UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

An evaluation of a transit supply program : the case of British Columbia Chan, Eugenia Kam-Yung 1980

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1980_A45 C53.pdf [ 9.54MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0100209.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0100209-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0100209-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0100209-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0100209-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0100209-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0100209-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0100209-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0100209.ris

Full Text

AN EVALUATION OF A TRANSIT SUPPLY PROGRAM THE CASE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA  by  Eugenia Kam-Yung Chan  M . S c , The U n i v e r s i t y o f Hawaii, 1971  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF BUSINESS  ADMINISTRATION  in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES  ( Commerce and Business Administration) We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the r e q u i r e d  standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA December, 1979  Eugenia Kam-Yung Chan, 1979  >E-6  In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make i t freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this  thesis  for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representatives.  It is understood that copying or publication  of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission.  Department The University of B r i t i s h Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5  BP  75-51 1 E  ABSTRACT  This  t h e s i s examines and  evaluates  the supply of t r a n s i t s e r v i c e  s m a l l c i t i e s i n the P r o v i n c e of B r i t i s h Columbia. A l l l e v e l s of  to supply  are i n v e s t i g a t e d : the government f u n d i n g program, the P u b l i c M a r k e t i n g Agency which implements the program, the o r g a n i z a t i o n actual services  of s e r v i c e s  supplied.  P r o v i n c i a l Government involvement i n the p r o v i s i o n of t r a n s i t c i t i e s was  predicated  f o r those people who  p r i m a r i l y on p r o v i d i n g  f o r choice  an a l t e r a n t i v e to e x p e n d i t u r e on p r i v a t e  transit  industry  costs, decreasing  r i d e r s and  small mobility  secondarily to p r o v i d e  transportation.  i n s m a l l c i t i e s i n B. C. was  r i d e r s h i p , reduced and  in  a minimum l e v e l of  are without a c c e s s to an automobile and  to p r o v i d e an a l t e r n a t i v e to auto use  The  and  s u f f e r i n g from  increasing  stagnant s e r v i c e l e v e l s which  d i d not meet minimum n a t i o n a l s e r v i c e g u i d e l i n e s , a shortage of m a n a g e r i a l personnel f a m i l i a r with planning,  managing and  and  systems.  the low  p r o d u c t i v i t i e s of the  operating  transit  systems  A f t e r f i v e years of government involvement t h i r t y p e r c e n t of the i n s m a l l c i t i e s i n B. C. were p r o v i d e d up  to the n a t i o n a l l y accepted g u i d e l i n e s and  h a l f of the o p e r a t i n g  l o s s e s and  P r o v i n c i a l share of the d e f i c i t $1,336,300 i n 1977 to 5,595,700 d u r i n g  T h i s study was and  with t r a n s i t  benefits  100%  s e r v i c e s t h a t were  the P r o v i n c e was  of c a p i t a l f o r v e h i c l e s .  increased  w h i l e the r i d e r s h i p has  people  from $103,000 i n 1972 also increased  subsidizing The to  from 854,400  the same p e r i o d .  undertaken f o r the  f o l l o w i n g reasons:  ( i ) to document  i n order to determine whether the program was  costs  worthwhile;  iii.  ( i i ) to examine the performance of the P u b l i c Marketing implemented the supply program; and remedies f o r s t a b i l i z i n g  The  transit  (iii)  to s e a r c h f o r p o s s i b l e  deficits.  supply of t r a n s i t s e r v i c e s i n s m a l l c i t i e s was  i n c l u d e d f u n d i n g , p l a n n i n g , marketing and program. An  important  s e p a r a t i o n of f u n c t i o n s and d e c i s i o n s are a s s i g n e d  some o p e r a t i n g a s p e c t s df  Agency which embodies the concept r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . Marketing  the  and  of  planning  to the Agency w h i l e a c t u a l o p e r a t i o n s of  the  by a p r i v a t e l y or p u b l i c l y owned c a r r i e r , under a  c o n t r a c t u a l arrangement. T h i s concept  was  adopted bacause i t was  to be an e f f e c t i v e means of c o n t r o l l i n g the t r a n s i t The  documented which  f e a t u r e of the supply program i s a l s o documented.  T h i s i s the P u b l i c Marketing  s e r v i c e i s executed  Agency which  l e v e l s of s e r v i c e s u p p l i e d and  thought  s u b s i d y program.  the f i n a n c i a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of  the  systems are documented. The P r o v i n c i a l Government through the P u b l i c Marketing  Agency ('p.m.a.') i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h the l o c a l m u n i c i p a l i t i e s  p l a n s and markets t r a n s i t work t o g e t h e r  i n s m a l l c i t i e s . The  two  l e v e l s of government  so t h a t l o c a l and r e g i o n a l g o a l s can be c o n s i d e r e d  p l a n n i n g and running  of systems.  In order to determine how  w e l l the supply program was  performing  demand f o r t r a n s i t f o r s e v e r a l s m a l l c i t i e s i n B. C. was The  i n the  the  a l s o examined.  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t r a n s i t u s e r s , t h e i r demands and u t i l i z a t i o n  the s e r v i c e and  of  the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the community w i t h i n which the  s e r v i c e operates  are documented. On board  passenger surveys  and  household  a t t i t u d i n a l surveys were undertaken a f t e r s e r v i c e improvements to o b t a i n this  information.  F i n a l l y , an e v a l u a t i o n of the t r a n s i t program i s p r e s e n t e d .  This involves  iv.  measuring  how w e l l g o a l s  efficiency The  i s discussed.  to evaluate  c a n be s a i d  increasing  that  Several  t h e economic  the transit  supply  raises  However,  questions  objectives,  the proper  performance  and a u n i f o r m  costs because  In general,  successful at  to distribution  funds,  a r e found  arrangement. The p i t f a l l s  of lack of competition  were  their of resources  e q u i t y . The l a c k o f m e a s u r e a b l e  r e p o r t i n g system  due t o t h e u n w i l l i n g n e s s  arrangement.  r e s i d e n t s and r e d u c i n g  f o rallocating  I t was f o u n d  criteria  program has been  the approach  about  criteria  the inequitable funding  approach a r e presented.  city  arrangement.  i t was s e t up t o  and economic  and t h e f u n d i n g  the mobility of small  among c i t i e s  social  t h e program  dependence on t h e auto.  and  and d e t e r m i n i n g  e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f t h e 'p.m.a.' i n a c h i e v i n g what  adopted  for  achieved  o f t h e program and t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f t h e f u n d i n g  accomplished  it  have been  that  a program  t o be r e s p o n s i b l e o f t h e 'p.m.a.'  i thad l i t t l e  on t h e b e h a l f  control  of p r i v a t e  o f t h e 'p.m.a.' t o a u d i t  t o measure  over  operators  operators.  V.  TABLE OF CONTENTS  LIST OF TABLES  viii  LIST OF FIGURES  xi  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS CHAPTER ONE:  Page  x i i INTRODUCTION  1  1.0  Background  1  1.1  Purpose o f Study  3  1.2  Reasons  3  1.3  Approach  CHAPTER TWO:  f o r t h e Study  PUBLIC TRANSPORT COLUMBIA  4 IN SMALL CITIES IN BRITISH  8  2.0  Introduction  8  2.1  T r a n s i t i n Small B. C. C i t i e s p r i o r t o P r o v i n c i a l Government Involvement  9  2.2  C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f T r a n s i t Users p r i o r t o Government Involvement  12  2.3  P r o v i n c i a l Government Involvement  16  2.4  P r o v i n c i a l L e g i s l a t i o n and I t s I n t e n t  19  THE SUPPLY OF PUBLIC TRANSPORT SERVICES IN SMALL CITIES IN BRITISH COLUMBIA  23  3.0  Introduction  23  3.1  R o l e s and R e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s o f the P a r t i e s Involved  24  3.1.1  P l a n n i n g and M a r k e t i n g R e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s and Arrangements  26  3.1.2  Cost S h a r i n g R e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s and Arrangements  30  3.2  The I n s t i t u t i o n a l Arrangement Adopted i n B. C. - 'The P u b l i c M a r k e t i n g Agency'  33  3.3  Management o f T r a n s i t O p e r a t i o n s  41  3.3.1 '  P r i v a t e l y Operated T r a n s i t  43  3.3.2  Government Operated S e r v i c e s  46  3.4  Levels of Service Supplied  48  3.5  Financial Characteristics Small C i t i e s  3.6  Summary  CHAPTER THREE:  Services  and Performance i n  55 63  vi.  