Regional Transit GovernanceScenario 2 RFD- May 24, 2013
CRP Mandate-CMPCalgary Metropolitan Plan (June 2012): (CRP Principles, p.3)1. Protecting the natural environment and watershed2. Fostering the Region’s economic vitality3. Accommodating growth in more compact settlementpatterns4. Integrating efficient regional infrastructure systems (water,transit, roads)5. Supported through a regional governance approach.
Provincial Land Use Framework(2008): (p. 43-44)Each metropolitan plan should consider and address:1. A vision of the region’s pattern of development2. A transportation and utility plan3. A long-range regional perspective on the plans developedfor key infrastructure, such as water and sewer systems,roads and transit4. Complementary policies between municipalities5. Support for higher density infill development across theregion6. Future growth areas . . . an environmentally and fiscallysound infrastructure plan
• Identified as a work-plan priority in Moving ForwardTogether:• CRP’s 3 year (2012-2015) Strategic Action plan and Budget, approvedin November 2011 and included as part of the CRP’s approved 2012-13 operating budget.• 1 of 7 work plan priorities• Supportive of CMP principles 2,3,4,5• Objective- to research regional transit governance models best suitedto what we are trying to achieve in regional transit implementationRegional Transit GovernanceMandate
Four MotionsMay 2012, the CRP Regional Transportation and Complete Mobility SteeringCommittee recognized the challenges of implementing regional transit byindividual municipalities and passed 4 motions:1. Motion by Mayor McBride to direct CRP administration to report back to the CRPRegional Transportation and Complete Mobility Steering Committee ongovernance model options.2. Motion by Councillor Fluter to direct CRP administration to report back to the CRPRegional Transportation and Complete Mobility Steering Committee on aframework for CRP to own and operate regional transit assets and/or coordinatethe service3. Motion by Councillor Ridley to direct CRP administration to explore developing aregional study on connectivity between municipalities.4. Motion by Counsellor Fluter to direct CRP administration to develop a frameworkfor a regional feasibility study.
Work Plan Approved• Work plan was approved by Steering Committee• 4 motions within the context of 2 scenarios• Continue to explore regional transit governance models-Scenario 1• Direct CRP to develop a framework for the CRP to own and operate regionaltransit assets-Scenario 2• Needed to know that one scenario is more effective than the other fromthe ground level up• If the results of the analysis did not clearly favor scenario 2 then we wouldnot recommend it
Steering Committee’s Expectations• Underlying analysis• would be more specific than just a “conceptual debate” between scenario 1and 2• allow for the comparison of specific performance metrics, approx. routelocations, consistent overall service hours, buses and approach to designingroutes and schedules• Conceptualization of services NOT to be so specific as to be taken asprescribed solution in each instance and municipality• KEY: analysis would be indicative of the benefits of each of the 2 servicedelivery approaches for the steering committee to understand thescenarios and their merits in order to make a considered decision-whichscenario is best for Region going forward
Strategy: 2 Phases• The analysis will be conducted in 2 phases:• Phase 1 application of a regional lens to both scenarios from a serviceplanning/delivery perspective• Determined the advantages and disadvantages of each approach and whetherscenario 2 is worth developing further in phase 2• Phase 2 will either continue to explore regional transit governance modelsunder scenario 1• Or further development of scenario 2 by exploring regional governancemodels best suited to scenario 2.
Key Strategies• Application of regional lens enabled economies of scale to bothscenarios-applied same strategies to both cases• Met with all municipalities without feasibility studies-determine needs?• Can we plan the service differently in scenario 2?• Truncate incoming services to Calgary at nearest LRT Stn.• Airdrie ICE service very successful going to Calgary-not so coming back• Reduce peak hour window to capture most riders-7:00 AM-9:00 AM• Add new destinations-airport, Cross Iron Mills(regional attraction)• Service changes were compared to the base case• No additional service hours were added: used pool of hours in base
Planning Process for Scenarios• Current feasibility studies• Current Airdrie Transit Service Hours• Green Trip
Information for the technical analysis?• Feasibility studies conducted by Calgary Transit staff forOkotoks, Cochrane and Chestermere• Service plan for the Airdrie ICE service and from feedbackwith staff• Annual service hours proposed or in service for the aboveservices• Proposed schedules, run times and destinations as proposedby the feasibility studies• GreenTRIP applications
Base ResourcesCommunities Annual ServiceHoursBuses Spare BusesAirdire 7028 4 1Chestermere 6510 3 1Cochrane 6225 3 1Okotoks 9630 3 1Totals 29,393 13 4There are no surprises here as these numbers have all come from plansand Calgary Transit completed feasibility studies and from GreenTRIP.
