21

Air

dri

e A

B

Gra

nd

Pra

irie

AB

Wh

iteh

ors

e Y

K

Bra

nd

on

MB

Co

rnw

all

ON

Led

uc A

B

No

rth

Bay O

N

Str

atf

ord

ON

Tim

min

s O

N

Well

an

d O

N

Yell

ow

kn

ife

Su

mm

ary

(avera

ges)

General

Year of service commencement 1980 1981 1976 1957 1974 2010 1972 1952 1975 1973 1990 1976

Population (as reported) 45,711 55,000 27,232 53,000 46,000 25,842 53,000 32,000 43,165 50,331 19,888 41,015

Population served 45,711 55,000 22,156 53,000 46,000 25,842 49,000 32,000 38,662 48,000 19,888 39,569

Percent served (calc) 100% 100% 81% 100% 100% 100% 92% 100% 90% 95% 100% 96%

Area served (km2) 33.1 72 46 84 61.5 37 314.9 25.3 24 86 105 81

Description of Service Area

Method of operation Contract Contract Line Dept Line Dept Line Dept Contract Line Dept Line Dept Line Dept Line Dept Contract 4 contract/7 line

Fixed routeAirdrie Transit GP Transit

Whitehose

Transit

Brandon

Transit

Cornwall

Transit C-Line City Transit

Stratford

Transit

Timmins

Transit

Welland

transit

Yellowknife

Transit11

No. routes 6 7 8 12 6 1 11 10 7 14 5 8

Fleet (fixed route) 13 20 10 22 16 3 22 15 20 21 8 15

Peak vehicles 10 12 7 15 10 3 16 10 13 15 6 11

Span of service

Weekday 0600-2100 0550-2215 0630-2230 0600-2400 0600-2345 0530-1900 0615-0015 0600-2200 0600-2300 0700-2300 0640-1940

Saturday 0900-2100 1830-2215 0700-2000 0600-2400 0630-2345 - 0630-0015 0600-2000 0600-2300 0700-1900 0800-1900

Sunday/holiday - 0900-1615 - 0800-2000 - - 0830-1815 - 0800-1830 - -

Weekday hours of service 15 16.45 16 18 17.45 13.45 18 14 17 16 13 16

Operating data

Revenue vehicle kilometres 448,172 - 685,557 1,454,000 755,539 142,939 1,316,491 - 1,033,729 806,276 186,998 758,856

Revenue vehicle hours 18,695 42,127 21,765 60,751 38,871 3,078 61,361 - 43,981 34,080 9,132 33,384

Boardings/ridership 125,553 613,502 421,342 1,133,962 851,914 41,603 2,132,065 581,357 977,322 806,276 172,460 714,305

Direct Operating Expense 1,572,818 2,389,732 2,723,890 5,220,500 3,537,831 599,441 5,882,641 2,429,116 4,793,165 3,305,497 860,004 3,028,603

Total Operating Expense 1,572,818 2,389,732 3,139,838 5,220,000 3,537,831 599,441 5,882,641 2,429,116 4,793,165 3,305,497 860,004 3,066,371

Passenger Revenue 548,583 663,295 834,896 996,000 1,060,516 140,666 3,099,295 885,081 1,495,939 1,072,180 274,951 1,006,491

Total Revenue 589,770 663,295 889,893 1,127,000 1,117,877 142,510 3,171,404 907,195 1,529,509 1,111,800 304,391 1,050,422

Net Operating Cost 983,048 1,726,437 2,249,855 4,093,500 2,235,156 456,931 2,709,913 1,521,921 3,216,894 1,949,107 555,613 1,972,580

Municipal Operating contribution 983,048 1,726,437 2,249,855 4,093,500 2,029,109 456,931 2,199,913 1,521,921 3,216,894 1,949,107 555,613 1,907,484

Indicators

Revenue hours per capita 0.41 0.77 0.80 1.15 0.85 0.12 1.16 - 1.02 0.68 0.46 0.74

Rides per capita 2.75 11.15 19.02 21.40 18.52 1.61 43.51 18.17 25.28 16.80 8.67 17

Total Vehicle hours 21,994 42,177 26,851 - 45,333 4,121 61,361 24,936 43,981 40,483 91,132 40,237

Rides per revenue vehicle hour 6.72 14.56 19.36 18.67 21.92 13.52 34.75 - 22.22 23.66 18.89 19

Cost per revenue vehicle hour 84.13 56.73 144.26 85.92 91.01 194.75 95.87 - 108.98 96.99 94.17 105

Cost per passenger 12.53 3.90 6.46 4.60 4.15 14.41 2.76 4.18 4.90 4.10 4.99 6

Net cost per passenger 7.83 2.81 5.34 3.61 2.62 10.98 1.27 2.62 3.29 2.42 3.22 4

Net cost per capita 21.51 31.39 101.55 77.24 48.59 17.68 55.30 47.56 83.21 40.61 27.94 50

Average fare 4.37 1.08 1.98 0.88 1.42 2.82 1.62 1.52 1.53 1.33 1.59 2

Average speed 23.97 - 31.5 - 19.44 46.44 21.45 - 23.5 23.93 20.48 26

Revenue-to-cost ratio 37% 28% 28% 22% 32% 24% 54% 37% 32% 34% 35% 33%

Passenger fares

Regular service

Adult (cash) 2.00$ 2.00$ 2.50$ 1.15$ 2.75$ 5.00$ 2.50$ 2.75$ 2.50$ 2.50$ 2.50$ 2.56$

Adult (ticket) 1.75$ 1.70$ 2.30$ 1.00$ 2.10$ 4.50$ 2.25$ 2.50$ 2.50$ 1.91$ 2.27$ 2.25$

Adult (monthly) 60.00$ 54.00$ 62.00$ 66.00$ 61.00$ 75.00$ 80.00$ 57.00$ 68.00$ 69.00$ 62.00$ 64.91$

Peer Review - Comparably sized Canadian municipalities offering both fixed route and curb-to-curb / demand transit service (2012)

Table 8: Peer Review - Fixed Route and Curb-to-Curb / On-Demand Service


23

Fares – typical adult cash fares average $2.50 and $2.25 for tickets. Fares are typically

lower yet for students and seniors. Monthly passes average about $65, with some

systems offering a discounted monthly pass to seniors and students.

Net Cost – per passenger costs per trip range from $1.27 in North Bay to $10.98 in

Leduc. The average was $4.

Performance Indicators

These are key indicators for measuring transit performance taking into account the population of the community, the level of service and fare, and are derived from the foregoing information.

Revenue-hours per capita – This indicator expresses the amount of service provided in

the community on the basis of population. Within the peer group, the values range from

0.12 (Leduc) to 1.15 (Brandon). The average was 0.69 revenue hours per capita.

Rides per capita – this is the number of trips taken on the transit service in a year

divided by the population. This ranges from 1.16 (Leduc) to 25.28 (Timmins). The

average was 14.

Cost per revenue vehicle hour – This indicator is the total cost to provide transit

service divided by the number of revenue hours per year. The value ranges from

$56/hour (Grand Prairie) to $195/hour (Leduc). The average was $105.

Net cost per capita – this is the net cost, or investment, required after revenues on a

per capita basis. This value ranges from $17.68 (Leduc) to $101.55 (Whitehorse), with

an average of $49.73.

Revenue-to-cost ratio – this is the percentage of the operating cost recoverable from

transit fares. It ranges from 22% (Brandon) to 37% (Stratford ON), with an average of

31%. Generally, smaller transit systems have a cost recovery rate of 20% to 30%. This

means that for every 10 dollars expended by the municipality for the transit service, from

2 to 3 dollars will be returned in fares or other revenues such as advertising. The

following graph shows the results for each peer municipality. As “the bottom line” it

shows the least variance among the many variables discussed above, which reinforces

the assertion that each system design will of necessity be tailored to the community in

which it operates.


24 Report Number – 3414021 – October 2014

Figure 8: Peer Review of Revenue Vehicle Hours (2012)

These criteria will be useful in helping to approximate the potential ridership, service levels and costs for transit in Clarence-Rockland.

Paratransit / point-to-point

Data regarding paratransit was not available from the CUTA yearbook, so a brief survey was undertaken of the operators featured above. Seven out of ten operators responded to our invitation to participate:

ACCESS Airdrie

Handibus (Whitehorse)

Handi-Transit (Brandon)

Handi-Transit (Cornwall)

LATS (Leduc)

Handy Transit (Timmons)

Well Trans (Welland)

The survey revealed that most operators integrated their paratransit service into the fixed route system by sharing resources. Drivers, however, tend to be dedicated to the paratransit service. Only one service (Airdrie) contracted the paratransit service out to an independent operator.


25

Airdrie AB

Whitehorse YK

Brandon MB

Cornwall ON

Leduc AB

Timmins ON

Welland ON

Summary

(averages)

Gen

eral

Ye

ar o

f se

rvic

e c

om

me

nce

me

nt19

8019

7619

5719

7420

1019

7519

7319

77

Po

pul

atio

n (a

s re

po

rted

)45

711

2723

253

000

4600

025

842

4316

550

331

3981

7

Po

pul

atio

n se

rve

d45

711

2215

653

000

4600

025

842

3866

248

000

3862

6

Pe

rce

nt s

erv

ed

(ca

lc)

100%

81%

100%

100%

100%

90%

95%

97%

Are

a se

rve

d (

km2)

33.1

4684

61.5

3724

8657

Po

int-

to-p

oin

t

Po

int-t

o-p

oin

tA

CC

ES

S A

irdrie

Han

dy

Bus

Han

di-T

rans

itH

and

i-Tra

nsit

LATS

Han

dy

Tran

sit

We

ll Tr

ans

Driv

ers

22

n/a

69

2 +

PT

3

Ad

min

sta

ff1

3 sh

are

d5

shar

ed

32

6 sh

are

d1

Mai

nte

nanc

e s

taff

cont

ract

ed

2 sh

are

d11

sha

red

21

8 sh

are

d0.