TABLE OF  CHAPTER FOUR:  THE  DEMAND FOR  CONTENTS (continued)  TRANSIT  Page  66  4.0  Introduction  66  4.1  C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of T r a n s i t Usage i n Small C i t i e s i n B. C.  67  4.1.1  Socio-Economic C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of T r a n s i t R i d e r s i n Small C i t i e s  69  4.1.2  Purpose of T r i p  72  4.1.3  T r a n s i t Users and  4.1.4  T r a n s i t U t i l i z a t i o n of Systems i n Small C i t i e s i n B. C.  77  4.2  The  T r a n s i t Market i n Small C i t i e s  89  4.2.1  The the  S e c t o r of Community B e n e f i t t i n g from Program  95  4.2.2  The  Adequacy of the L e v e l  98  4.2.3  General O p i n i o n and Public Transit  4.2.4  The E f f e c t i v e n e s s of T r a n s i t i n Reducing R e s i d e n t s ' Dependence on Automobile  116  4.2.5  Impact of M a r k e t i n g  119  4.2.6  Requirements f o r T r a n s i t i n Small C i t i e s and What T r a n s i t Can and Cannot Do  134  4.3  Summary  138  PROGRAM EVALUATION  142  5.0  Introduction  142  5.1  Program Goals.and O b j e c t i v e s  143  5.2  C r i t e r i a for Evaluation  145  5.3  Achievement of Goals  147  5.3.1  Mobility Objective  149  5.3.2  'Conserving Land and  5.3.3  "Reducing Dependence on Auto' O b j e c t i v e  154  5.4  Economic E f f i c i e n c y of the Supply Program and the E f f e c t i v e n e s s of I t s Funding Arrangement  156  5.4.1  Evaluation  158  5.4.2  Recommendations  CHAPTER FIVE:  A l t e r n a t i v e Means of T r a v e l  of S e r v i c e  Provided  L o c a l Acceptance of  of the T r a n s i t Program  L i v a b i l i t y ' Objective  of E f f i c i e n c y and  Effectiveness  72  105  151  165  vii.  TABLE OF CONTENTS  (continued)  Page  5.5  The E f f e c t i v e n e s s o f the P u b l i c M a r k e t i n g Agency  167  5.5.1  The C o n t r o l O b j e c t i v e  170  5.5.2  The C o - o r d i n a t i o n O b j e c t i v e  182  5.5.3  The I n t e g r a t i o n O b j e c t i v e  184  SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS  188  6.0  Conclusion  188  6.1  The T r a n s i t Program  190  6.2  The P u b l i c M a r k e t i n g Agency  194  CHAPTER SIX:  BIBLIOGRAPHY  198  APPENDIX A l :  THE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE  204  APPENDIX A2:  BACKGROUND INFORMATION OF THE THREE CITIES SELECTED FOR THE SURVEY AND THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THEIR BUS SERVICE  213  APPENDIX A3:  PROVINCIAL RAPID TRANSIT SUBSIDY ACT  231  APPENDIX A4:  TRANSIT SERVICES ACT  234  viii.  LIST OF TABLES  Page  2.1  System Performance and P o p u l a t i o n  11  2.2  Breakdown of Passengers ( r e s i d e n t s ) by F a m i l y Income  13  2.3  S e r v i c e C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Four S m a l l e r B. C. C i t i e s  15  2.4  P r o p o r t i o n s of Households Without Automobiles i n S e l e c t e d B. C. C e n t r e s  17  2.5  T r a n s i t Program  21  3.1  Some P u b l i c M a r k e t i n g A g e n c i e s f o r T r a n s p o r t a t i o n i n N o r t h America and Western Europe R e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s f o r M a r k e t i n g F u n c t i o n s f o r GO Transit Services  3.2  3.3  i n B r i t i s h Columbia  37 40  O r g a n i z a t i o n of T r a n s i t O p e r a t i o n s i n Small C i t i e s i n B. C.  42  3.4  Frequency of S e r v i c e  3.5  D u r a t i o n of S e r v i c e  3.6  System Average Speed  3.7  1979 F a r e S t r u c t u r e s  56  3.8  1977  58  3.9  F i n a n c i a l Performance - 1977  60  3.10  1973 - 1977  61  4.1  S e r v i c e and Performance C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Four Small C i t y Systems (Before and A f t e r Improvements)  4.2a  (Headway)  50 51  ( i n m i l e s per hour)  53  - Average Cost Per Bus Hour and Per Bus M i l e  Cost Recovery R a t i o  Socio-Economic C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of T r a n s i t  68  Riders  and the P o p u l a t i o n  70  4.2b  Auto-ownership and D r i v e r ' s L i c e n c e  73  4.3  Purpose of T r i p  74  4.4  T r a n s p o r t a t i o n A l t e r n a t i v e s to Bus T r a v e l  75  4.5  R i d e r s h i p by Time of Day  82  4.6  T r a n s i t U t i l i z a t i o n - 1977  Statistics  84  LIST OF TABLES (continued) 4.7  R i d e r s h i p Versus L e v e l s of S e r v i c e  (1977 data)  4.8  Demographic C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  4.9  Age Breakdown of Respondents  4.10  M a r i t a l Status  4.11  S c h o o l i n g (Education)  4.12  House V a l u e s  4.13  Years i n Community  4.14  Breakdown o f Users and Non-users by Sex  4.15  Age Composition o f Users and Non-users  4.16  T r a n s i t Usage Versus Choice of Mode f o r Work T r i p s  4.17  T r a n s i t Usage Versus Choice of Mode f o r Non-commute Trips  4.18a  Reasons f o r Not U s i n g Bus S e r v i c e  4.18b  Non-users and O c c a s i o n a l Users Reasons F o r Not U s i n g T r a n s i t  4.19  Extent of A c c e s s i b i l i t y by T r a n s i t t o Work  4.20  Problems  4.21  Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s of A t t i t u d e Items  4.22  Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s of P e r c e p t i o n Measures  4.23  Mean Scores f o r A t t i t u d e Items by T r a n s i t Usage  4.24  A s s o c i a t i o n Between T r a n s i t Usage and A t t i t u d e F a c t o r  4.25  Mean Scores f o r P e r c e p t i o n Items by T r a n s i t Usage  4.26  Does T r a n s i t A f f e c t Car Ownership  4.27  W i l l Car-ownership  4.28  Knowledge About Bus S e r v i c e i n Community  4.29  Sources o f I n f o r m a t i o n on Bus S e r v i c e  (Assessed V a l u e s )  Encountered w i t h Bus S e r v i c e  L e v e l be Reduced I n F u t u r e  X.  LIST OF TABLES (continued)  Page  4.30  Seen or Heard A d v e r t i s i n g  125  4.31  When? Seen A d v e r t i s i n g  125  4.32  Knowledge o f T r a n s i t V e r s u s C i t y  126  4.33  Impact of A d v e r t i s i n g  on Knowledge  ( K i t i m a t v e r s u s T r a i l and P e n t i c t o n )  128  4.34  Bus T r a v e l R a t i n g s by T r a n s i t Usage C l a s s And By A r e a  129  4.35  Knowledge of T r a n s i t S e r v i c e s  131  4.36  Frequency of Use of T i m e t a b l e Versus T r a n s i t Usage  4.37a A v a i l a b i l i t y  by Degree of Usage  of Car f o r P e r s o n a l Use  133 135  4.37b T r a n s i t Usage V e r s u s Car-Ownership  136  5.1  T r a n s i t Systems Performance Data  5.2  Performance C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s f o r B. C. C i t i e s ' (1977)  160 Systems  5.3  Cost Comparisons Between D i f f e r e n t Types of Systems  A.l  O p e r a t i n g Performance 1976/1977/1978 - P e n t i c t o n Summary Sheet  162 179  218  A.2  O p e r a t i n g Performance - P e n t i c t o n  (Index Method)  220  A.3  O p e r a t i n g Performance 1977 - T r a i l Summary Sheet  224  A.4  O p e r a t i n g Performance 1975/1976/1977 - K i t i m a t Summary Sheet  230  xi.  LIST OF FIGURES  4.1  4.2  Ridership P r o f i l e Systems  Page  of F i v e S e l e c t e d Small C i t y 79  T r a n s i t U t i l i z a t i o n by Time of Day f o r a Weekday and a Saturday  81  4.3  Rides Per C a p i t a Versus C i t y P o p u l a t i o n  85  4.4  R i d e s Per C a p i t a Versus T r a n s i t Per M i l e and L e v e l s of S e r v i c e  87  Utilization  4.5  Mean Scores of P e r c e p t i o n Measures By C i t y  109  4.6  R a t i n g s of Bus T r a v e l By Regular Users Served i n (A) M a r k e t i n g O r i e n t e d Areas and (B) NonM a r k e t i n g O r i e n t e d Areas  130  xii.  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  I wish t o express my g r a t i t u d e and thanks t o P r o f e s s o r Waters and Navin f o r t h e i r guidance throughout t h i s t h e s i s . Without  t h e i r help  and t h o u g h t f u l s u g g e s t i o n s and c r i t i c i s m the p r o j e c t c o u l d not have been s u c c e s s f u l l y  accomplished.  1.  CHAPTER  ONE  INTRODUCTION 1.0  BACKGROUND  S i n c e the end  of World War  Two  the volume of t r a v e l by p r i v a t e automobile  i n Canada has  grown r a p i d l y and,  r i d e r s h i p has  declined.  u n t i l recently, public  Government spending on urban t r a n s p o r t a t i o n d u r i n g p e r i o d was  transportation  the e a r l y postwar,  d i r e c t e d to r e l i e v i n g c o n g e s t i o n i n urban areas by  expanding  highway systems. However, i n the e a r l y 1970's i t became apparent t h a t expanded highway system d i d not of c i t i e s and  n e c e s s a r i l y s o l v e the c o n g e s t i o n problems  brought w i t h i t a h o s t of other problems such as p o l l u t i o n  and  the l o s s of v a l u a b l e  was  a shift  inner  c i t y land  to the automobile. The  1970's the g e n e r a l governments was  the automobile. In the  g o a l of the B r i t i s h Columbia Government and  to a c h i e v e a  to both the p u b l i c and  p r i v a t e modes. S i n c e the i n i t i a l  transportation  s e c t o r has  on p r o v i d i n g  g o a l of  support achieving  public  s h i f t e d s e v e r a l times. F i r s t , an emphasis  adequate m o b i l i t y f o r the e a r l e s s and  In times of economic r e s t r a i n t and  limited fuel supplies,  early  other  'balance' of r e s o u r c e a l l o c a t i o n and  a b a l a n c e between the modes, the d i r e c t i o n of spending i n the  and  response  i n government spending towards p u b l i c t r a n s p o r t a t i o n modes to  a m e l i o r a t e some of the problems brought on by  placed  an  was  handicapped. . transit  goals  o b j e c t i v e s have s h i f t e d to measuring t r a n s i t performance, j u s t i f y i n g  e x p e n d i t u r e s and  promoting t r a n s i t as a means to conserve f u e l  important o b j e c t i v e today i s to a c h i e v e an e f f i c i e n t workable  .  