Calgary Transit- Routeahead• Very high level strategies• CT work with region to integrate services• Provide assistance on service planning/design functions• Completed feasibility studies for Okotoks, Cochrane and Chestermere• Provide space at LRT stations for regional buses• Plan recognizes Calgary International Airport as a keydestination as scenario 2 has:• looking to build on success of route 300 BRT from City Centre/Airport
Scenario 1 Results Summary• Under Scenario 1, efficiencies generated significant potentialsavings for municipalities, which they could use toward:• Adding more destinations to their planned routes (more diverse pick-ups and drop-off locations); and/or• Providing a mid-day service that is designed for students, shoppers,visitors to Calgary, and part-time workers; and/or• Redirecting those savings into MORE commuter service and/or MORElocal service in their municipality; and/or• Redirecting the savings to other, non-transit purposes.
Scenario 2 Results Summary• Under Scenario 2, in which the CRP owns and operates service, sameefficiencies as scenario 1 were replicated-started with clean slate• Scenario 2 analysis also:• Added more destinations, such as the airport and Cross-Iron Mills• Brought more CRP municipalities into the fold such as Black Diamond, TurnerValley, Nanton, High River, Irricana and Strathmore• Realized possible capital funding savings in terms of vehicle purchases etc…• Mid-day service for students, shoppers, visitors to Calgary, and part-timeworkers; and/or• Added weekend service trips between Cochrane and Banff/Canmore• Included all of the above: peak hour service, midday, new destinations andnew communities using the same base resources• Administrative savings• Report recognizes that the proposed services are “conceptual” to illustratepoint-more research would have to be conducted to determine actuals
Addressing Regional Connectivity Motion• Regional connectivity easier to achieve through Scenario 2using:• Re-routing and efficiencies for the direct connection to some of the smalleroutlier communities such as High River, Nanton, Strathmore, Irricana, BlackDiamond, and Turner Valley• Banff and Canmore weekend service possibility from Cochrane• Possible savings to provide benefits to residents of these communities withtransit service• Potentially reducing operating costs for the initial GreenTRIP fundingrecipients, since outlier communities would fully "pay their way”• Help cover capital cost for buses, maintenance buildings, and other facilitiesthat any of the municipalities would otherwise have to pay for by themselves.• Produces an obvious "win" for every community participating
Motion: Addressing Regional FeasibilityStudies• Calgary Regional Transit Plan 2009• Guiding document-not an in-depth feasibility study• States feasibility studies need to be completed• As regional transit implementation evolves, goals, objectivesrealigned• Conducting feasibility studies from regional perspective:• Black Diamond, Turner Valley and Okotoks• Approached about this possibility• Application of regional lens• Same reasoning as conducting individual studies in past
Governance Models• Report describes the different possible regional modelsavailable best suited to what we are trying to achieve• Mentions boards, committees, extended municipal serviceand even a modified regional transit services commissionwithin context of providing examples• Ultimately, it is the need for a decision-making body• Some forms are better suited than others• All used within the context of making decisions best suited forthe Regional Transit Implementation plan• Will be explored in-depth in phase 2
Steering Committee ApprovedScenario 2• Workshop conducted on April 16, 2013 attended by thesteering committee, municipal staff and other stakeholders.• Purpose: to review the results of the Phase 1 analysis andprovide feedback about the benefits, challenges and risks ofeach scenario.• Results clearly indicated that Scenario 2 would offer the bestpossible solution for making key regional transit decisionsgoing forward.
RFD• The Regional Transportation and Complete Mobility SteeringCommittee voted unanimously to recommend Scenario 2 asbasis on which to move forward.• Once the CRP Board approves Scenario Two as the basis tomove forward, Phase 2 will move on to explore regionaltransit governance models best suited to what we are tryingto achieve in the Region.
Recommended Motion• The Regional Transportation and Complete Mobility SteeringCommittee recommends:… that the CRP Board approve Regional Transit GovernanceScenario 2 (as outlined in the attached report) as the basis onwhich to move forward and directs CRP Administration todevelop an implementation framework to move the Scenario 2approach forward.