5

Oth

er

1 sh

are

d1

dis

pat

che

r0

Sha

red

re

sour

ces

Ye

s (p

er

cont

ract

)Y

es

Ye

sY

es

Man

age

rY

es

Ye

s

Van

s0

00

00

56

De

dic

ate

d b

use

s2

05

05

00

Acc

ess

ible

Bus

es

813

178

319

Re

gis

tratio

n re

qui

red

Ye

sY

es

Ye

sY

es

Ye

s

Re

gis

tere

d c

usto

me

rs25

045

560

015

0062

5n/

a12

00

Rid

ers

hip

(20

13)

6692

8370

3084

939

514

2827

2n/

a15

738

Rid

es

pe

r cu

sto

me

r27

1851

2645

n/a

1330

Bo

oki

ngTe

lep

hone

Tele

pho

neTe

lep

hone

Tele

pho

neTe

lep

hone

n/a

Tele

pho

ne

So

ftwar

eM

anua

lTr

ape

ze N

ovu

sTr

ape

ze N

ovu

sTr

ansv

iew

Trap

eze

n/a

Eng

hous

e

Pre

-bo

oki

ng (

min

imum

no

tice

)1

day

1 d

ayS

ame

day

1 d

ayS

ame

day

Sam

e d

ay1

day

Re

gis

tratio

nY

es

Ye

sY

es

Ye

sY

es

Ye

sY

es

Atte

ndan

t rid

es

free

Ye

sY

es

Ye

sY

es

Ye

sY

es

No

Bas

e fa

res

$2.0

0$2

.50

$4.0

0$2

.75

$4.0

0$2

.50

$2.7

521

Pee

r R

evie

w -

Par

atra

nsi

t

Ta

ble

9 :

Pe

er

Re

vie

w -

Pa

ratr

an

sit



Service was provided using either vans or buses but not both. All operations require users to be pre-registered and pre-booking of individual trips is required, usually no more than a day. The average number of trips by registered users was 30 per year. Fares average $3. Attendants, if required, ride for free. Most of the operators use specialized trip management software. There are a number of vendors for such software including Trapeze, Novus and Enghouse. Finally, we asked respondents to provide advice for communities considering the start of a new paratransit transit service. Following are some of the comments received:

Understand the needs of your customers. Public users will be less accepting of large

variations in trip duration as they tend to be "choice" users. Depending on the geography

of the community a flexible route option may meet the needs of the public. This type of

service requires more administrative support and more public education.

Start slowly and make sure you have council support. As part of the para-transit service [we] created a fixed route scheduled service for clients only. When this service started it operated 3 days a week for 5 hours per day. They are now operating this service 5 days a week for 7 hours per day.

[Consider working] with a non-profit and taxi's to help provide service.

3.2 Other Models and Best Practices

Many communities across Canada have implemented taxi-bus systems. Their flexibility has established them as a viable option for communities that desire a transportation system but lack the population and density for a large, fixed-route system. This section will detail a few examples of taxi-bus systems and provide general lessons and guidelines arising from those examples. These examples were chosen for their similarities with Clarence-Rockland. Factors that were taken into consideration when looking for appropriate case studies included: population density, total serviced population and proximity to a larger urban area.

3.2.1 Société des transports de Rimouski

Service type: Fixed-route bus and taxi-bus Service area: Rimouski, Québec Population: 50,912

Rimouski is often considered the archetypal Canadian taxi-bus system. Implemented in 1993, it owes its existence to the increasing economic unfeasibility of the contemporary transit system. The City was unwilling to increase its subsidies to maintain transit service at an acceptable level; subsidies greater than $400,000 per year would be required to provide adequate service. As a result, the City was forced to seek out an alternative – a public-private partnership with local taxi operators. At present, Rimouski has both a taxi-bus and fixed-route bus system that complements each other. An important aspect of the system is the TRAXIBUS software used to manage trip organization and vehicle dispatches. The success of Rimouski’s taxi-bus has positioned it as the model that other Canadian taxi-buses have since followed.

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. Thus, the City manages reservations


27

and then forwards the data to the taxi company, which determines when and where taxis should be dispatched.

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. Rimouski itself has two types of taxi-buses. The standard taxi-bus travels along fixed routes but is demand-responsive; that is, trips only occur if a reservation has been made. Taxi-bus-plus, in contrast, has no fixed route. Passengers can travel across zones and routes without having to transfer. A third system, INTER-taxi-bus, implemented by the regional government, serves an even larger area and connects with the Société des transports de Rimouski. The taxi-buses shares two terminal transfer points with regular bus service (transfer is included in the fare). Thus, the taxi-buses serve as a feeder system, bringing people from surrounding communities to the fixed-route system.

All regional residents are permitted to register and use the taxi-bus system, though prices can vary for residents depending on several factors. The fare system is detailed in the Table 12 below. Reduced rates are available to those 16 years old or younger, 65 years old or greater and full-time students. Children aged 5 or less travel for free.

Table 10: Fare System in Rimouski

Taxi-bus Taxi-bus-plus INTER-taxi-bus

Regular rate (one-way trip, as of July 2014)

$3.50 $5 $5

Reduced rate (one-way trip, as of July

2014) $2.55 --- $3.50

3.2.2 Taxi-bus Thetford Mines

Service type: Taxi-bus Service area: Thetford Mines, Québec Population: 25,709

Since 2008, the City of Thetford Mines has provided a taxi-bus service to all residents. As with other implementations, users must perform an initial registration to use the taxi-buses. Reservations are also required; users must phone at least one hour in advance of their desired departure time. Pickup and drop-off occur at designated stops only. In 2012, taxi-buses in Thetford Mines exceeded expectations by completing a total of 43,903 trips when estimates had projected only 34,000.



The City pays for its taxi-bus system through a combination of user fares, government subsidies and revenue raised through general taxation. In 2012, $237,127 in funding came from the City itself, $112,610 from Transport Québec and $156,619 from fares. User fares are $4.25 per trip with no special provisions for groups other than children less than 5 years old, who travel for free. Alternatively, an unlimited monthly pass can be purchased for $100. Service is offered every day of the weekend except Sunday.

3.2.3 Taxi-bus Victoriaville

Service type: taxi-bus Service area: Victoriaville, Québec Population: 46,354

Since 2000, Victoriaville residents have enjoyed a municipal taxi-bus service. Like other services, it requires registration in order to use the service and users must make a reservation at least 1 hour prior to their trip. Pickup and drop-off must occur at designated stops. Fares are set at $4 flat rate with the option of a $100 monthly pass. Victoriaville is unique, given its size, in offering Sunday service as well as extensive Saturday service and typical weekday service.

3.2.4 Conseil Intermunicipal de Transport du Sud-Ouest (CITSO)

Service type: Fixed-route bus and taxi-buses Service area: Beauharnois, Léry, Châteauguay and Salaberry-de-Valleyfield, Québec Population served: 128,968 (Salaberry-de-Valleyfield, the area of focus, has 40,077)

The Conseil Intermunicipal de Transport du Sud-Ouest is a transportation service covering an area southwest of the island of Montreal. Being situated close to a major urban centre, CITSO shares some of Clarence-Rockland’s transit needs; that is, many people work in downtown Montreal and require transportation to work but, at the same time, the communities covered by CITSO also require intra-regional transportation. CITSO meets these needs through a hybrid system. Within the larger urban centres and especially along routes to the island of Montreal, CITSO runs fixed-route buses. On the periphery and other areas where ridership numbers do not justify fixed-route buses outside of peak hours, a system of taxi-buses is employed. While CITSO’s fixed-route buses cross municipal borders, its taxi-buses are community specific; that is, Beauharnois, Léry, Châteauguay and Salaberry-de-Valleyfield each have a separate set of taxi-buses, despite all falling under CITSO’s purview.

CITSO’s taxi-buses share several characteristics. They all: function on a system of fixed pickup/drop-off points, require reservations 1 hour prior to travel, require registration to use the system and accept Québec’s OPUS card as payment. The major difference between the taxi-bus systems lies in their scope. The system in Salaberry-de-Valleyfield has many stop locations and it is designed to be flexible and transport people around the community. In contrast, the other taxi-buses run fixed routes done by normal buses during rush hour. They have a reduced number of stops and lack flexibility by design.

The system in Salaberry-de-Valleyfield resembles a typical taxi-bus and is the system most applicable to Clarence-Rockland. Unlike other taxi-buses presented in the case studies, its fares are determined in part by distance. Trips within the same sector are $4. Once a trip goes 5km


29

beyond the origin sector, the fare is $5.25. At 10km or more, the fare is $6.25. There are no reduced rates available although children less than 12 years old travel for free. A monthly pass is available for $95. Service is offered every day of the week except Sunday.