The  transportation  system"*".  Hand i n hand w i t h the change i n concepts of what t r a n s i t was  supposed  to  2.  a c h i e v e , the a t t i t u d e towards f u n d i n g of t r a n s i t has a l s o changed. i d e a t h a t t r a n s i t "must pay i t s way"  has g i v e n way  The  to the v i e w t h a t t r a n s i t  o p e r a t i n g c o s t s cannot and s h o u l d not be covered by f a r e b o x revenues.  The  l e v e l of government a s s i s t a n c e t o the p r i v a t e mode and the l e v e l of externalities  a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the p u b l i c mode were and s t i l l a r e c i t e d  j u s t i f i c a t i o n s f o r government s u p p o r t . T h i s change i n o r i e n t a t i o n resulted i n 1)  d e c i s i o n making was  removed f u r t h e r from the l e v e l of the u s e r c e n t r a l i z e d to a d e g r e e ) ;  the s u c c e s s of t r a n s i t was more d i f f i c u l t i t had t o s a t i s f y more c r i t e r i a  3)  has  the f o l l o w i n g problems:  ( t h a t i s , d e c i s i o n making was 2)  as  t o e v a l u a t e because  (that i s , n o n - f i n a n c i a l ) ;  t h e c r i t e r i a w h i c h t r a n s i t were t o s a t i s f y were more d i f f i c u l t to d e f i n e p r e c i s e l y and even more d i f f i c u l t  These problems became apparent  t o measure.  over a p e r i o d of time and as a r e s u l t  the  a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of government f u n d i n g programs has a l s o changed. I n i t i a l l y i n many i n s t a n c e s support f o r p u b l i c t r a n s p o r t was  p r o v i d e d because t h e r e  was wide d i s c r e p a n c y between support f o r the p r i v a t e and p u b l i c mode. No measureable o b j e c t i v e s or g o a l s were g i v e n . No s u b s i d i e s were s p e c i f i c a l l y a l l o c a t e d t o t r a n s i t . Monies were g e n e r a l l y made a v a i l a b l e from o t h e r programs and were spent i n an ad hoc manner. R e c e n t l y , funds and budgets have been s p e c i f i c a l l y s e t a s i d e f o r t r a n s i t and o r g a n i z e d means of implementing  and a d m i n i s t e r i n g programs have been f o r m u l a t e d . -  The s u p p l y of t r a n s i t s e r v i c e s has changed over the post-war p e r i o d : i t s purpose, source and ways of f u n d i n g and the o r g a n i z a t i o n of f u n d i n g or s u p p l y programs have a l l changed.  3.  1.1  PURPOSE OF STUDY  The purpose of t h i s study i s t o examine and e v a l u a t e the supply o f t r a n s i t service to small c i t i e s  i n the P r o v i n c e of B r i t i s h Columbia. S i n c e 1972,  the P r o v i n c i a l government  i n B. C. has been a c t i v e l y i n v o l v e d i n the supply  of t r a n s i t . I n g e n e r a l , i t has s e t p o l i c i e s p l a n n i n g and marketing to p r o v i d e  and g o a l s , p r o v i d e d  and c o n t r a c t e d p r i v a t e and p u b l i c l o c a l  operators  service.  Of p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t was the implementation  of the program which has  been c a r r i e d out by a P r o v i n c i a l body, the P u b l i c M a r k e t i n g embodies the concept Marketing  funding,  Agency. I t  o f s e p a r a t i o n of f u n c t i o n s and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s .  and p l a n n i n g d e c i s i o n s a r e a s s i g n e d  o p e r a t i o n s of the s e r v i c e i s executed  to the Agency w h i l e a c t u a l  by a p r i v a t e l y or p u b l i c l y owned  carrier.  T h i s study examines a l l l e v e l s o f supply which i n c l u d e : the government f u n d i n g program, the P u b l i c Marketing  Agency which implements the program,  the o r g a n i z a t i o n of s e r v i c e s and a c t u a l s e r v i c e s s u p p l i e d .  1.2  REASONS FOR THE STUDY  1)  The s m a l l c i t y t r a n s i t  supply program i n B ..:;€.; .is„newtand:has_.thel -  p o t e n t i a l t o become an expensive it  i s important  s o c i a l program. F o r t h i s  reason,  t o document the b e n e f i t s and c o s t s to determine  whether the program i s worthwhile,  and whether i t has accomplished  what i t was s e t up t o do. F u r t h e r more, the t r e n d towards a b i l i t y of p u b l i c f i n a n c i a l support  account-  o f t r a n s i t makes the B. C. T r a n s i t  4.  Program an i d e a l c a n d i d a t e f o r e v a l u a t i o n of the v a l u e of t r a n s i t funding. 2)  The p u b l i c marketing agency  concept i s a r e l a t i v e l y new approach  to the implementation of a t r a n s i t  supply program. The e x p e r i e n c e  of s e v e r a l y e a r s of o p e r a t i o n from 1972 t o 1977 make B. C. an i n t e r e s t i n g area f o r i n v e s t i g a t i o n .  In o r d e r t o determine whether the implementation o f the concept has a c h i e v e d the d e s i r e d r e s u l t s and t o i d e n t i f y p o s s i b l e ments, documentation  and e v a l u a t i o n of the p u b l i c marketing  and the f u n d i n g arrangement  agency  a r e n e c e s s a r y . I f the concept i s  proved t o be e f f e c t i v e i t can be adopted t o s i t u a t i o n s 3)  improve-  elsewhere.  T h i s paper i s a l s o an attempt  t o s e a r c h f o r p o s s i b l e remedies f o r  stabilizing  Instead of examining  transit deficits.  c o s t measures  and r i d e r s h i p f i g u r e s the a c t u a l o r g a n i z a t i o n and supply of s e r v i c e s a r e reviewed to determine whether economies can be achieved through the management o f the supply of s e r v i c e s and resource allocation...  1.3  APPROACH  In o r d e r t o p r o v i d e the background  f o r the e v a l u a t i o n of the T r a n s i t  Supply Program, t h r e e t o p i c s a r e addressed. The f i r s t  i s transit  i n B. C.  p r i o r t o government involvement. The second i s the supply of p u b l i c t r a n s i t under small  the Program, and the t h i r d i s the demand f o r t r a n s i t i n  cities.  An overview i s g i v e n r e g a r d i n g the supply of t r a n s i t and the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of u s e r s p r i o r t o government involvement. T h i s p r o v i d e s the  5. background  t o reasons f o r government  The a s p e c t s of t r a n s i t They i n c l u d e :  involvement.  supply under the government program a r e examined.  ( i ) the r o l e s and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s  of the P r o v i n c e , the  m u n i c i p a l i t y and the t r a n s i t o p e r a t o r ; (xi)  the i n s t i t u t i o n a l arrangement, the p u b l i c  marketing  agency, which implements the program; (iii)  the types o f o r g a n i z a t i o n which operate the t r a n s i t services;  ( i v ) the l e v e l of s e r v i c e s u p p l i e d ; and (v) the f i n a n c i a l performance  The demand f o r t r a n s i t  o f the s e r v i c e  s e r v i c e s and the environment  i n which s e r v i c e s a r e  s u p p l i e d a r e examined. On board bus surveys were used characteristics  supplied.  t o determine the  of t r a n s i t usage ( t h a t i s , who uses t r a n s i t , why they use  i t , when they use i t and how much i t i s u s e d ) . Household  surveys were  conducted t o ; (i) (ii)  gather d e t a i l s determine of  (iii)  r e g a r d i n g b e n e f i c i a r i e s o f the s e r v i c e ;  the adequacy of the s e r v i c e from the p o i n t of view  the u s e r ;  examine the a t t i t u d e s and p e r c e p t i o n s of the community towards transit;  (iv)  e s t i m a t e the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of t r a n s i t  i n r e d u c i n g dependence  on the auto; (v)  e s t i m a t e the impact and changing t h e i r  F o l l o w i n g the documentation  of marketing on i n f o r m i n g people of t r a n s i t a t t i t u d e to t r a n s i t .  of c o n d i t i o n s b e f o r e and a f t e r  government  6. involvement'in evaluation following (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v)  transit,  uses as  an e v a l u a t i o n o f t h e program  i n p u t s t h e d a t a d e s c r i b e d above  i s undertaken.  i n examining the  topics: the goals  and  achievement success  o b j e c t i v e s of the  of the  program;  goals^  of the funding  program;  e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the p u b l i c m a r k e t i n g agency concept; who  pays  and who  benefits.  The  FOOTNOTE  Urban T r a n s p o r t a t i o n Economics, S p e c i a l Report 181, P r o c e e d i n g s of F i v e Workshops i n P r i c i n g A l t e r n a t i v e s , Labour I s s u e s , M a r k e t i n g and Government F i n a n c i n g R e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . T r a n s p o r t a t i o n Research Board, Commission on S o c i a l T e c h n i c a l System, Washington, D. C , 1978.  