Work Shop Summary PresentationScenario 1 and 2 Report- April 16, 2013

CRP Mandate-CMP

Calgary Metropolitan Plan (June 2012): (CRP Principles, p.3)

1.Protecting the natural environment and watershed

2.Accommodating growth in more compact settlement patterns

3.Integrating efficient regional infrastructure systems (water, transit, roads)

4.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 development

2. A transportation and utility plan

3. A long-range regional perspective on the plans developed for key infrastructure, such as water and sewer systems, roads and transit

4. Complementary policies between municipalities

5. Support for higher density infill development across the region

6. Future growth areas . . . an environmentally and fiscally sound infrastructure plan

Regional Transit Governance Mandate

• Moving Forward Together Strategic Plan

• CRP strategic document in support of CMP principles 2,3,4

• Outlines objectives and work plan priorities• Regional Transit Governance is one of them• Objective- to research regional transit governance

models best suited to what we are trying to achieve in regional transit implementation

• Covers both scenario 1 and 2

Four Motions

1. Motion by Mayor McBride to direct CRP administration to report back to the CRP Regional Transportation and Complete Mobility Steering Committee on governance model options.

2. Motion by Councillor Fluter to direct CRP administration to report back to the CRP Regional Transportation and Complete Mobility Steering Committee on a framework for CRP to own and operate regional transit assets and/or coordinate the service

3. Motion by Councillor Ridley to direct CRP administration to explore developing a regional study on connectivity between municipalities.

4. Motion by Counsellor Fluter to direct CRP administration to develop a framework for a regional feasibility study.

Regional transit – choices, as we evolve forward

Vision for Regional Transit•CRP & Steering Committee

•Regional Transit Plan (2009)•Green Trip funding application

•Regional Transit Plan implementation

Vision / outcomes:•Region-wide connections

•Seamless travel•Regional efficiencies

•Equity and buy-in•Customer experience

•Collaborative governance

Transit services now include:•Some local service (Calgary, Airdrie)

•Some commuter (private, ICE)•Bow Valley Transit Commission

CRP’s EXISTING governance & efforts:•Regional transit planning, linked to CMP•Regional, collaborative decision-making

•Regional frameworks (fare strategy, branding)•Lead in joint funding applic’s (Green Trip)

•Ongoing advocacy for transit•Staff expertise

INVESTIGATION:Is there a case for CRP to be

directly involved in service provisionfor either commuter and/or cross-regional

transit services any time soon ?

Scenario 1 (extend “what is”)

•Municipal provision, extended 5 years, building on Green Trip phasing

•Muni’s may choose to provide commuter•No cross-regional service (connections)

•CRP pursues integrated, regional benefits, but no direct transit service provision

•Appropriate Governance mechanisms

Scenario 2 (CRP provides transit services)

•CRP provides some commuter•or CRP provides all commuter

•CRP provides initial cross-regional service•Range of service delivery models considered•Range of governance approaches considered

FINDINGS and Comparison

If YES . . .•Confirm governance•Develop service plan

•Confirm delivery model•Create “entity” ?

•Seek funding•Begin transit service

EVENTUAL CRPDECISION:

If NO . . .•Continue existing path

•Improve, where possible•Pursue regional benefits

CRP July 2012- 3 -

May2012

FebJuly AprilSept Nov June2013

Jan

Compare &Evaluatethe two

Scenarios;document

findings andcomparisons

Suggested Regional Transit Service/GovernanceScenario Process and Timeline

Construct Scenarios 1 and 2, including:

SteeringCommittee

ExecutiveCommittee

SC SC SC SC• Describe work program

• Resources needed• Process, timeline

• SC role & expectations

• Status update on Scen 1• Review Scen 1 “reg. lens”

• Wrkshop Scen 2 ideas

SC

• Scen 1 findings• Review eval. method

• Discuss issues

SC• Workshop results

• Eval’n results• Further analysis ?• Funding implic’s

• Governance options

• Consider Findings• Direct further work ?

• Rec’s to EC• Pres’n to active Council’s ?

CRP July 2012

SC

• Review Scen 2 findings

Work with Steering Committee throughout

SC Workshops to develop Scenario 2 services and Evaluation Criteria

• Describe type, level and quality of services provided• Clarify appropriate Governance mechanisms

• Describe Service Delivery Models• Estimate costs and revenues to municipalities

- 5 -

Work Plan Approved

• Work plan was approved by the steering Committee

• We need to know that one scenario is more effective than the other from the ground level up

• Technical analysis as per the work plan• If the results of the analysis did not clearly favor

scenario 2 then we would not recommend it• Report meant to be detailed in response to

comparing scenario 1 and 2• Also to set foundation for broader appropriate

regional transit governance model discussion

Strategy: 2 Phases

• The analysis was examined in two phases:

• Phase 1 was highly technical by applying a regional lens to both scenarios from a service planning/delivery perspective

• Determined the advantages and disadvantages of each approach and whether scenario 2 is worth developing further in phase 2

• Phase 2 will either continue to explore regional transit governance models under scenario 1

• Or further development of scenario 2 by exploring regional governance models best suited to scenario 2.

Where did the information for the

technical analysis come from(Base)?