3.2.5 Town of Peace River, Alberta

Service type: Subsidized passes for private taxis Population: 6,729

In 2005, the Town of Peace River implemented a fixed route public transit system. It consisted of one bus doing a single route forming a circuit around the town. It was discontinued in 2011 due to high costs. However, while the transit system was still in operation, the Town decided to supplement the single bus with subsidized taxi passes. Individuals purchase passes from the Town which are then used with regular taxis. The cost of a trip using this method is one taxi pass plus $2.50 or $5 depending on the distance traveled. Honouring the taxi passes is a decision made by the taxi companies. The passes are only available to certain groups: students, low income individuals/families, seniors and individuals with physical or mental disabilities. Users are permitted to buy 40 tickets every 4 weeks at a cost of $30. As of 2013, the taxi subsidies are costing the Town $146,109 and bringing in revenues of $14,098 though ridership is growing. This example is provided to demonstrate a system where the taxis are privately owned, run and organized, completely independent of the municipality.

3.2.6 Sou’West Nova Transit Association (SWNT)

Service type: Taxi-bus + private vehicles Service area: Shelburne County, Nova Scotia Population: 14,500

Sou’West Nova Transit Association (SWNT) is a non-profit, charitable organization providing point-to-point transportation to residents of Shelburne County since 2012. Unlike the other examples provided so far, it is not directly associated with a municipal body. SWNT is available to all members of Shelburne County; though it prioritizes clients it defines as “most in need.” Subsidies are available for those who qualify.

SWNT provides a different perspective on the traditional taxi-bus service. Since it is largely a volunteer organization, it is restricted in terms of the number and types of vehicles it can deploy. SWNT has one true taxi-bus supplemented by a dozen volunteer drivers using their own private vehicles. Budgetary constraints limit the number of paid employees, such as dispatchers and bus drivers. As a result, users must book their trips at least 24 hours in advance. Service is provided directly from door-to-door. Users are charged $0.50 per kilometre and the price includes a one hour free errand period between return trips to allow for shopping with the option of paying for a longer period ($5 per 15 minutes). There is no limit on the wait period for a return trip for a medical appointment. SWNT provides a more affordable “shopping shuttle” option in areas where demand allows ($10 one-way trip) as well as additional shopping runs around Christmas time.



3.2.7 Ride Norfolk

Service Type: Fixed-route bus Service Area: Norfolk County, ON Population: 63,175

Ride Norfolk provides standard fixed-route bus service to residents of Norfolk County. It is notable for using this model in a largely rural setting with scattered suburban communities. The system has only been in place since late 2013 and will be re-evaluated in 2016. Service is open to all members of the community. As a traditional fixed-route system, no registration or reservation is required. Users are required to pay a fare of $2 for trips within Simcoe (the main population centre), and $6 for inter-community trips. There are no reduced fares although children under 5 years old may ride for free.

The Norfolk system is also unique because it has a highly variable schedule. Each weekday, a different set of communities are served by the buses with Simcoe as the anchor. Service in Simcoe itself runs Monday through Friday. There is no service on any route over the weekends.

Cost of operations in 2012 was approximately $300,000 though the cost borne by the County was reduced through various subsidies as well as fare revenue. In 2013, the total cost to the County was $42,000 with fares contributing 20% of the total operating costs.

3.2.8 Summary of Taxi-bus Characteristics

Despite the variation in contextual factors present in each situation, there are characteristics common to all or most of the systems examined, including:

One-way trip fares tend to be a flat rate of $4 to $5 regardless of distance traveled. Most

systems have discounted rates available to certain groups (e.g. seniors) and will allow

children under a certain age (extremely variable) to travel for free.

Service is typically provided every day except Sunday. Taxi-buses are usually available

for reservation starting at 6:30am until 9:30pm. The end time is more variable and is

influenced by the larger community context as well as the day of the week.

All systems are subsidized to some degree. The source of subsidies varies significantly

by province. For example, Transports Québec has a robust subsidy system available to

small municipalities looking to implement public transit.

All taxi-bus systems require users to register with the City or organization providing

service

For taxi-buses, reservations are required at least 1 hour in advance. Failure to provide at

least 15-30 minutes’ notice when cancelling a trip will result in a fine and, after repeat

offenses, termination of a user’s registration.


31

3.3 Lessons Learned

Small cities are capable of offering public services of varying scales and levels of service. Their costs and ridership levels can range significantly. One key indicator is the revenue-to-cost ratio (i.e., the percentage of the operating cost recoverable from transit fares), which range from 22% to 37%, with an average of 31% which is on the higher side of what typically experienced in smaller transit systems across the country. This means that for every 10 dollars expended by the municipality for the transit service, from 2 to 3 dollars will be returned in fares or other revenues such as advertising.

Existing transportation systems, such as those outlined in the case studies, have also revealed a number of important considerations that future systems can learn from:

Service levels should reflect demand. Municipalities must customize their transit service

to meet their specific needs.

Contracting the service to private operators can yield faster implementation, lower capital

costs and greater flexibility to change the service.

Developing an appropriate legal framework to govern the service is essential to its

success.

Demand-responsive services may require more hands-on management since routes and

scheduling are dynamic.

Demand-responsive services, such as taxi-buses, minimize financial risk and increase

flexibility.

The quality of service provided by a taxi-based transit service can easily exceed that of a

fixed-route transit system in smaller communities. Specifically, quality of service is

improved by eliminating transfers and reducing travel times.

Cooperation with local taxi operators is feasible and can be beneficial to the municipality

and the taxi operations.

These points provide guidance for considering Clarence-Rockland’s transportation needs. A

taxi-bus system may be appropriate given the community’s population and density. As other

communities have demonstrated, it is possible to achieve adequate ridership and service quality

in lower density rural areas using a taxi-bus. Moreover, the City would be able to minimize

financial risk by contracting the service to private operators as other communities have done. A

partnership with local taxi drivers is something the City should strongly consider given its

success in other communities; it minimizes the need to invest in new vehicles, drivers or

infrastructure by using resources which already exist.

Overall, successful transit implementation exists in many forms in many communities. The

transit models in other communities may be useful as starting points for designing a transit

system that works for Clarence-Rockland.




33

4 Public Engagement Two main types of activities were undertaken to solicit input from the residents and stakeholders of Clarence-Rockland. The first activity involved two workshops, both held on the same day to encourage both stakeholders and the public to provide their insight and input into the transit feasibility study. Two surveys comprised the second activity; one for English-speaking residents and the other for French-speaking residents.

4.1 Stakeholder and Public Workshop Results

MMM Group hosted two workshops to actively engage stakeholders and citizens in the process. Through these workshops, the project team collected the opinions and ideas of the participants. It also allowed the team to tap into the knowledge of local issues possessed by the participants.

The workshops took place on June 24th, 2014 at the Clarence Creek Community Centre. The afternoon session involved 13 stakeholders. Attendees included the mayor, City Council members, community group organizers, and the taxi industry. The evening session was open to the public and saw a total turnout of 13 people.

4.1.1 Workshop Outline

The structure of the two workshops was identical. In each one, Patrick Déoux (Project Manager) and Guy Félio (City Councillor) provided opening remarks and contextualized the workshop. Following the introduction, participants divided into groups of 6 to 10 people for discussion. With the guidance of a moderator, each group explored three questions:

1. Is the introduction of a public transportation service within Clarence-Rockland a

necessity and a priority for you, as a resident of this community?

2. What type of public transportation service do you envision service the City of Clarence-

Rockland?

3. What are the main destinations that you would like to see served by a public

transportation service?

Participants were able to offer their input through verbal participation in the discussion in addition to writing answers in the provided workbooks. Large maps of Clarence-Rockland were also available at each table so that participants could draw routes, indicate destinations and other important areas.

4.1.2 Data Analysis

Following the workshop, all of the participant comments and moderator notes were combined and analyzed. Major ideas and themes were synthesized and categorized systematically.

Given the nature of this data, it is impossible to precisely indicate how many people expressed a particular idea or opinion. Moreover, people may indicate their approval or disapproval of ideas brought up in discussion through short, unrecorded statements such as “yes I agree” or through



their body language. For these ideas, the moderators used their judgement in determining the popularity of an idea. In light of this, approval of specific statements will be quantified by the following terms:

“Most people” expressing an idea means an idea was mentioned at more than one discussion table and appeared to be favoured by the majority of participants at those tables. These ideas resulted in few or no disagreements among participants. This typically indicates a total of more than 9 supporting statements that came from a range of individuals.

“Many people” indicates that an idea was supported by a noticeable majority at one or more tables but less unanimously than the “most people” category. This typically indicates 7 to 9 supporting statements from different people.

“Some people” supporting a statement means the idea was favoured by several individuals but not a majority. Such statements would often have a different group espousing the opposite opinion or a modified opinion. This typically indicates 4 to 6 supporting statements from different people.

“Few people” indicates an opinion that was expressed by more than one person but was still a minority opinion. This typically indicates two or three affirming statements from different people.

In addition to the caveat regarding quantification, this synthesis did not include every idea from the workshop. Due to the volume of data recorded, an analysis of all the ideas would be unmanageable. Moderators used their judgement to include and exclude data based on its importance and relevancy.

With those qualifications in mind, the following section presents the major ideas and themes from the workshop. Statements have not been organized in any particular order, although those located at the beginning of the section tend to be more popular.

4.1.3 Emerging Themes

The workshops were informative in that themes were derived from the comments and discussions that took place. The comments have been arranged into broader categories containing various themes. A full transcript of the workshops can be found in Appendix B. While a vision was not developed during this process, a number of words and phrases were repeated so that it is possible to create a vision.