8.  CHAPTER TWO PUBLIC TRANSPORT IN SMALL CITIES IN BRITISH COLUMBIA  2.0  INTRODUCTION  T h i s chapter o u t l i n e s the c o n d i t i o n o f the t r a n s i t  i n d u s t r y and the  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t r a n s i t u s e r s p r i o r t o the commencement of P r o v i n c i a l assistance  i n 1972. T h i s i n f o r m a t i o n  serves  as background t o the d i s c u s s i o n  on why the B r i t i s h Columbia Government became i n v o l v e d . F i n a l l y , a b r i e f d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e l e g i s l a t i o n and the extent i n d u s t r y and u s e r s i s g i v e n .  of i t s e f f e c t on t h e  9.  2.1  TRANSIT IN SMALL B. C. CITIES PRIOR TO PROVINCIAL  GOVERNMENT  INVOLVEMENT  P r i o r t o P r o v i n c i a l involvement, t h e t r a n s i t i n d u s t r y c i t i e s was c h a r a c t e r i z e d experiencing conditions  increasing  B. C.  by p r i v a t e l y operated systems which were c o s t s and d e c l i n i n g r i d e r s h i p . Under these  p r i v a t e o p e r a t i o n s became u n p r o f i t a b l e  began s u b s i d i z i n g  i n small  and m u n i c i p a l i t i e s  systems on an ad hoc b a s i s . The s u b s i d i e s  were  s u f f i c i e n t t o m a i n t a i n e x i s t i n g o r reduced s e r v i c e l e v e l s . Some t r a n s i t systems were c o m p l e t e l y taken over by t h e m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . These systems were operated as departments o f t h e c i t y - an arrangement which r e s u l t e d in several (i)  problems: p u b l i c employees had l i m i t e d knowledge o r e x p e r i e n c e i n t h e transit  (ii)  business;  s a l a r i e s were comparable t o those p a i d employees, t h e r e f o r e  the costs  s t a f f were g e n e r a l l y  h i g h e r than i n t h e i n d u s t r y  those f o r m a n a g e r i a l  staff.  By 1972, n i n e o f f o r t y - f o u r s m a l l population  to other  civil  f o r d r i v e r s and o t h e r support especially  c i t i e s i n B r i t i s h Columbia w i t h  between 5,000 and 70,000 had some t r a n s i t s e r v i c e . Of these,  t h r e e were p u b l i c l y owned and t h e remainder were p r i v a t e l y owned.  There were a l s o problems w i t h t h e s e r v i c e p r o v i d e d by both p u b l i c l y and  p r i v a t e l y operated systems. In a survey of f o u r c i t i e s  1975 (before  s e r v i c e improvements), s e r v i c e l e v e l s were found t o be w e l l  below commonly accepted standards ( t h a t i s , e i g h t y within  i n 1974 and  a q u a r t e r m i l e of w a l k i n g d i s t a n c e  p e r c e n t of r e s i d e n t s  t o bus stop; and h a l f - h o u r l y  10.  day-time service"*") . P r i n c e George, Kamloops and cities  surveyed, had  fourth,  had  hourly service  l e s s than h o u r l y  These same c i t i e s  showed lower p r o d u c t i v i t i e s  the m a r g i n a l l e v e l s of was  day  w h i l e Kelowna,  service  and  Ontario).  i n a l l four  compared to c i t i e s T h i s can  be  bus  p r o v i d e s a summary of performances of  systems i n B.  the ones i n A l b e r t a  To  reiterate briefly,  the  and  t r a n s i t industry  similar by  the  the  an  four  Ontario.  i n small c i t i e s  p r i o r to P r o v i n c i a l Government involvement was  of  hour i s used as  i n d i c a t o r . T a b l e 2.1 and  the  explained  systems. However,  above average when r i d e r s h i p per  C.  the  service.  s i z e s elsewhere (such as A l b e r t a  utilization  d u r i n g the  Nanaimo, t h r e e of  suffering  i n B.  from the  C. following  problems: (i)  increasing  costs;  (ii)  decreasing  ridership;  (iii) (iv) (v)  reduced or stagnant s e r v i c e service  l e v e l s which d i d not  cities;  meet minimum n a t i o n a l  standards;  a shortage of m a n a g e r i a l p e r s o n n e l f a m i l i a r w i t h p l a n n i n g , managing and  (vi)  l e v e l s i n growing  low  o p e r a t i n g t r a n s i t systems;  p r o d u c t i v i t i e s of the  systems.  TABLE  2.1  SYSTEM PERFORMANCE AND POPULATION  Prince George  Population  65,000  Rides per Capita  11.45(1975)  R i d e s p e r Bus Hour  Kelowna  Kamloops  51,000  55,000  2.76(1975)  48  21  8.00(1975) 27  Rides per C a p i t a  Kingston,  Ontario  Belliville, Gait,  Ontario  Ontario  39CU971) 32 (1971) 28 (1971)  M e d i c i n e Hat, A l b e r t a  47 (1975)  Leithbridge,  43 (1975)  Alberta  Red Deer, A l b e r t a  31 (1975)  Nanaimo  40,000  17.17(1975) 27  12. 2.2  ; CHARACTERISTICS OF TRANSIT USERS PRIOR TO GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT  The surveys from P r i n c e George, Kelowna, Kamloops and Nanaimo p r o v i d e d data on t r a n s i t u s e r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . I t was  found t h a t v i r t u a l l y a l l  of the t r a n s i t u s e r s had no a c c e s s to the use of an automobile and were therefore .'captive'  riders.  The young (under 17 y e a r s of age) comprised the l a r g e s t group of t r a n s i t u s e r s f o l l o w e d by young a d u l t s  (18 to 29) and the e l d e r l y . Female  passengers outnumbered males on these s e r v i c e s two to one. As might  be  expected, t r a n s i t u s e r s tended to come from the lower income groups i n s o c i e t y . T a b l e 2.2  shows t h a t from 78% to 95% of t r a n s i t r i d e r s came  from households where f a m i l y income per year was was  unexpected however, was  $15,000 or l e s s . What  t h a t the income b i a s was  not g r e a t . A compar-  i s o n of the p r o p o r t i o n of t r a n s i t r i d e r s h a v i n g household incomes  $10,000  or l e s s w i t h the p r o p o r t i o n of the e n t i r e community i n t h a t income c l a s s showed an average d i s c r e p a n c y of about seven percentage p o i n t s . T h i s i s p r o b a b l y a good r e f l e c t i o n of the ' c a p t i v e ' market which i s u s u a l l y composed not e n t i r e l y of the lower-income one c a r households who  are l e f t  p o p u l a t i o n such as housewives i n  s t r a n d e d d u r i n g the day-time when shopping  and m e d i c a l t r i p s are made. S i m i l a r l y c h i l d r e n and members of a c a r owning household who  do not have d r i v i n g l i c e n c e s a r e c o m p l e t e l y r e l i a n t  on o t h e r s f o r t r a n s p o r t . Most people used the t r a n s i t (32% to 46%)  system i n these f o u r c i t i e s to go shopping  or to go to work (26% to 41%). As a l l of these systems were  c i t y c e n t r e o r i e n t e d , they d i d not o f f e r v e r y s a t i s f a c t o r y s e r v i c e f o r dispersed, non-central business d i s t r i c t  t r a v e l - t y p i c a l of r e c r e a t i o n  or s o c i a l t r i p s . Furthermore, most d i d not o f f e r r e g u l a r evening s e r v i c e and none r a n on Sundays, which f u r t h e r h i n d e r e d system use f o r r e c r e a t i o n  TABLE  2.2  BREAKDOWN OF PASSENGERS (RESIDENTS) BY FAMILY INCOME  Prince George  Transit  Kelowna  Kamloops  Nanaimo  riders,  $15,000 or l e s s  83.5%  95.4%  85.6%  78.0%  $10,000 o r l e s s  57.4%  79.3%  63.1%  57.1%  Entire population, $10,000 or l e s s  49.5%  66.5%  52.8%  61.8%  Transit  Source:  riders,  Census Canada 1971; P r i n c e George, Kelowna, Kamloops, Nanaimo Passenger 1974 t o 1975, Bureau of T r a n s i t S e r v i c e s , P r o v i n c e Columbia.  Surveys, of B r i t i s h  or  s o c i a l purposes.  (Refer t o T a b l e  2.3)  In summary, p r i o r to government involvement, t r a n s i t i n s m a l l c i t i e s (in who  those p l a c e s  where t r a n s i t e x i s t e d .'.at a l l ) - s e r v e d  those "per sons  d i d not have a c c e s s to the use of a c a r . I n c l u d e d i n t h i s  of t r a n s i t u s e r s were the e l d e r l y , one-car f a m i l i e s . T r a n s i t was  the young, the poor and spouses i n  used p r i m a r i l y  R e c r e a t i o n a l t r i p s were not prominent on Sundays or evenings.  group  because  to get to work or shop. s e r v i c e was  not  available  TABLE  2.3  SERVICE CHARACTERISTICS OF FOUR SMALLER B.C. CITIES  Day and Evening Service  F u l l Service a t Normal Commute Hours  Full Coverage* o f Area  Generally Direct Routing  30 min Daytime Frequency  Timed Interconnection o f Routes  Nanaimo  Yes  No  Yes  No  No  Yes  Kelowna  No  No  No  No  No  No  Kamloops  No  Yes  No  Yes  No  Yes  P r i n c e George  No  No  No  No  No  Partial  * 80 p e r cent Source:  of the households a r e w i t h i n a q u a r t e r - m i l e walk o f a t r a n s i t  system  timetables  route.  16.  2.3  PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT  Previous discussions industry  d e t a i l e d the g e n e r a l  i n s m a l l c i t i e s i n B.  C.  p r o v i d e a b a s i c l e v e l of m o b i l i t y means of t r a n s p o r t a t i o n  I t was  one  city transit  car households i n B.  f a m i l y i n f i v e i n B. C. does not  time, and  i n approximately three  industry.  Two  to  Statistics  C. g i v e a good i n d i c a t i o n of  i n small c i t i e s .  