• Clearly defined on page 3.18 of the report • Feasibility studies conducted by Calgary Transit staff for

Okotoks, Cochrane and Chestermere • Service plan for the Airdrie ICE service and from

feedback with staff• Annual service hours proposed or in service for the

above services• Proposed schedules, run times and destinations as

proposed by the feasibility studies• GreenTRIP applications

Base data cont’d.

• Feasibility study mandate as per the status quo in the CRTP is completely different

• Goal was to look at the feasibility of regional transit service implementation by providing intermunicipal express bus service between the municipality and Calgary only

• Regional connectivity between communities or providing other destinations was not part of the mandate

• Too costly under the individual municipality regional transit implementation goal

Base Resources

Communities Annual Service Hours

Buses Spare Buses

Airdire 7028 4 1

Chestermere 6510 3 1

Cochrane 6225 3 1

Okotoks 9630 3 1

Totals 29,393 13 4

There are no surprises here as these numbers have all come from plans and Calgary Transit completed feasibility studies and from

GreenTRIP.

Input from CRP Municipalities

• Met with the following municipalities for input:• Irricana

• High River

• Nanton

• Turner Valley

• Black Diamond

• Strathmore

• Redwood Meadows

• Airdrie to discuss local and ICE service over 2 years

• Okotoks- at their request to clarify transit governance project

• Cochrane- detailed transit strategy, workshops etc

• Chestermere-ongoing engagement process

• Calgary Transit as needed-play a bigger role in next phase

• Pages 3.15 and 3.33 of the report: will add more detail

Key Strategies

• Can we plan the service differently in scenario 2?• Currently each municipality is responsible for regional transit

• 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• Application of regional lens enabled economies of scale to both

scenarios-applied same strategies to both cases• Any references in the report to more work or research means:

• Need to conduct origin/destination surveys, time the routes

• Cost them out based on research

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 key destination as scenario 2 has:• looking to build on success of route 300 BRT from City Centre/Airport

Planning Process for Scenarios

Regional Transportation Scenario Development Slide | 16

Create the BASE resources

To compare Scenario 1 and 2•Current feasibility studies

•Current Airdrie Transit Service Hours•Green Trip

STEP 1 Identify

Commuter routing and trip times

STEP 2 Calculate needed

buses and hours

STEP 3 Commuter only and Identify

“Savings”

STEP 6 Identify Midday Runs & Create

Schedule

STEP 7 Identify Other

Destinations and

Create Schedule

STEP 8 Identify

New Communities & Create Schedules

STEP 4 Identify

Midday Runs & Create

Schedule

STEP 5 Identify Other

Destinations and

Create Schedule

Scenario 2 pool “Savings”

to use regionally

Scenario 1

Use “Savings”

within each

community

Scheduling Process

• Used proposed schedules in feasibility studies • Used annual service hours as per studies• Terminated service at nearest LRT Stn. as per studies• Generated new “mock up” schedules for both scenarios

using service hours per peak vehicle based on past experience with BC Transit, YRT and Mississauga Transit

• Distance, speed, time of day and routes terminating at the nearest LRT Station to calculate travel time

• Relied on over 50 years of collective scheduling and planning experience

• Hours and buses were the key-they drive operating cost

Results Summary

• Under Scenario 1, efficiencies generated significant potential savings 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 MORE local service in their municipality; and/or

• Redirecting the savings to other, non-transit purposes.

Results Summary

• Under Scenario 2, in which the CRP owns and operates service, same efficiencies as scenario 1 were replicated

• Scenario designed the system differently- started with a clean slate • Scenario 2 analysis also:

• Added more destinations, such as the airport and Cross-Iron Mills

• Brought in more CRP municipalities into the fold such as Black Diamond, Turner Valley, Nanton, High River, Irricana and Strathmore

• Realized possible capital funding savings in terms of vehicle purchases, bus maintenance and storage facilities

• Mid-day service for students, shoppers, visitors to Calgary, and part-time workers; and/or

• Added weekend service trips between Cochrane and Banff/Canmore

• One possible consolidated contract

• Administrative savings

Addressing Regional Connectivity Motion

• Regional connectivity easier to achieve through Scenario 2 using:• Re-routing and efficiencies for the direct connection to some of the

smaller outlier communities such as High River, Nanton, Strathmore, Irricana, Black Diamond, and Turner Valley

• Banff and Canmore weekend service possibility from Cochrane

• Possible savings to provide benefits to residents of these communities with transit service

• Potentially reducing operating costs for the initial GreenTRIP funding recipients, since outlier communities would fully "pay their way”

• Help cover capital cost for buses, maintenance buildings, and other facilities that any of the municipalities would otherwise have to pay for by themselves.

• Produces an obvious "win" for every community participating

Motion: Addressing Regional Feasibility Studies

• 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,

objectives realigned• 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 models available best suited to what we are trying to achieve

• Mentions boards, committees, extended municipal service and even a modified regional transit services commission within context of providing examples

• Ultimately, it is the need for a decision-making body• Some forms are better suited than others- case studies

in afternoon• All used within the context of making decisions best

suited for the Regional Transit Implementation plan• Will be explored in-depth in phase 2

Report- Welcome Constructive Criticism

• Work Shop your opportunity

• All comments will be taken into account• It will be edited again and again until final product • Sections that are not meaningful will be re-examined

and/or taken out completely• New maps will be incorporated-using CRP GIS

resources• Consulted with other consultants that have worked on

similar projects and they are supportive of our approach

Thank YOU!