Vision of Desired System

During the workshop, several phrases and words were brought forward to describe a vision for an intra-city public transportation service. The most common words brought forward were accessible, affordable, equitable and flexible. The participants in the workshop also suggested that it be available to everyone; encourage economic prosperity; meet the needs of residents in a timely and efficient manner and carry people to desired destinations.

“Public transit has an important

social aspect to it. You run into people you know and meet other

members of the community. It also helps connect people to

social activities in the city. ”


35

Social and Demographic

Economic considerations: Most participants agreed that a good transit system can have a positive economic effect. People would be able to reach various stores within the city more effectively which would improve business at local stores. Another factor brought up by a few participants was that people coming to Clarence-Rockland want a transit service that can take them to Ottawa. It is an important consideration for real estate developers and buyers. A few participants mentioned that an effective transit system could help some members in the community hold jobs and end their dependence on welfare.

Social benefits: A few participants mentioned that public transit has a social component. Buses can connect people within the city and can act as a social hub on their own.

Disability: Having a system which can accommodate the needs of disabled individuals was a priority among many participants. While few specific points were discussed, the general idea that a transit system grants greater independence to disabled individuals came up repeatedly as well. Related to that idea, most participants agreed that transit vehicles should be fully accessible. There was also acknowledgement among some participants that there could be additional subsidies related to disability.

Youth: Many participants were concerned with the ability of youth to get around Clarence-Rockland on their own through the use of public transit. Without effective transit, parents would have to pick up children from every activity. Given that Clarence-Rockland is quite a large area, this takes a considerable amount of time. Some participants were concerned about young people leaving the city as they get older and noted the potential role of poor transportation to Ottawa and within Clarence-Rockland.

Seniors: The main idea raised by most participants was that public transit enables seniors to function more independently, especially when they are unable to drive. Unlike people traveling to work at rush hour, they use transit during the day. Many participants pointed out that scheduling for a transit system would have to take into consideration the needs of seniors. A few participants pointed out that minimizing transfers should be a priority since seniors will get physically tired if a trip using public transit is prolonged.

Destinations

Destinations within Clarence-Rockland: Participants mentioned a variety of destinations. Most agreed that Rockland was the most important destination with Bourget as the second. Most participants mentioned the importance of reaching medical facilities by public transit. Community centres and YMCAs were mentioned by many participants as well. Shopping locations

“A good transportation system

will strengthen our local economy and encourage

people to shop within Clarence-Rockland.”

“An effective transportation system would help unite the

city.”

“Young people tend to leave and go to Ottawa as they get older because there is no decent transit and no way

to get around. Cars are less appealing to young people these days. They prefer public transit.”

“We need a transportation system that can be relied upon

to serve all of our needs: social, medical, recreational

and professional.”



also featured prominently among destinations (listed below).

Traveling to Ottawa: In general, opinions were mixed as to the need to travel to Ottawa (especially for people working downtown or those who are considering moving to Clarence-Rockland) versus the desire for Clarence-Rockland to be as self-sufficient as possible. Some participants had transportation to Ottawa as a priority while other participants had transportation within Clarence-Rockland as their priority. Several ideas for connections points with OCTranspo were discussed though no clear consensus came up.

Transit Service

Pricing and subsidies: Most participants agreed that some kind of subsidy is necessary but, beyond that point, there wasn’t much consensus. Many participants identified a minimum requirement of subsidies for vulnerable populations such as seniors, disabled individuals and people with low income. Most participants agreed that about $5 for a one-way trip via taxi-bus within Clarence-Rockland seemed reasonable with a few participants disagreeing. The issue of subsidies for routes to Ottawa versus subsidies for intra-city routes was contentious. Some participants wanted an equal subsidy for each route while many others preferred a larger subsidy for routes within Clarence-Rockland.

Frequency of proposed system: Many participants pointed out that a system focusing on peak period travel will exclude many potential users such as younger people and seniors who often travel throughout the day. Regular service to Rockland was identified by most participants as a priority. Frequent service to Bourget was also important to most participants. Many participants expressed a need for high enough frequency to make using the system practical. The idea of having specific days for certain routes was popular among many participants. That is, having two or three days a week where a bus would do a grocery store run, for example. Some participants also identified a need for flexible frequencies; for example, different run frequencies when people are doing Christmas shopping in December.

Routes for proposed system: Many participants identified a need for special bus routes for events. Most participants agreed that there should be a bus travelling in a circuit around Rockland. Buses could then bring people from the surrounding communities enabling for transfer to the Rockland circuit. Some participants thought there could be a bus doing a large circuit around the City to bring people to Rockland from the surrounding communities while some others thought it would be more convenient to have several different, shorter routes bringing people to Rockland from the villages.

Taxi-bus system: Adding some form of taxi-bus system seemed to be the preferred option among most participants. The convenience of being able to call and schedule a pickup was favoured among most participants and it was also perceived to improve accessibility for seniors and disabled individuals. Many participants pointed out the need to retain the existing system of buses for routes that require it; the taxi-bus would be a supplement. Most participants

“For some people, getting to Rockland or other places to work is too expensive. They end up staying

on welfare instead. An affordable and functional transportation system

could end this problem.”

“I like the idea of a ParaTranspo-style service. Residents would indicate

their interest in advance and the bus would pick them up rather than

having a bus going around the city.”


37

were also in favour of having a privately contracted service since it would offer the city more economic flexibility.

Other Considerations Related to Transit

Reasons to use transit: The most important reason to use transit identified by most participants was not having access to a car or being physically unable to drive. The other reasons listed below were mentioned by only a few participants.

Reasons not to use transit: Reasons for not using transit related primarily to the quality of service. Most participants agreed that poor frequency was a very important reason not to use transit. Long travel times were also mentioned by some participants as an important factor. Transit being too expensive was another factor mentioned by some participants.

Things participants wanted the consultants to consider: Several times, participants made a note about something they wanted the consultants to take into consideration. The idea which came up the most was a desire for good data on what people in Clarence-Rockland want from a transportation system to make sure it will be used. Many participants wanted to see an analysis of taxi-bus systems in other municipalities.

4.2 Survey Results

The study team developed an online survey for the residents of Clarence-Rockland to fill out as part of the public consultation process for the feasibility study. The survey collected data about where, how and why respondents tend to travel; their opinions on public transportation in general and in Clarence-Rockland; and some basic demographic data. While paper copies were made available to community residents, the vast majority of surveys were completed online. The survey was available to all residents from June 16 to July 18, 2014 and it was completed by 122 individuals.

The rest of this section presents the survey questions and results. Most of the questions had a good response rate (>90%); when this wasn’t the case, it will be noted as appropriate in the following discussion. Combined percentages derived from the answers are stated in the write-up for clarity; other percentages are written on the graphs themselves and not in the text.

“The quality of Clarence-Rockland’s transportation

system is an important consideration for potential home and condo buyers.”

“Don’t cut service when usage declines. We should improve

service to attract riders.”



Question: In what community or area do you live? (main respondent only)

Unsurprisingly, a majority of respondents indicated Rockland as their home community. While there was some representation from most communities, there were no respondents from Cheney and both Saint-Pascal-Baylon and Clarence Point had only one respondent each.

Question: What is your employment status? (main respondent only)

As this question addressed the main respondent only, the majority of respondents being employed full-time was expected. Of note is the relatively high percentage of retired individuals who will have different travel needs from those working full-time. The seemingly low percentage of students (secondary and post-secondary) can likely be attributed to the question only being answered by the main respondent.

70.9%

11.1%

4.3%

6.0%

0.0%

0.9%

4.3%

0.9%

1.7%

Rockland

Clarence Creek

Bourget

Hammond

Cheney

Saint-Pascal-Baylon

Forest Hill / Blue Jay

Clarence Point

Rural

Home Community n = 117 responses

5.8%

0.0%

66.7%

5.0%

3.3%

17.5%

1.7%

Student (post-secondary)

Student (secondary)

Employed full-time

Employed part-time

Unemployed / looking for work

Retired

Not employed outside the home or…

Employment Status n = 120 responses


39

Question: How many people live in your household?

The most common household size was two people with single person households being the least common. If households with 3 or more people are considered to be mostly families, then more than half (54.3%) of respondents fall into this category. This is an important consideration since the travel needs of families can be somewhat different from the needs of couples and single individuals.

Question: How many registered and insured vehicles are owned within your household?

Nearly every household (94.8%) answering the survey had at least one vehicle. Moreover, the majority of households (62%) had two or more vehicles available to them. These figures are expected given Clarence-Rockland’s location and density. Considering the number of vehicles available to residents, a public transportation system would have to provide a noticeable benefit over driving to achieve high usage.

9.3%

36.4%

24.6%

19.5%

10.2%

1 person

2 people

3 people

4 people

5 or more people

Household Size n = 118 responses

5.2%

32.8%

49.1%

12.9%

None

1

2

3 or more

Number of Registered and Insured Vehicles per Household n = 116 responses



Question: How many trips (to school, shopping, work, appointments, social events, etc.) are made from your house to somewhere else on an average day, considering all persons in your household?

Most households (82.3%) make 6 trips or less per day originating from their house while 17.8% undertake more than 7 trips.

Question: Have you or someone you know ever missed a medical / dental health appointment, job or education opportunity, due to a lack of transportation?

More than one quarter of respondents (28%) indicated that a lack of transportation had caused them or someone they know to miss an opportunity or appointment. Comments from respondents generally indicated that these situations were due to either a vehicle breaking down or not having access to one of the household vehicles because someone else was using it. Some people mentioned having to forgo opportunities altogether since they did not have the means to travel there.

Question: Where do you (and / or others in your household) usually work?