Approximately  have a c c e s s to an automobile at  f a m i l i e s out  any  of f o u r the husband or  w i f e does not have a c c e s s to an automobile d u r i n g hours (see T a b l e  the d e s i r e  t h a t became the prime reason f o r P r o v i n c i a l  the p o t e n t i a l b e n e f i t of improved t r a n s i t one  t h i s d e c l i n e and  transit  f o r B r i t i s h Columbians w i t h o u t o t h e r  Government involvement i n the s m a l l on the e a r l e s s and  s t a t e of d e c l i n e of the  normal weekday working  2.4).  secondary reasons f o r P r o v i n c i a l involvement i n the  revitalization  2 of s m a l l c i t y t r a n s i t were : to p r o v i d e an a l t e r n a t i v e to auto use and  f o r choice r i d e r s ;  to p r o v i d e an a l t e r n a t i v e to e x p e n d i t u r e s on  transportation  thereby c o n s e r v i n g  land and  private  livability.  There e x i s t s some p o t e n t i a l to p r o v i d e an a l t e r n a t i v e to auto use p r o v i d e an a l t e r n a t i v e to e x p e n d i t u r e s on p r i v a t e t r a n s p o r t a t i o n s m a l l c i t i e s a l t h o u g h i t i s not For  example, i t i s g e n e r a l l y  use  to t r a n s i t  as pronounced as i n l a r g e  thought t h a t people w i l l  i f a r e l a t i v e l y h i g h q u a l i t y of t r a n s i t  E x p e r i e n c e i n the Coquitlam a r e a showed t h a t a f t e r an  and in  cities.  switch  from auto  service i s provided. improvement i n 3  s e r v i c e an a p p r e c i a b l e t h a t 53% by  increase  i n choice  r i d e r s occurred  of the r i d e r s on the improved s e r v i c e had  automobile.  . I t was  found  previously travelled  TABLE  2.4  PROPORTIONS OF HOUSEHOLDS WITHOUT AUTOMOBILES IN SELECTED B.C. CENTRES  GREATER* VICTORIA  VICTORIA CITY  B.C.  No Auto  22%  19%  23%  36%  22%  31%  One Auto  58%  51%  50%  49%  50%  50%  Multi-Auto  20%  30%  27%  15%  28%  19%  GREATER* PRINCE GEORGE  PRINCE GEORGE CITY  GREATER* NANAIMO  NANAIMO CITY  GREATER * VANCOUVER-  VANCOUVER CITY  CANADA  GREATER* CHILLIWACK  CHILLIWACK CITY  PORT ALBERNI  No Auto  10%  10%  16%  19%  15%  22%  15%  One Auto  53%  53%  51%  52%  52%  52%  55%  Multi-Auto  38%  37%  33%  29%  33%  26%  30%  SOURCE:  S t a t i s t i c s Canada, "Housing-Household F a c i l i t i e s " , Cat.93-737, V o l . I I , P a r t 4, 1973, Ottawa  1971 Census o f Canada,  * " G r e a t e r " i s d e f i n e d i n terms o f the p h y s i c a l l y b u i l t - u p a r e a , which i s not n e c e s s a r i l y the same as the p o l i t i c a l d e s c r i p t i o n .  18.  The s u b s t i t u t i o n of t r a n s i t f o r road c o n s t r u c t i o n i s c o n s i d e r e d when t h e r e i s a problem of, c o n g e s t i o n .  mainly  T h i s i s u s u a l l y n o t i a concern i n  s m a l l c i t i e s of l e s s than 20,000 i n h a b i t a n t s . T h i s t r a n s i t s u b s t i t u t i o n f o r roads c o u l d b e n e f i t urban areas w i t h more than 20,000 p e r s o n s . F o r example, i n P r i n c e George, the 1972 c o s t e s t i m a t e s  f o r new urban a r t e r i a l s  f o r the c i t y ' s g e n e r a l p l a n came t o $42 m i l l i o n and i n v o l v e d 14 new  lanes  of roadway f o r the benchlands to the West. The o p p o r t u n i t i e s to s u b s t i t u t e t r a n s i t f o r roadways c o u l d be c o n s i d e r a b l e  (although was not i n c l u d e d  i n the c i t y ' s a n a l y s i s ) . S i m i l a r l y , i n Kamloops, Kelowna and  Nanaimo,  area p o p u l a t i o n , and hence auto use, i s s u f f i c i e n t l y g r e a t f o r t h e r e to be numerous  s u b s t i t u t i o n o p p o r t u n i t i e s . At p r e s e n t , b o t t l e - n e c k s i t u a t i o n s  occur a t both the Nechako R i v e r C r o s s i n g i n P r i n c e George and the Thompson River Crossing  i n Kamloops.  To summarize, P r o v i n c i a l Government  involvement i n the p r o v i s i o n of  t r a n s i t i n s m a l l c i t i e s was p r e d i c a t e d on: (i)  p r o v i d i n g a minimum l e v e l of m o b i l i t y f o r those access  (ii) (iii)  without  to an automobile;  to p r o v i d e an a l t e r n a t i v e to auto use f o r c h o i c e and t o p r o v i d e an a l t e r n a t i v e to e x p e n d i t u r e s transportation.  riders;  on p r i v a t e  19. 2.4  PROVINCIAL LEGISLATION AND  ITS  INTENT  P r o v i n c i a l a s s i s t a n c e f o r t r a n s i t commenced i n 1972  with  a  new  l e g i s l a t i o n - the Rapid T r a n s i t Subsidy A c t . Subsequently, a f a r l e g i s l a t i o n f o r t r a n s i t was  passed i n 1974  T r a n s i t Program which i s being of these two  A c t s are as  evaluated  which formed the b a s i s f o r  i n t h i s r e p o r t . The  Regional lities  subsidy  D i s t r i c t s . The  and  operating  of o p e r a t i n g  l o s s e s i n the M u n i c i p a l i t i e s and  p r o v i s i o n s of the Act o n l y b e n e f i t those m u n i c i p a -  s e r v i c e s . T h i s Act has  governments to pursue a l o c a l t r a n s i t capital  In the years provided  for Provincial assistance  r e g i o n a l d i s t r i c t s which have been i n v o l v e d i n owning public transit  of i n i t i a l  functions  (1972)  T h i s Act of the P r o v i n c i a l l e g i s l a t u r e p r o v i d e s percent  the  follows.  Rapid T r a n s i t Subsidy A c t  of a f i f t y  reaching  not been used by  and local  s e r v i c e because of the problems  investment.  of 1973  and  1974,  f i n a n c i a l support  the P r o v i n c i a l Rapid T r a n s i t Subsidy Act  of l o c a l t r a n s i t  s e r v i c e s i n the  four  communities of Nelson, P o w e l l R i v e r , West Vancouver and Nanaimo. K i t i m a t came i n t o t h i s program i n 1974. funding,  Due  to the l i m i t e d  the T r a n s i t S e r v i c e s Act of 1974  selected c a p i t a l  was  support  e s t a b l i s h e d to cover  expenditures.  T r a n s i t S e r v i c e s Act  (1974)  The  T r a n s i t S e r v i c e s Act p r o v i d e d  and  i n v o l v e d the P r o v i n c i a l Government i n the marketing and  transit  for capital  i n conjunction with  f o r 100%  c a p i t a l f i n a n c i n g of buses  l o c a l M u n i c i p a l i t i e s and  planning  Regional  of  Districts.  20.  The p r o v i s i o n s o f the A c t a r e b e i n g a p p l i e d i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h the M u n i c i p a l U t i l i t y p r o v i s i o n s , S e c t i o n 561, o f the M u n i c i p a l A c t . A l o c a l M u n i c i p a l i t y or R e g i o n a l D i s t r i c t having r e s i d e n t a p p r o v a l f o r a t r a n s i t s e r v i c e i s r e q u i r e d t o enter i n t o an agreement whereby the P r o v i n c e would e s t a b l i s h and operate the l o c a l t r a n s i t would be planned  by the P r o v i n c e i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h the b e n e f i t i n g  T a b l e 2.5 d i s p l a y s t h e impact 1972.  system and s e r v i c e s . The s e r v i c e s  S i n c e the implementation  area.  of P r o v i n c i a l a s s i s t a n c e i n t r a n s i t s i n c e of  the Rapid T r a n s i t Subsidy A c t which  p r o v i d e d the b a s i s f o r d i r e c t P r o v i n c i a l involvement  i n the t r a n s i t  i n d u s t r y , both the number of systems and p o p u l a t i o n served by t r a n s i t have i n c r e a s e d . T h e r e f o r e , the r i d e r s h i p has a l s o i n c r e a s e d . As T a b l e 2.5 shows, the number of systems w i t h P r o v i n c i a l support has i n c r e a s e d from t h r e e i n 1972 t o twelve i n 1977. A few of these systems had t o be planned and  implemented from the b e g i n n i n g . I n 1977, 342,000 people i n s m a l l  c i t i e s were p r o v i d e d w i t h t r a n s i t  s e r v i c e t h a t was s u b s i d i z e d by the  P r o v i n c e . The P r o v i n c i a l share of the d e f i c i t was $1,336,300 i n 1977 v e r s u s $103,000 i n 1972, an i n c r e a s e of t h i r t e e n times. R i d e r s h i p has a l s o i n c r e a s e d from 854,400 to 5,595,700, a s i x f o l d  i n c r e a s e i n the  same f i v e y e a r s .  The above shows t h e extent o f t h e P r o v i n c i a l involvement f u n d i n g support  i n transit  i n s m a l l c i t i e s . There i s no i n d i c a t i o n of the  e f f e c t i v e n e s s o r the e f f i c i e n c y of the approach. how e f f e c t i v e and e f f i c i e n t  In o r d e r t o determine  the program has been, the g o a l s and  o b j e c t i v e s of the government must be known and compared t o the achievements.  The e v a l u a t i o n i s c a r r i e d out i n Chapter  Five.  TABLE  2.5  TRANSIT PROGRAMME IN BRITISH COLUMBIA SMALL CITIES Number o f systems i n small c i t i e s P r o v i n c i a l subsidy payment Population  served  Subsidy p e r c a p i t a served Total ridership  1972  1973  1974  1975  1976  1977  3  3  4  9  12  12  $103,000  $150,000  $284,200  $660,400  $832,700  $1,336,300  63,400  63,400  75,900  292,700  342,000  342,000  $1.63  $2.37  $3.74  $2.26  $2.43  $3.91  854,400  5,595,^700 JL.  GREATER VANCOUVER AND GREATER VICTORIA AREAS" Total subsidies  $6.09 m i l l .  $11.15 m i l l .  Subsidy p e r c a p i t a served Note:  *  i n c l u d i n g West Vancouver  $20.98 m i l l .  $29.81 m i l l  $36.53 m i l l .  $44.92  $22.85  $28.00  $34.44  22.  