Downtown Ottawa is clearly the most popular work destination followed by “other places in Ottawa” and Rockland. It’s important to note that those working at home or with no place of work have significantly different travel requirements than those commuting on a daily basis. When categorized by larger geographic bodies, 52.7% of all people are commuting outside of Clarence-Rockland, 38.6% are working within Clarence-Rockland (including working at home) and 8.7% have no place of work. Other areas mentioned by respondents in comments included: Embrun (three people), Alfred-Plantagenet (two people), Limoges (two people), Hawkesbury, Casselman, Alfred, Ottawa East and Carlsbad Spring.

5.1%

45.8%

31.4%

7.6%

10.2%

Less than one a day

1 to 3

4 to 6

7 to 10

More than 10

Daily Trips Originating from Home n = 118 responses


41

Question: How do you get to work most of the time (answer for all members of the household)?

Given the community profile, it is no surprise that driving is the most popular commuting option. However, CR Transpo also enjoys a sizable ridership. The number of people indicating “work at home” for this question nearly mirrors the number of “work at home” from the previous question which indicates good reliability in the questions. Comments indicated that several park and ride locations are used by residents: Trim (three people), Clarence-Creek (two people), Bourget Community Center and Rockland City Hall.

8.7%

11.4%

17.8%

4.2%

1.1%

2.7%

0.8%

0.0%

0.8%

6.1%

25.8%

3.0%

17.8%

No regular place of work

At home

Rockland

Clarence Creek

Hammond

Bourget

Cheney

Saint-Pascal-Baylon

Rural

Orleans / Cumberland

Downtown Ottawa

Downtown Gatineau

Other places in Ottawa

Location of Work n = 112 surveys providing 264 selections (multiple answers permitted)

13.6%

43.2%

5.4%

20.2%

7.4%

6.2%

1.6%

2.3%

Work at home

Drive myself

Car pool (as a passenger)

Use CR Transpo

Drive (or car pool) to

use OC Transpo

Walk

Bike

Taxi

Usual Transportation Mode for Journey to Work n = 109 surveys providing 257 selections (multiple answers permitted)



Question: Which of the following statements best describes your likelihood to use a public transportation service (answer for all members of the household)?

This question resulted in an even split between those “very likely” to use public transportation and those who would never use it as the two most popular options. Of interest is the relatively large number of people who indicated “not sure.” This would seem to be an ideal group of people to target as potential public transit users.

Question: If transit or a form of public transportation was available (such as dial-a-ride, taxis, community shuttle), where would you likely be traveling to? Answer for all members of the household.

The variety of answers for this question indicates that the need for public transportation is not linked to one particular type of trip or destination. Instead, it indicates that people plan to use public transportation for all aspects of their daily lives. This is a fact that any transportation system would need to acknowledge by not focusing solely on trips to work.

33.3%

14.4%

18.9%

33.3%

Very Likely

Likely

Not sure

I would never

use public transit

Likelihood of Using Public Transit n = 114 surveys providing 264 selections (multiple answers permitted)

19.8%

14.1%

5.7%

11.0%

12.1%

12.8%

15.2%

9.2%

I would not use public transit.

For work

For school

For groceries

For shopping

For appointments

For entertainment

For visiting friends and family

Indicated Destinations for a Taxi-Bus, Community Shuttle or Taxi Service

n = 113 surveys providing 545 selections (multiple answers permitted)


43

Question: Why would you not take public transit? (multiple selections, answer for all members of the household)

This question reveals the primary reasons people choose not to use public transportation. It’s interesting to note that the top three concerns (schedule inflexibility, lack of destinations, and convenience/length of trip) would all be improved by a taxi-bus system. The people who simply enjoy driving are unlikely to use public transportation regardless of how a system is improved or incentivized. It should be noted that 21.3% of the total number of respondents skipped this question.

13.4%

20.6%

22.6%

23.7%

8.1%

3.3%

8.4%

Other modes are cheaper

Other modes are faster or more convenient

The bus is unlikely to go where I need to go

My travel schedule requires flexibility that

a bus system is unlikely to promote

My driving routine involves dropping off

passengers, running errands, etc.

I would feel crowded

or uncomfortable on a bus

I enjoy driving

Reasons for not Taking Public Transit n = 96 surveys providing 359 selections (multiple answers permitted)



Question: For public transportation system to be useful for you, how often would you expect a bus to come by (answer for all members of the household)?

The results show a dichotomy between the most frequent service option and the unlikeliness of the respondent to use a transit service at all. The answers for these two options accounted for nearly two-thirds (64%) of all answers. Those expecting regular service every half hour may have a harder time adapting to a taxi-bus system which would require calling and scheduling in advance.

Question: How often do you think you will take the bus or some form of public transportation?

The results of this question show that people expect and require transportation on any given day. This reinforces the concept that a transportation system limited to weekday commuting is missing many potential users.

32.5%

10.3%

14.4%

5.2%

6.3%

31.4%

About once every half hour

About once per hour

Several times per day

A few times a day, everyday

I could work around the schedule

Unlikely to use,…

For Public Transit to be Useful, What Frequency Would it Require


35.8%

32.4%

31.8%

Weekdays

Saturday

Sunday

Days of Week Respondents would Expect to Use Public Transportation

n = 110 surveys providing 296 selections (multiple answers

permitted)


45

Question: What time of day would you and/or a member of your household use the service (to and from your destination)?

This graph illustrates how people expect service to be available more or less consistently throughout the day. There is a decline after the morning rush hour and another decline in the evening. Using these numbers, peak usage would occur during the afternoon rush hour. This further reinforces the need for a comprehensive transportation system which covers all days of the week for the entirety of each day. Of note is that 31% of respondents skipped this question.

Question: What do you think would be a fair rate (per trip) for public transportation in Clarence-Rockland? (For reference, the current price of an OC Transpo fare is $3.75)

Most respondents favour a rate below OC Transpo’s current fare. The answers follow a normal distribution, peaking at $2 to $3. Based on this data, a fare above $4 would likely prove unpopular. A critical consideration in determining a fair rate is whether the system is a taxi-bus or a standard bus.

Data quality note: 17.2% of respondents skipped this question.

40.5%

47.6%

29.8%

45.2%

40.5%

41.7%

50.0%

40.5%

33.3%

33.3%

6 to 7 am

7 to 8 am

8 to 9 am

9 am to 12 pm

12 to 3 pm

3 to 4 pm

4 to 5 pm

5 to 6 pm

6 to 7 pm

Later than 7 pm

What Time of Day Would you and / or a Household Member use the Transit Service (to and from your destination)?




Question: To what age group do you belong?

Most of the respondents tend to fall within the working age range, with a noticeable peak in the 45 to 54 year olds. The relatively small number of respondents under 25 can be attributed to this question addressing the main respondent only.

This is a useful demographic to compare with statistical data. The comparison with the age distribution of the general population (from the 2011 census) indicates that younger cohorts were underrepresented in the survey and that older cohorts are over-represented. This may reflect the likelihood that head of the household tended to complete the survey.

Question: What is the approximate annual income of your household considering all persons living there?

The income distribution of respondents was slightly biased towards the higher income levels. It is also important to note that 27% of respondents skipped this question.

20.8%

35.6%

24.8%

14.9%

4.0%

Under $2

$2 to $3

$3 to $4

$4 to $5

More than $5

Preferred Fare Rate per Trip for Public Transportation in Clarence-Rockland

n = 101 responses

0.0%

1.8%

1.8%

13.8%

17.4%

38.5%

16.5%

10.1%

0.0%

14 or younger

15-19

20-24

25-34

35-44

45-54

55-64

65-79

80 and over

Age of Respondents n = 109 respondents


47

Question: Are you male or female?

The gender breakdown for this survey was 62% female and 38% male.

Open-ended responses

Respondents had the opportunity to provide general comments at the end of the survey. Though the majority of the respondents did not provide any comments, several respondents expressed the view that tax dollars should not be used to subsidize this transit service. Several others expressed strong support for a community transit system, noting that it would enable residents – particularly young people – to travel within Clarence-Rockland independently. One respondent suggested monthly passes, and another suggested that a service to Place d’Orleans and the OC Transpo Park and Ride is all that is required on a frequent basis.

4.3 What this all means

Clarence-Rockland residents articulated a vision of a transit system that is

accessible,

affordable,

equitable and

flexible.

Residents indicated that a top priority of a local transit system should be to meet the needs of youth, older adults, and people with disabilities. It should therefore operate regularly, at all times of day, not just at rush hour. Rockland was identified as the key destination, with Bourget as another important destination.

The survey revealed that residents would use transit for many purposes, all days of the week, and at all times of the day (from 6am to after 7pm). Most respondents suggested that $2 to $4 would be an acceptable trip cost, and that frequency every 30 or 60 minutes would be required for transit to be useful.

“I really hope this becomes a reality. It would mean so much to have the ability to independently travel within/outside city limits whenever I choose.” Survey Respondent

Accessible Affordable Equitable Flexible




49

5 Transit Service Analysis The transit service analysis for Clarence-Rockland considered two types of transit services: a fixed route service (more traditional type of transit service in urban centers) and an on-demand service. Section 3 presented examples of both fixed route and on-demand services used in other municipalities.

Fixed route (or conventional transit) is the most common type of public transit service. Vehicles operate along a fixed route with designated transit stops, and follow a set timetable. Service is generally provided along main roadways where key destinations are located. Customers can plan their trips based on the transit schedule and do not need to register with the transit provider.

On-demand service (or dial-a-ride service) is generally used in areas where transit demand is too low for fixed route service. With on-demand service, customers register with the transit provider and book their trips in advance through a dispatch centre. Routes are not fixed; instead, clients are picked up and dropped off based on demand, often at designated pick up and drop off locations. Vehicle routes are optimized to service as many people as possible and to provide direct connections between trip origins and destinations.

The transit service analysis began with an assessment of fixed route service options for Clarence-Rockland. The study identified potential fixed routes (section 5.1) and evaluated the demand that would be required for those routes (section 5.2). The study compared the fixed route options based on feasibility and service quality (section 5.3). An assessment of whether Clarence-Rockland would likely generate the demand required for these fixed routes (section 5.4). Finally, fixed route options are compared to on-demand options considering the likely demand for transit in Clarence-Rockland (section 5.5).

5.1 Fixed Route Identification

Four possible fixed routes for intra-city transit service in Clarence-Rockland were developed,

drawing on the results of the two workshops and the on-line survey (described in section 4).

Routes and service hours were developed to achieve as many as possible of the following

objectives identified by workshop participants:

Providing access to Rockland’s retail establishments, medical and dental centres, and

community facilities;

Serving major destinations and residential areas, including the urban area of Rockland

and Bourget;

Having a minimum of one route serving the villages and rural areas;

Operating during off-peak times when the commuter service is not running;

Providing stops within a reasonable distance of concentrations of population; and

Maintaining reasonable travel times and using major corridors.



During the public and stakeholder workshops, the

participants also provided feedback on the corridors along

which a public transportation service should travel. Below

are the most popular corridors clockwise from the north-

east as illustrated on the summary map from the

workshop (Figure 10):

Landry Rd

Du Golf/Saint-Pascal Rd

Champlain Rd

Laval St/Russell Rd

County Road 21

Oakwood Drive

Baseline Rd

St. Jean St

Laurier St

Caron St

Drawing on this community input, four potential fixed service routes were developed for Clarence-Rockland. Each route provides access to Rockland, thereby providing residents with independence particularly for seniors and youth. The following four routes are described on the pages that follow, and are the basis for the cost/revenue and ridership requirement analysis in Section 5.3:

Red Route

Green Route

Blue Route

Purple Route

Figure 9: Transit Travel Routes Identified by the Public


51

5.1.1 Red Route

The Red Route serves a limited part of the City of Clarence-Rockland. This route primarily serves the urban area of Rockland, including Clarence Creek and the Forest Hills subdivision, and spans a total of 28.3 kilometres. The stops along this route are located at major intersections and key destinations, to meet the needs of residents. The Red Route is presented in Figure 10.

Figure 10: Fixed Route Option 1: Red Route

Red Route

Route Segments and Length Fixed Stops Route Map

Caron St. 3.5 km 1 Caron St & Laurier St

Baseline Rd 2.3 km 2 Caron St & David St

Landry St. 3.1 km 3 Caron St and Baseline Rd

Vinette Rd 5.5 km 4 Baseline Rd & Landry Rd

Joanisse Rd 2.2 km 5 Landry Rd @ Ste Felicité Church

Oakwood Dr 2.3 km 6 Landry Rd & Vinette Rd

Canaan Rd 1.5 km 7 Vinette Rd & Bouvier Rd

Baseline Rd. 1.4 km 8 Vinette Rd & Joanisse Rd

St. Jean St 3.8 km 9 Joanisse Rd & Scharf St

Laurier St 2.7 km 10 McDermit Dr & Oakwood Dr

11 Canaan Rd & Baseline Rd

12 Baseline Rd & Joanisse Rd

Total 28.3 km 13 St. Jean St. & Baseline Rd

14 St. Jean St & Poupart Rd

15 St. Jean St & Laurier St



5.1.2 Blue Route

The Blue Route travels throughout the urban area of Rockland (including the new medical centre) and the nearby settlements of Forest Hills and Clarence Creek. With a length of almost 39 kilometres and 20 stops, it serves a significant number of residents and includes a number of destinations to meet the needs of the residents. The Blue Route is presented in Figure 11.

Figure 11: Fixed Route Option 2: Blue Route

Blue Route

Route Segment and Length Fixed Stops Route Map

Caron St 3.5 km 1 Caron St & Laurier St

Baseline Rd 3.7 km 2 Caron St & David St

Landry Rd 3.1 km 3 Caron St & Baseline Rd

Vinetter Rd 5.5 km 4 Baseline Rd & Landry Rd

Canaan Rd 8.3 km 5 Landry Rd @ Ste. Felicité Church

County Road 17 3.8 km 6 Landry Rd & Labonte Rd

Chamberland Rd 0.8 km 7 Vinette Rd & LaCasse Rd

Laporte St 0.2 km 8 Vinette Rd & Joanisse Rd

Poupart St 1.7 km 9 Vinette Rd & Canaan Rd

St. Jean St 3.8 km 10 Oakwood Rd & Canaan Rd

Laurier St 4.2 km 11 Baseline Rd & Canaan Rd

12 Medical Centre on Chamberland Rd

13 Laporte St & Chamberland Rd

Total 38.5 km 14 Laporte St & Laurier St


16 St. Jean St & Patricia


18 Laurier St & Giroux St

19 Laurier St & St. Joseph St

20 City Hall


53

5.1.3 Purple Route

The Purple Route serves the urban area of Rockland, Bourget and the rural areas of Clarence-Rockland. The route is 44.5 kilometres in length and has 17 stops. This route will provide residents with access to both Bourget and Rockland. However, this route does not access the villages of Clarence-Rockland. The Purple Route is presented in Figure 12.

Figure 12: Fixed Route Option 3: Purple Route

Purple Route

Route Segment & Length Fixed Stops Route Map

Landry Rd 9.2 km 1 Landry Rd @ Ste. Felicité Church

Champlain Rd 6.1 km 2 Landry Rd & Claude St

Russell Rd 7.1 km 3 Landry Rd & St. Pascal St

Drouin Rd 9.1 km 4 Champlain Rd & Dollard St

Joanisse Rd 2.2 km 5 Champlain Rd & Laval Rd

Baseline Rd 1.4 km 6 Laval Rd & Lavigne St

Poupart Rd 1.7 km 7 Russell Rd & Legault Rd

Laurier St 4.2 km 8 Russell Rd & Drouin Rd

Caron St 3.5 km 9 Drouin Rd and La Croix Rd

10 Hammond Gold and Country Club

11 Vinette Rd & County Road 21

Total 44.5 km 12 Joanisse Rd & Scharf Rd

13 Joanisse Rd & Baseline Rd

14 Baseline Rd & St. Jean St



17 Laurier St & Caron St

5.1.4 Green Route

The Green route is the longest of the four routes presented and serves the rural areas of Clarence-Rockland as well as the settlements of Clarence Point, Clarence Creek, St. Pascal-Baylon, Bourget, Cheney, and Hammond and provides access to the urban area. It is over 60 kilometres long and includes 36 stops. This route therefore serves the greatest number of people. The Green Route is presented in Figure 13.



Figure 13: Fixed Route Option 4: Green Route

Green Route

Route Segment & Length Fixed Stops Route Map

Landry Road 9.2 km 1 Landry Rd & Ste. Felicité Church

St. Pascal Road 6.7 km 2 Landry Rd & Claude St.

Champlain Road 6.1 km 3 Landry Rd & St. Pascal St.

Russell Road 7.1 km 4 St. Pascal St & Champlain Rd

Drouin Road 9.1 km 5 St. Pascal St & Dulac Rd

LaCroix Road 3.0 km 6 County Road 8 & Champlain Rd

Joanisse Road 2.2 km 7 Champlain Rd & Lemery St

Baseline Road 1.4 km 8 Champlain Rd & Laval Rd

St. Jean Street 3.8 km 9 Laval Rd & Lavigne St

Laurier Street 3.7 km 10 Russell Rd & Bouvier St

County Road 17 3.4 km 11 Russell Rd & Legault Rd

Ramage Road 1.1 km 12 Russell Rd & Drouin Rd

Old Highway 17 2.4 km 13 Drouin Rd & LaCroix Rd

14 Joanisse Rd & du Golf Rd

Total 60.2km

15 Vinette Rd & Joanisse Rd

16 Joanisse Rd & Scharf St

17 Joanisse Rd & Baseline Rd

18 Baseline Rd & St. Jean St



21 Laurier St & Caron St

22 Laurier St & County Road 17

23 County Road 17 & County Road 8

24 Old Highway 17 & Sophie St

25 Old Highway 17 & Ramage Rd

26 County Road 17 & Charbonneau St


55

5.2 Analysis of Costs, Revenues and Ridership Required

This section analyzes the four routes to evaluate the ridership levels required, based on estimated operating costs and revenue forecasts. The analysis uses the following key inputs: the revenue vehicle hours for each route, hourly operating costs (based on the peer review), and a revenue-to-cost ratio of 50%. The revenue-to-cost ratio of 50% was selected as the City of Clarence-Rockland has indicated that this is the largest subsidy that it would be willing to provide.6

The analysis is based on service from 6AM to 12AM, thereby meeting the need for service during off-peak hours. However, the analysis addresses service in one direction only (going in a loop). Bi-directional transit service would provide a higher quality of service, particularly for the longer routes. However, if headways and service hours were maintained, bi-directional service would require double the number of buses and double the number of passengers.