FOOTNOTES 1.  Procedure Manual 8A, Recommended Standards, Warrants, and O b j e c t i v e s f o r T r a n s i t S e r v i c e and F a c i l i t i e s , N a t i o n a l Committee on Urban T r a n s p o r t a t i o n , P u b l i c A d m i n i s t r a t i o n S e r v i c e , Chicago, I l l i n o i s , 1958.  2.  Rapid T r a n s i t Subsidy A c t , 1972, P r o v i n c e  3.  B r i t i s h Columbia, P r o v i n c e o f , C o q u i t l a m Bus S e r v i c e Impact Study, Bureau of T r a n s i t S e r v i c e s , 1975.  of B r i t i s h  Columbia.  23. CHAPTER THREE THE SUPPLY OF PUBLIC TRANSPORT SERVICES IN SMALL CITIES IN BRITISH COLUMBIA 3.0  The  INTRODUCTION  supply  of t r a n s i t s e r v i c e i n v o l v e s more than simply  on the s t r e e t . A s i d e from o p e r a t i o n s , planning  transit  and marketing. The n a t u r e o f supply  supply  operating  requires  of t r a n s i t  buses  funding,  i s d i c t a t e d by  the i n t e r e s t e d p a r t i e s , who i n B. C. a r e the P r o v i n c i a l Government and the M u n i c i p a l i t i e s . These p a r t i e s d e f i n e the g o a l s and o b j e c t i v e s which : transit Province  i s supposed t o a c h i e v e . i s responsible  In B. C ,  a t h i r d party representing the  f o r the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n  programme which i s to r e a l i z e the g o a l s above. F i n a l l y a f o u r t h p a r t y ,  and implementation o f the  s e t out by the p a r t i e s mentioned  the t r a n s i t o p e r a t o r  a c t u a l l y makes sure  t h a t the buses do indeed r u n as planned. T h i s chapter documents the f o l l o w i n g : i)  the r o l e s and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of the p a r t i e s i n v o l v e d i n the s m a l l c i t y T r a n s i t Programme;  ii)  the i n s t i t u t i o n a l arrangement, r e f e r r e d t o here as the p u b l i c marketing agency', which implements the programme;  iii) iv) v)  the types of o r g a n i z a t i o n which operate the t r a n s i t the l e v e l of s e r v i c e s u p p l i e d  i n small  cities;  the f i n a n c i a l performance of the s e r v i c e s u p p l i e d cities.  service;  i n small  24.  3.1  ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE PARTIES INVOLVED  Three p a r t i e s a r e i n v o l v e d i n the supply o f t r a n s i t  t o s m a l l BI;C. c i t i e s .  They a r e the P r o v i n c e , the M u n i c i p a l i t y and the t r a n s i t o p e r a t o r . Each have a d e f i n e d s e t o f r o l e s and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . A c o s t s h a r i n g  arrange-  ment was s e t out by the P r o v i n c i a l S t a t u t e s and has been the b a s i s f o r the j o i n t e f f o r t  i n the p l a n n i n g , marketing,  determination of acceptable  s e r v i c e l e v e l s and c o s t s f o r l o c a l bus s e r v i c e s . Under the arrangement the P r o v i n c i a l and m u n i c i p a l governments share the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of determining  the f i n a n c i a l and p l a n n i n g a s p e c t s o f s u p p l y i n g  L o c a l i n t e r e s t s a r e i n c o r p o r a t e d through officials  the involvement  transit.  of e l e c t e d  of the m u n i c i p a l c o u n c i l or the R e g i o n a l Board. The P r o v i n c i a l  Agency p r o v i d e s s t a f f t o work w i t h the m u n i c i p a l s t a f f and e l e c t e d officials.  The working r e l a t i o n s h i p between the two l e v e l s o f government  p r o v i d e s an u n d e r s t a n d i n g  between both p a r t i e s of the l o c a l and P r o v i n c i a l  g o a l s of the T r a n s i t Programme. The o p e r a t i o n o f the a c t u a l s e r v i c e s and many of the d e t a i l e d t e c h n i c a l d e c i s i o n s r e g a r d i n g t r a n s i t and v e h i c l e maintenance a r e l e f t  operations  t o the o p e r a t i n g company and the P r o v i n g  c i a l Agency. The o p e r a t i n g company may be a p r i v a t e s e c t o r c o n t r a c t o r , a publicly-owned  company, a m u n i c i p a l department o r a company owned by .  the Crown. The f o l l o w i n g p r o v i d e s a d e s c r i p t i o n o f the d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g (i.e.  setting  d e c i s i o n s r e l a t e d t o the l e v e l s of s e r v i c e t o p r o v i d e , the f a r e  l e v e l s and where s e r v i c e s should be provided)  and a summary o f r e s p o n -  s i b i l i t i e s by t a s k s . The d e s i g n a t i o n s o f PROVINCE, MUNICIPALITY and OPERATING COMPANY r e f l e c t  the g e n e r a l s i t u a t i o n and a r e intended t o  reflect  such v a r i a t i o n s  PROVINCE, the or  either  a local  t e r m MUNICIPALITY, Crown T r a n s i t  as a P r o v i n c i a l municipal  government  and a p r i v a t e  Company  Crown A g e n c y r e p r e s e n t i n g or Regional D i s t r i c t  contractor,  b y t h e t e r m OPERATING  municipal  COMPANY.  the by  department  26.  3.1.1  Planning  Service  and M a r k e t i n g R e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s and  Arrangements  Planning  The  planning  process  l e a d i n g up  and  the ongoing review of the s e r v i c e l e v e l s i s one  the MUNICIPALITY and  to the i n t r o d u c t i o n of t r a n s i t  the PROVINCE. These two  d e c i s i o n s on the s e r v i c e p l a n n i n g s t r u c t u r e and  a l l other  t h a t i n v o l v e s both  groups j o i n t l y d e a l w i t h  the  g u i d e l i n e s , amounts of s e r v i c e , f a r e  items t h a t a f f e c t  the o p e r a t i n g  deficit.  committee of r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s from both the MUNICIPALITY and i s e s t a b l i s h e d to c o - o r d i n a t e  services  the p l a n n i n g  a c t i v i t i e s and  A  the PROVINCE  the  review  process.  T h i s Committee has  the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r conducting  of the community needs f o r m o b i l i t y by a l l modes and  a subjective analysis f o r reviewing  long  range community development p a t t e r n s . P a r t of the Committee's work i n v o l v e s s o l i c i t i n g and  reviewing  b r i e f s and  l e t t e r s from the g e n e r a l p u b l i c on  t o p i c of p u b l i c t r a n s i t . A summary r e p o r t i s u s u a l l y prepared by Committee and  forwarded to the M u n i c i p a l  Council f o r approval.  have been used f o r d e f i n i n g needs f o r s e r v i c e s at the l o c a l  The  l i k e l y concerns of l o c a l p o l i t i c i a n s and  the  No  criteria  level.  Judgements of l o c a l o f f i c i a l s are u s u a l l y the dominant f o r c e s service design.  the  guiding officials  are:  -  to p r o v i d e  parking  relief;  to p r o v i d e  s e r v i c e s to s e n i o r c i t i z e n complexes and  recreation  centres; -  to serve major employment c e n t r e s ; to serve district.  and  shopping c e n t r e s as w e l l as the c e n t r a l  business  The  f o l l o w i n g i s an example of the types of p l a n n i n g g u i d e l i n e s used i n  s m a l l c i t i e s . T h i s example i s e x t r a c t e d from the background r e p o r t on needs f o r t r a n s i t  services i n Penticton.  Example: "The  committee recommended the f o l l o w i n g s e r v i c e p l a n n i n g g u i d e l i n e s : i n i t i a l phases of t r a n s i t areas of the -  city;  should supply a b a s i c l e v e l of m o b i l i t y to the e l d e r l y , workers, and young  -  s e r v i c e should serve the b u i l t - u p  shoppers,  people;  major a c t i v i t y c e n t r e s such as the h o s p i t a l , shopping Downtown b u s i n e s s c e n t r e and  areas,  r e c r e a t i o n complexes should  be  served; -  hours of o p e r a t i o n s should be s u i t e d to the hours of  activities  in Penticton; -  s e r v i c e frequency in attracting  The  and  r e l i a b i l i t y are both important  elements  ridership."  approved s e t of p l a n n i n g g u i d e l i n e s forms the b a s i s of the Concept P l a n ,  prepared  by the PROVINCE and  forwarded  to the MUNICIPALITY f o r c o n s i d e r a t -  i o n . F o l l o w i n g the a d o p t i o n of an approved Concept P l a n , the PROVINCE prepares  a S e r v i c e P l a n . The  Service Plan i d e n t i f i e s a p o t e n t i a l  s t r u c t u r e and proposes a g e n e r a l l e v e l of s e r v i c e i n t e n s i t y P r o v i n c i a l minimum s t a n d a r d s ) . T h i s S e r v i c e P l a n w i l l the Committee f o r amendments and the documents n e c e s s a r y  route  ( t h a t i s , the  then be submitted  to  a p p r o v a l by the C o u n c i l . P r e p a r a t i o n of  for s o l i c i t i n g  submissions  f o r a purchase of  s e r v i c e c o n t r a c t i s performed by the T r a n s i t Committee. P r i o r to awarding the c o n t r a c t to an o p e r a t o r both the MUNICIPALITY a c t i n g as the T r a n s i t A u t h o r i t y and  the PROVINCE review the submissions  and  concur w i t h the c h o i c e .  28.  Merchandising  The  areas of merchandising l o c a l t r a n s i t s e r v i c e s a r e g e n e r a l l y  into three categories. i n the S e r v i c e  These a r e :  divided  (a) items that a r e r e l a t e d t o changes  S p e c i f i c a t i o n ; (b) i n s t i t u t i o n a l a d v e r t i s i n g ; and (c)'  o p e r a t i o n s changes of a temporary n a t u r e . A l l these a r e the r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of the PROVINCE.  