5.2.1 Revenue Vehicle Hours

Table 11 shows the in-vehicle travel time for each of the four routes based on the total length of route (including the existing commuter routes which have been used to determine travel times) and the estimated average urban and rural speeds. The speeds were estimated based on travel speeds for CRT Routes 530 and 535. The total times listed are straight travel times, and do not include stops and terminal times. The time required for stopping and loading is known as the dwell time.

Table 11: Route Length and In-Vehicle Travel Times

Route Length (km) In-Vehicle Travel Time (min)

Urban Rural Total Urban Rural Total

45 kph 65 kph minutes

Red 8 15 24 11 14 25

Green 12 47 59 16 43 59

Blue 11 28 39 14 26 40

Purple 7 36 44 9 34 43

Table 12 illustrates the total travel time and average operating speed including “dwell” time and “terminal” time. The total travel time also includes terminal time, which is the buffer included in the total travel time of a route and includes recovery time and layovers. It is usually about 5% of the travel time.

6 However, most small transit systems require larger subsidies of 60% to 75% of operating costs. With a

subsidy of more than 50% of operating costs, lower ridership levels would be required.



Table 12: Travel Time and Speed (Including Dwell Time and Terminal Time)

Route Number of

stops

Dwell / Stop

(min)

Dwell Time Terminal

Time Total Travel

Time Avg. Op Speed (kph) (min) (min) (min)

Red 16 1 16 2 43 32.8

Green 26 1 26 4 90 39.4

Blue 20 1 20 3 63 36.7

Purple 17 1 17 3 63 41.4

Table 13 shows the number of buses that will be needed along each route, depending on the headways that are desired. The headway is the amount of time between consecutive buses along a route. As shown, with more frequent service and more revenue vehicle hours, more buses that are required.

Table 13: Headways, Number of Buses and Revenue Vehicle Hours

Route Number of Buses Revenue Vehicle Hours (6AM - 12AM)

30 min 60 min 90 min 120 min 30 min 60 min 90 min 120 min

headway headway headway headway headway headway headway headway

Red 2 1 1 1 36 18 18 18

Green 3 2 1 1 54 36 18 18

Blue 3 2 1 1 54 36 18 18

Purple 3 2 1 1 54 36 18 18

5.2.2 Estimated Operating Costs and Revenues Required

Operating costs for the four routes were developed based on the Peer Review summarized in Chapter 3. The weekday operating costs are a function of the total number of hours traveled each day (under the heading of Revenue Vehicle Hours in Table 13) and an hourly cost of $80.00 (estimated for an efficient system based on the Peer Review) The total daily operating costs are below in Table 14.


57

Table 14: Daily Operating Costs - Total

Route Weekday Op. Cost Number of Trips



Red $ 2,880 $ 1,440 $ 1,440 $ 1,440 36 18 12 9

Green $ 4,320 $ 2,880 $ 1,440 $ 1,440 36 18 12 9

Blue $ 4,320 $ 2,880 $ 1,440 $ 1,440 36 18 12 9

Purple $ 4,320 $ 2,880 $ 1,440 $ 1,440 36 18 12 9

Table 15 below calculates the revenues required per trip to achieve the revenue-to-cost ratio of 50%. The operating cost per trip is based on the number of buses on a route and the headways and the cost per hour.

Table 15 : Costs and Revenue per Trip (based on 50% Revenue-to-Cost Ratio)

Route Op. Cost per trip Revenue per Trip


headway headway headway headway headway headway headway Headway

Red $ 80 $ 80 $120 $160 $ 40 $ 40 $ 60 $ 80

Green $120 $160 $120 $160 $ 60 $ 80 $ 60 $ 80

Blue $120 $160 $120 $160 $ 60 $ 80 $ 60 $ 80

Purple $120 $160 $120 $160 $ 60 $ 80 $ 60 $ 80

5.2.3 Ridership Required

Table 16 below shows the minimum number of passenger trips that would be required in order to obtain the required revenue identified in Table 17. The required ridership is calculated based on a fare (per trip) of $2.50. This fare was selected based on the survey results (section 4.2) and the fares observed in the Peer Review (section 3). Without this level of ridership, the revenue-to-cost ratio would fall below 50%.

Table 16 : Required Daily Passenger Trips (based on fare of $2.50)

Route Passengers per Trip Passengers Trips per Day



Red 16 16 24 32 600 300 300 300

Green 24 32 24 32 875 600 300 300

Blue 24 32 24 32 875 600 300 300

Purple 24 32 24 32 875 600 300 300



Note: Passengers per day were rounded to the nearest 25.

For all routes and headways, a minimum of 300 passenger trips per day would be required in order to achieve a fixed-route service in Clarence-Rockland with a 50% revenue-to-cost ratio.

5.3 Comparison of Fixed Route Options

Table 19 compares the fixed route and headway options based on five characteristics that are important to the City of Clarence-Rockland and its residents:

Service area: To serve as many residents as possible, routes should cover both the rural and urban areas of Clarence-Rockland.

Minimal demand: To be financially feasible, routes should be able to operate with relatively low ridership (no more than 300 passenger-trips per day).

Fleet size: To reduce capital costs, routes should be able to operate using one bus per route and direction (this means that route length should be less than headway).

Quality of service: To be convenient for Clarence-Rockland residents, routes should provide relative frequent service (30 or 60 minute headways).

Vehicle type: For cost efficiency, routes should be able to seat all passengers and achieve required revenues using a mini-bus (24 passengers or less).

Table 17 : Comparison of Fixed Route Options (Unidirectional Service)

Red Route Green Route Blue Route Purple Route

Headway 30 60 90 120 30 60 90 120 30 60 90 120 30 60 90 120

Service area (urban & rural)

√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

Minimal demand

√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

Fleet size √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

Quality of Service

√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

Vehicle type √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

Preferred options

√ √ √

Based on the analysis of these five criteria, three options are recommended as preferred options. The trade-offs between these options are described below.


59

Red Route with 60-minute headway: This route provides the most convenient service but has the smallest service area. With 60-minute headways, it would provide frequent service to major destinations and to the densest residential areas. Furthermore, it is a relatively short and direct route (roughly 40 minutes in total). However, the Red Route does not serve the rural areas or villages of Clarence-Rockland.

Purple Route with 90-minute headway: This route has intermediate coverage and convenience. It serves Bourget, the rural areas, and Rockland, although it does not serve the villages. Like the Green Route, it has 90-minute headways. However, it is more convenient for passengers than the Green Route because it is more direct. (Because the full loop is roughly 60-minutes, getting to a destination could take 10 minutes, while getting home would take 50 minutes).

Green Route with 90-minute headway: This route has the highest coverage but is least convenient for passengers. It serves Bourget, the rural areas and villages, and Rockland. However, it has 90-minute headways. Furthermore, it is a long and indirect route, particularly with uni-directional service. (Because the full loop is 90 minutes, getting to a medical centre in Rockland could take 10 minutes if the client lives at one end of the loop, but getting home would take 80 minutes. Bi-directional service would therefore be required to make this route work well).

If Clarence-Rockland implements a fixed route transit service now or in the future, the City will need to evaluate the trade-offs between coverage and convenience.

Other Fixed Route Options Considered

During the workshops, participants discussed two other potential transit options that could serve the residents of Clarence-Rockland: a shuttle to Rockland to connect with CR Transpo, and a shuttle to the edge of Cumberland Village to connect to the OC Transpo system. These options were considered, but are not recommended for the following reasons:

The option of providing a shuttle to Rockland to connect with CR Transpo is not recommended as it creates an extra transfer for CR Transpo riders, thus reducing the appeal of using CR Transpo. Furthermore, it does not significantly improve service or reduce costs for CR Transpo.

The option of providing a bus to the edge of Cumberland Village, to connect to the OC Transpo system, is not deemed a priority based on the results of community engagement. In the interests of complementing rather than duplicating service provided by CR Transpo, it is recommended that Clarence-Rockland focus on connecting residents to destinations within Clarence-Rockland.

5.4 Characterisation of Transit Demand

As described in section 5.3, all of the fixed route transit options require a minimum of 300 daily passengers to achieve the revenue-to-cost ratio of 50%. This section evaluates the likelihood of



achieving this ridership level based on experiences in other jurisdictions (section 3) and relevant characteristics from the Clarence-Rockland community profile (section 2).

5.4.1 Transit Demand in other Jurisdictions

The estimated demand for transit in Clarence-Rockland starts from the analysis of “ridership per revenue vehicle hour” in other jurisdictions. This metric indicates the number of transit trips that are taken in an average hour of service. Ridership per revenue vehicle hour is a useful metric because it describes the required ridership levels for each hour that the vehicle is operational (in service). A municipality with only one bus operating on one route could have the same ridership per revenue vehicle hour as a municipality with ten buses operating on multiple routes.

In the peer review, transit systems in comparable municipalities achieved average ridership levels of 19 passenger trips per revenue vehicle hours. Table 20 illustrates the daily and annual ridership associated with this average level of transit demand for the three preferred fixed route options in section 5.2.3. Note that all three of these routes will run for 18 revenue vehicle hours per day.

Table 18 : Estimated Ridership Based on Average Demand in Other Municipalities

Daily Revenue-Vehicle Hours

Trips per Revenue-Vehicle Hour

Daily Trips

Annual Trips

Annual Trips per Capita

Red, 60-min headway

18 19 342 125,000 5.4

Purple, 90-min headway

18 19 342 125,000 5.4

Green, 90-min headway

18 19 342 125,000 5.4

Note: Annual trips were rounded to the nearest 100.

As illustrated in Table G, with 19 trips per revenue vehicle hour, Clarence-Rockland would just meet the required ridership of 342-passenger-trips per day, which equates to 5.4 annual trips per capita..

However, several community characteristics suggest that Clarence-Rockland’s community transit system would be unlikely to achieve 19 trips per revenue vehicle hour in the short-term. These factors are discussed in section 5.4.2.

5.4.2 Community Characteristics and their Influence on Transit Demand

Several key characteristics featured in the Community Profile (section 1) suggest that Clarence-Rockland’s fixed route would fall below the average ridership levels in other jurisdictions. These characteristics are discussed below.

Commuter-focused service already in existence. In other jurisdictions, transit services target commuters and non-commuters alike. Transit ridership is highest during peak commuting hours, and commuters comprise a large proportion of regular transit users. However, Clarence-Rockland already has a well-established commuter-focused


61

transit service (CR Transpo) that connects residents to Ottawa and Gatineau. CR Transpo records about 152,000 passenger trips per year, or 6.5 trips per capita. A new Clarence-Rockland intra-community transit service could still be used by commuters who live and work within Clarence-Rockland. However, the “core customers” will likely be youth, older adults and non-drivers. Peak hour demand for the intra-community transit service is therefore expected to be significantly less than in jurisdictions with commuter-focused systems. This will, in turn, mean fewer trips per revenue vehicle hour in Clarence-Rockland than in other jurisdictions.

Low population density and distributed population. Fixed route transit is most likely to be cost-effective in areas with high population densities, and/or in areas where the population is concentrated near or along key corridors. Clarence-Rockland’s population density of 78 people per square kilometre is very low compared to other municipalities featured in the peer review. Furthermore, outside of the Rockland urban area, the population is dispersed throughout the small villages and rural area. The low population density and distributed population will also mean fewer trips per revenue vehicle hour in Clarence-Rockland than in other jurisdictions.

At the same time, demographics in Clarence-Rockland suggest that there will be a stable and/or growing demand for public transit over the next twenty years.

Stable young population and growing elderly population. Clarence-Rockland’s age 15 to 24 cohort will remain relatively stable between 2011 and 2036. However, the growth in the population aged 65 and over will likely translate to a gradual increase in the demand for public transit. Older residents may not want to or be able to drive and younger residents may not have access to vehicles.

5.4.3 What this all means

In the short-term, the demand for transit in Clarence-Rockland is unlikely to justify a fixed-route service. Clarence-Rockland would need about 19 trips per revenue vehicle hour to meet the ridership requirements of the fixed route options, or 5.4 trips per capita per year. It is unlikely that Clarence-Rockland would achieve this ridership level, given community characteristics and ridership levels in other municipalities. It is expected that ridership for any of the proposed routes would be in the range of 5 to 10 trips per revenue vehicle hour, or 1.5 to 4 trips per capita per year.

However, in the short-term, Clarence-Rockland can look to other types of public transit service to meet the mobility needs of Clarence-Rockland’s youth and older adults. Furthermore, in the long-term, as demand increases, it may be possible to achieve the ridership level required for fixed route service in parts of Clarence-Rockland.

5.5 Fixed Route vs. On-Demand Service

As demonstrated by sections 5.1 to 5.4, fixed route transit is not likely to be cost-effective in the short-term. Low estimated demand for transit would mean a revenue-to-cost ratio of less than 50% for fixed route service (i.e. the City would need to pay more than 50% of operating costs).



In contrast, on-demand transit services can function cost-effectively in areas with lower demand. With on-demand service, customers register with the transit provider and book their trips in advance through a dispatch centre. Routes are not fixed; instead, clients are usually picked up and dropped off based on demand, often at designated pick up and drop off locations. Routes are optimized to serve as many passengers as possible and to provide direct connections.

In some ways, on-demand service is less convenient for the customer. Customers need to register with the provider and request each trip. In other ways, on-demand service is more user-friendly within the Clarence-Rockland context because:

It can serve a large geographic area.

It can yield faster trip times because its routes are more direct.

It can fit into users’ schedules, as long as users plan their schedules in advance.

Overall, on-demand services have been shown to provide a more flexible and cost-effective public transportation system in municipalities such as Clarence-Rockland. Several examples of on-demand services are provided as part of the peer review (section 3.2).


63

6 Recommendations In the short-term, a fixed route service is not recommended for Clarence-Rockland given the anticipated low demand and high costs. However, an on-demand transit service has significant potential to improve quality of life in Clarence-Rockland. An on-demand service pilot is therefore recommended (section 6.1). Furthermore, in the longer-term, Clarence-Rockland may be able to move to a hybrid system of fixed route serving the urban area and on-demand service in the rural area (section 6.2).

Since this study was not meant to examine the existing transit service for commuters provided by CR Transpo, the following transit service recommendations are designed to complement the CR Transpo system. They are not intended to replace or complete with CR Transpo.

6.1 On-Demand Pilot Project

Based on the analysis to date, it is recommended that Clarence-Rockland implement a “pilot” of an on-demand transit service. The pilot project would enable the City to further evaluate the demand for transit, to confirm resident support for transit, and to test service design and delivery options. Clarence-Rockland should consider the following in designing the pilot:

Duration. The pilot should be at least 18-months in duration. This will enable residents to become aware of the service, try out the service, and talk about it with others. It will also provide the City with data on the same season in two consecutive years. (With a pilot of 12 months or less, the City would not be able to determine growth in demand because of the impacts of seasonal variation).

Service design. There are several important on-demand service design features. For example, most on-demand services have designated pick-up and drop-off points, but some provide door-to-door service. The City will also need to determine fares, advanced booking time requirements (e.g. 1 vs. 2 hours in advance), reservation methods, etc. Where possible, the City should allow the community to have input into how the service will look.

Service delivery. The pilot could be delivered by the City, contracted to an external provider, or to a local taxi company or other community-based transportation organization. Using an outside contractor for service delivery may be more efficient and lower risk for the City, and is therefore recommended.

Customer experience. The pilot project should provide the full and positive on-demand “customer experience”. Vehicles should be clean, comfortable, and consistent. Effective registration, booking and scheduling technologies will need to be put into place. And customer service should be considered at all touchpoints.

Monitoring and evaluation. To achieve the goals of the pilot, the City will need to conduct rigorous monitoring and evaluation. This should include ongoing ridership tracking, origin and destination tracking, and customer surveys delivered multiple times



over the course of the pilot. The results of the monitoring and evaluation will inform the ultimate design and implementation of a transit system that works for Clarence-Rockland.

Local versus regional coverage. It is recommended that the pilot project serve all Clarence-Rockland residents and all destinations within the City. This municipal-level pilot will be relatively easy to design, implement and evaluate. Ultimately, as discussed in section 6.2, a regional on-demand transit service could enable Clarence-Rockland residents to travel to destinations across Prescott-Russell. There may therefore be an opportunity for the City of Clarence-Rockland to partner with the regional Prescott-Russell government on a local pilot and/or on regional transit system development.

Clarence-Rockland can look to Rimouski, Thetford Mines, and other examples from the peer review (sections 3.2 and 3.3.2) for further guidance on the pilot project design. The City would also benefit from using an experienced external party to manage the design, delivery and evaluation of the pilot project.

The City of Clarence-Rockland can use the results of the pilot project to plan the next steps in

its transit system development. Options may include:

To transition from a pilot project to a permanent on-demand system with only minor modifications;

To design and implement a significantly revised on-demand system based on lessons learned from the pilot project;

To design and implement a hybrid or fixed route system, based on demand and trip patterns; or

To put any type of transit system on hold for the time being.

6.2 Long-Term Transit System Development

Clarence-Rockland’s transit future will be influenced by population growth, socio-economic and

demographic changes, regional trends, and government investments. Over time, demand for

transit is expected to increase, and transit service could be enhanced in parallel. In five to ten


65

years, with the financial support of the City, the transit system may include the following

features:

Fixed routes in dense areas. A fixed route could eventually serve the urban area of

Rockland with higher a population density and more concentrated destinations.

Particularly given population growth forecasts for Rockland, there will likely be sufficient

future demand to develop a fixed route (similar to the Red Route or even shorter) along

Rockland’s key corridors.

On-demand service in rural areas. Fixed routes serving the urban areas of Rockland

could be supplemented by an on-demand service for residents in rural areas and

villages. The on-demand service would only be available for trips beginning or ending

outside the fixed route service area; therefore not impacting the demand for the fixed

route service. This on-demand service would ensure that all residents can function

independently within Clarence-Rockland.

Regional coverage. Many Clarence-Rockland residents make frequent trips, to

destinations outside of Clarence-Rockland (for example, to the Hawkesbury hospital or

other employment centres within the Prescott and Russell boundaries). These trips could

be accommodated by a regional, on-demand transit system led by the United Counties

of Prescott-Russell. This regional on-demand approach is currently being used in the

Ouatouais Region7. After developing a municipal on-demand system, Clarence-

Rockland may be able to partner with Prescott-Russell to develop a regional on-demand

system.

Investments in public transit benefit all community members and improve quality of life,

particularly for non-drivers, youth, older adults, and people with disabilities. By taking

incremental steps, Clarence-Rockland can develop a transit system that meets resident needs,

is financially sustainable, and increases community livability and prosperity.

7 As an example: http://www.cre-o.qc.ca/images/documents/plandactionreginalintegreentransportcollectifversionmars2013.pdf

Date post:	28-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

City of Clarence-Rockland Transit Feasibility StudyProject Number – 3414021 – O ctober 2014 1 1...

Documents