Service  The  Specifications  major j o i n t r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of t h e l o c a l and P r o v i n c i a l members o f  each T r a n s i t Committee i s the e s t a b l i s h m e n t of a s e r v i c e s p e c i f i c a t i o n . Inherent i n the p r o d u c t i o n o f a s e r v i c e s p e c i f i c a t i o n i s the d e t e r m i n a t i o n of c o s t s  and s e r v i c e l e v e l s . T h i s means t h a t  structure,  the l e v e l s o f s e r v i c e ,  f a r e l e v e l s , the marketing program, t e r m i n a l  l o c a t i o n s of bus stops and the s e l e c t i o n of an o p e r a t i n g  route  arrangement, company a r e d e t e r -  mined and d e a l t w i t h i n a j o i n t d e c i s i o n making p r o c e s s . No o f f i c i a l Provincial guidelines are  o r standards a r e s e t up b u t i n d u s t r y  rules-of-thumb  applied.  Operations Planning  O p e r a t i o n s p l a n n i n g i s u s u a l l y a shared r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of t h e OPERATING COMPANY and t h e PROVINCE. The b a s i c l a i d out i n the S e r v i c e  elements of t h e o p e r a t i o n s p l a n a r e  S p e c i f i c a t i o n s which form a p a r t of the s e r v i c e  contract.  Items such as the t i m i n g  and  schedule a r e produced by t h e PROVINCE. As r e q u i r e d ,  basic  point,  d e s t i n a t i o n b l i n d exposures operations  p l a n n i n g s t a f f from t h e P r o v i n c i a l Agency a r e u s u a l l y a v a i l a b l e t o a s s i s t the OPERATING COMPANY i n areas such as schedule b u i l d i n g and so on. A l l a s p e c t s of t h e O p e r a t i o n s P l a n a r e checked and confirmed w i t h the OPERAT-  29.  ING COMPANY.  Bus A l l o c a t i o n  The PROVINCE assumes r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r the p r o v i s i o n of t r a n s i t  vehicles  u n l e s s o t h e r w i s e s p e c i f i e d by agreement w i t h the MUNICIPALITY. The v e h i c l e s are a l l o c a t e d from the P r o v i n c i a l f l e e t of buses and l e a s e d  f o r a nominal  fee to the OPERATING COMPANY.  V e h i c l e Maintenance  The d a i l y maintenance and s e r v i c i n g of the t r a n s i t v e h i c l e s i s t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of the OPERATING COMPANY under the terms of the v e h i c l e agreement. The PROVINCE s u p p l y s maintenance r e c o r d kept up-to-date by the OPERATING COMPANY.  lease  forms t h a t must be  30.  3.1.2  As was  Cost  s h a r i n g R e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s and  Arrangements  stated e a r l i e r , P r o v i n c i a l l e g i s l a t i o n provides  f o r equal  sharing  of the o p e r a t i n g d e f i c i t s . These l e v e l s of d e f i c i t s are u s u a l l y a f u n c t i o n of the amount of s e r v i c e s p r o v i d e d . municipal  standpoint  v i n c e and  l e a s e d to o p e r a t o r s  d o l l a r per bus.  The most important  aspect  from a  i s t h a t v e h i c l e f l e e t s are e n t i r e l y owned by the P r o or m u n i c i p a l i t i e s f o r a nominal f e e of  one  There are no charges to the l o c a l government f o r c a p i t a l  d e p r e c i a t i o n of the f l e e t .  ( T h i s arrangement was  Urban T r a n s i t A u t h o r i t y Act  (1978) and  changed  l e a s e f e e s are now  'purchase of s e r v i c e ' agreements.) In a d d i t i o n , bus f o r a l l s m a l l c i t i e s i n the P r o v i n c e )  are p r o v i d e d  l o c a l area to ensure c e r t a i n economies of s c a l e and  >by  the  included i n a l l  stop s i g n s  (one  by the P r o v i n c e  design to each  o t h e r marketing  advantages"*". M u n i c i p a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s cover a l l expenses on bus  stop  placement and maintenance, l o c a l s t r e e t r e p a i r s i n c l u d i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n of bus  bays, sidewalks  and  p e d e s t r i a n areas,  s t r u c t i o n of t e r m i n a l s and bus accounting  f o r farebox  public information and  revenues. Ongoing c o s t s f o r system a d v e r t i s i n g and are shared  e q u a l l y by  I n i t i a l c o s t s f o r a d v e r t i s i n g and  the  The  Province  timetables  the time of the s t a r t - u p of a l o c a l system are borne e n t i r e l y by Province  con-  s h e l t e r s as w e l l as a l l c o s t s r e l a t e d to  (e.g. t i m e - t a b l e s )  the M u n i c i p a l i t i e s .  the c o s t s i n c u r r e d i n the  at  the  as p a r t of the marketing program of the P r o v i n c i a l T r a n s i t Agency.  f o l l o w i n g p r o v i d e s a summary of the breakdown of v a r i o u s s t a r t - u p  o p e r a t i n g c o s t s and  t h e i r s h a r i n g arrangements. The  arrangements are  b a s i c a l l y r e s u l t s from both the Rapid T r a n s i t Subsidy Act T r a n s i t S e r v i c e s Act  (1974).  and  (1972) and  the  31.  50 - 50 Share of O p e r a t i n g  The  Province  shares e q u a l l y w i t h the M u n i c i p a l i t y or R e g i o n a l D i s t r i c t  the annual o p e r a t i n g any  Deficit  d e f i c i t , not  i n c l u d i n g d e p r e c i a t i o n but  including  amortized debt charges or s i n k i n g fund payments i n the year  r e l a t e s s o l e l y to the c o n s t r u c t i o n or o p e r a t i o n  of the p u b l i c  that  transport-  a t i o n system.  O p e r a t i n g d e f i c i t here i s d e f i n e d operating  as a l l o p e r a t i n g  revenues. Revenues i n c l u d e those from scheduled s e r v i c e s ,  c h a r t e r and  s p e c i a l s e r v i c e s , r e n t revenues and  O p e r a t i n g expenses i n c l u d e a l l d i r e c t and is,  garage and  and  costs  t a b l e s , bus  taxes,  d r i v e r uniforms).  general The  (that  management expenses,  equipment maintenance expenses, a d v e r t i s i n g expenses,  expenses, l i c e n s e s and  The  a d v e r t i s i n g revenues.  i n d i r e c t operating  t r a n s p o r t a t i o n expenses, a d m i n i s t r a t i v e  Start-up  expenses minus a l l  insurance  expenses, such as p r i n t i n g of  exclusions  time-  are:  i n s t a l l a t i o n and  maintenance of bus  stop  signs;  i n s t a l l a t i o n and  maintenance of bus  shelters.  Costs  Province  pays 100%  of the f o l l o w i n g s t a r t - u p  expenditures:  system a d v e r t i s i n g ; -  bus  stop  signs  (not p o l e s or  installation);  timetables;  public timetable  Capital  distribution.  Expenditures  Necessary replacements of equipment other  than buses are s h a r e a b l e  under  32.  the  c o n d i t i o n of of  the  (a)  grant  the  provided  in  advance,  terms of  or  extraordinary, expenditures,  that  debt as  the M i n i s t e r of Finance  a m o r t i z a t i o n , and  d e f i n e d by  (b)  any  the M i n i s t e r of  approve,  capital, Finance.  33.  3.2  THE INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENT ADOPTED IN B. C. 'THE  PUBLIC MARKETING AGENCY'  The p r e v i o u s s e c t i o n d i s c u s s e d the r o l e s o f the p a r t i e s i n v o l v e d i n s u p p l y i n g t r a n s i t . The r o l e s and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s a s c r i b e d to the P r o v i n c e were i n f a c t  implemented  ' p u b l i c marketing agency' the  through an i n s t i t u t i o n a l arrangement  (p.m.a.). The f o l l o w i n g p r o v i d e s a d e f i n i t i o n of  p u b l i c marketing agency  adopted  in British  concept and o u t l i n e s the reasons ' why i t was  Columbia.  The b a s i c p r i n c i p l e of the p u b l i c marketing agency the of  c a l l e d the  approach i s t o s e p a r a t e  r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s and f u n c t i o n s f o r p l a n n i n g and marketing from those o p e r a t i o n . The r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s f o r p l a n n i n g and marketing  decisions  are  a s s i g n e d t o a government body w h i l e the a c t u a l o p e r a t i o n o f a s e r v i c e  was  executed by a p r i v a t e l y o r p u b l i c l y owned c a r r i e r , under a c o n t r a c t u a l  arrangement. provided,  The government body answers q u e s t i o n s as to 'what' should be  'where' and a t 'what p r i c e ' and the 'how' q u e s t i o n i s l e f t t o  each i n d i v i d u a l o p e r a t o r ( p u b l i c or private;) to determine. T h i s  organ-  i z a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e f o l l o w s c l o s e l y what the p r i v a t e s e c t o r uses f o r i t s p r o d u c t i o n and marketing f u n c t i o n s . In the p r i v a t e realm the marketing department  i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the r e s e a r c h , p l a n n i n g , d e s i g n and promotion  f u n c t i o n s w h i l e the a c t u a l p r o d u c t i o n i s l e f t p r o d u c t i o n department.  t o the o p e r a t i o n s or  The s p e c i f i c a t i o n s f o r q u a l i t y c o n t r o l and c o s t  c o n t r o l i s n o r m a l l y done by the m a r k e t i n g / d e s i g n  The of  ' p u b l i c marketing agency'  group.  (p.m.a.) concept r e c o g n i z e s the advantages  such a d i v i s i o n of r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s and the p.m.a. i s m a i n l y what can  be c a l l e d a m a r k e t i n g / d e s i g n department  i n the p r i v a t e s e c t o r . O b j e c t i v e s  34.  f o r t h e two departments a r e u s u a l l y d i f f e r e n t . Government o b j e c t i v e s i n t r a n s i t a r e u s u a l l y r e l a t e d t o maximizing s o c i a l w e l f a r e of t h e people it  serves.  F o r t r a n s i t o p e r a t o r s however, t h e o b j e c t i v e s a r e u s u a l l y  of m i n i m i z i n g c o s t  (monetary c o s t ) and maximizing revenues.  r o u t e s that might be s o c i a l l y d e s i r a b l e  those  Therefore,  (such as those s e r v i n g  senior  c i t i z e n complexes) might not be c o n s i d e r e d  d e s i r a b l e by t h e o p e r a t o r  when c a l c u l a t i n g a c t u a l monetary r e t u r n s .  I n order f o r government t o  r e a l i z e t h e s o c i a l b e n e f i t s of t h e s e r v i c e s i t s u b s i d i z e s , c e r t a i n c o n t r o l over what i s b e i n g produced i s n e c e s s a r y . The 'p.m.a.' d e l i v e r s t h i s type of c o n t r o l .  The  approach i s l a r g e l y m a r k e t i n g - o r i e n t e d emphasizing t h e d e s i g n o f  s e r v i c e s around consumer needs. D e t a i l e d d e s c r i p t i o n of the method can be found i n a Canadian T r a n s p o r t Commission p u b l i c a t i o n t i t l e d Methods o f P u b l i c T r a n s p o r t A d m i n i s t r a t i o n :  : "New  The P u b l i c M a r k e t i n g Agency"  2 by B r i a n E. S u l l i v a n . Reasons f o r Adopting t h e P.M.A. Concept  The  main r e a s o n f o r t h e development of most p u b l i c marketing a g e n c i e s was  based on t h e c o n t r o l argument. Governments want t o i n i t i a t e and n o t j u s t r e a c t t o t h e s e r v i c e s t h a t they s u b s i d i z e d .  They want t o see t h a t  subsidy  programs a c h i e v e t h e i r maximum b e n e f i t s . With t h e 'p.m.a.' concept, governments do not have t o purchase c a r r i e r s o u t r i g h t of marketing and p l a n n i n g  i n order to gain  d e c i s i o n s . The u n d e r l y i n g  control  reasons f o r t h e  a d o p t i o n of t h e 'p.m.a.' a r e t h e f o l l o w i n g : (I)  t o p r o v i d e means of e f f i c i e n t l y a d m i n i s t e r i n g  government-funded  s e r v i c e s , m o n i t o r i n g performances and measuring b e n e f i t s ; (ii)  to achieve co-ordination  o f t r a n s p o r t modes and c a r r i e r s ; and  35.  (iii)  t o enable t h e c l o s e r i n t e g r a t i o n o f p u b l i c and  transportation  l o c a l l a n d use p l a n n i n g .  Under t h i s arrangement t h e P r o v i n c i a l T r a n s i t Agency f u n c t i o n s as a planning,  m a r k e t i n g , management c o n s u l t i n g and brokerage f i r m . The  c e n t r a l i z a t i o n of planning It provides  and marketing i n t h i s manner has i t s advantages.  t h e type of e x p e r t i s e i n t r a n s i t management, p l a n n i n g and  administration  t h a t would o t h e r w i s e not be a t t a i n a b l e i f each i n d i v i d u a l  c i t y were t o go a t i t on i t s own. I t a l s o p r o v i d e s  p o s s i b l e economies of  s c a l e s i n c e common f u n c t i o n s among systems a r e assigned agency. F o r example, market r e s e a r c h using  to a c e n t r a l  and demand a n a l y s i s can be conducted  s i m i l a r methodologies and f i n d i n g s can be shared so t h a t a l l systems  can b e n e f i t . Newspaper a d v e r t i s i n g can a l s o be developed f o r twelve common markets w i t h minor m o d i f i c a t i o n s . The u t i l i z a t i o n of P r o v i n c i a l standard  bus stop  s i g n s and p u b l i c t i m e t a b l e  f a m i l i a r i t y amongst r e s i d e n t s o f c e n t r e s  The  encourages r e c o g n i t i o n and  anywhere i n t h e P r o v i n c e .  advantages t h a t have been i d e n t i f i e d under t h e 'p.m.a.' arrangement  go beyond the c o s t advantages of s h a r i n g to c a r r y out t h e d e t a i l e d p l a n n i n g  t e c h n i c a l expertise necessary  and marketing f u n c t i o n s . The 'p.m.a.'  (that i s , t h e T r a n s i t Agency) can a l s o ensure t h a t each l o c a l system i s integrated with other  l o c a l and r e g i o n a l c a r r i e r s . F o r example, l o c a l  s c h o o l bus s e r v i c e s can be i n t e g r a t e d i n t o t h e o v e r a l l t r a n s i t network so t h a t c o s t savings  a r e r e a l i z e d . A l s o t h e i n t e r - g o v e r n m e n t a l approach can  f a c i l i t a t e t h e i n t e g r a t i o n o f l a n d use and t r a n s p o r t a t i o n .  The  c e n t r a l agency i s a l s o a b l e t o p r o v i d e  p o l i c y advice  to l o c a l  politi-  c i a n s and o f f i c i a l s as r e s u l t o f i t s r o l e and e x p e r t i s e i n p l a n n i n g , f i n a n c i n g and other  operations  a s p e c t s of t h e b u s i n e s s .  This  inter-govern-  36.  mental approach a v o i d s i n e f f i c i e n c i e s t h a t are common w i t h c e n t r a l i z e d planning  a g e n c i e s because l o c a l government i n p u t s n o r m a l l y preceeds  P r o v i n c i a l i n p u t s . I t i s g e n e r a l l y understood by l o c a l government and  residents appreciate  i t i e s b e t t e r than a c e n t r a l i z e d p l a n n i n g  The  performance and  i n B. C. w i l l be  l o c a l conditions  t h e s i s . A few  the approach i s a p p l i e d  The  VIA  v a r i a n t s of  i n the f o l l o w i n g  the  section  i n d i f f e r e n t areas and  for  purposes.  Examples of P u b l i c M a r k e t i n g A g e n c i e s (See  1)  peculiar-  body.  ' p u b l i c marketing agency' concept are p r o v i d e d  different  and  achievements of the t r a n s i t p u b l i c marketing agency  addressed l a t e r i n the  to i l l u s t r a t e how  the T r a n s i t Agency t h a t  also Table  3.1.)  R a i l Canada  newly formed VIA  R a i l Canada i s the most r e c e n t  marketing agency. The  Canadian government was  provide d i r e c t subsidies  to the u n p r o f i t a b l e  s e r v i c e s operated by both Canadian N a t i o n a l  example of a p u b l i c  f a c e w i t h having to e i t h e r i n t e r c i t y passenger  and  a g r a d u a l d e t e r i o r a t i o n of the passenger r a i l  Canadian P a c i f i c or  same reasons by which most p u b l i c marketing agencies were formed,  passenger r a i l  s e r v i c e s from the two  company c a l l e d VIA  consolidate  o p e r a t o r s and  R a i l Canada i n 1978.  VIA  and  form a new  i s responsible  s e r v i c e s are  run by  still  marketing f u n c t i o n s . The the  two  the the  a l l intercity  the d e f i c i t s of a l l s e r v i c e s under i t s a d m i n i s t r a t i o n charge of p l a n n i n g  face  s e r v i c e s or abandonment  of the s o c i a l l y d e s i r a b l e passenger s e r v i c e s i n Canada. Based on  Canadian government d e c i d e d to fund and  rail  and  Crown  f o r funding i s also i n :  actual operation  s e p a r a t e c a r r i e r s CN  and  CP  of  under  the  TABLE  37.  3.1  Some P u b l i c M a r k e t i n g Agencies f o r T r a n s p o r t a t i o n and Western  i n North America  Europe  Location  Name  Services  Hamburg Verkehrsverbund  Hamburg, Germany  urban and r e g i o n a l r a i l and bus  Der Munchner Verkehrsvebund Tarifverbund  Munich,  urban and r e g i o n a l r a i l and bus  Swiss Post, Telegraph  Germany  Telephone, Throughout Switzerland  r u r a l buses ( a l s o does some of i t s own operating)  New J e r s e y Commuter Operating A u t h o r i t y  New  commuter, r u r a l and i n t e r c i t y buses and t r a i n s  Sough E a s t e r n P e n n s y l v a n i a Transit Authority  Philadelphia  Massachusettes Transportation  Boston  Bay Authority  Jersey  region  region  York  region  commuter r a i l (operates i t s own urban bus and r a i l ) commuter r a i l (operates i t s own urban bus and r a i l ) commuter r a i l (operates i t s own urban bus and r a i l )  New York M e t r o p o l i t a n Transportation Authority  New  Amtrak  throughout U.S.A.  intercity  GO T r a n s i t  Toronto,  regional and bus  VIA R a i l Canada  throughout Canada  Ontario  rail rail  intercity passenger services  Source: S u l l i v a n , B r i a n E., An A n a l y s i s of Demand f o r and Supply of R u r a l P u b l i c T r a n s p o r t a t i o n : The Case of A l b e r t a , Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , S t a n f o r d U n i v e r s i t y , 1974.  rail  38.  c o n t r a c t u a l agreement w i t h  2)  VIA.  Hamburg Verkehrsverbund  T h i s i s the most o f t e n c i t e d e x p e r i e n c e the passenger t r a n s p o r t f i e l d . Hamburg, Germany was  In the m i d - n i n e t e e n - s i x t i e s  faced w i t h  transport s e r v i c e s provided  of a p u b l i c marketing agency i n the c i t y  the problem of c o - o r d i n a t i n g the  by a number of p r i v a t e l y and  of  different  p u b l i c l y owned  c a r r i e r s . To purchase the c a r r i e r s o u t r i g h t to a c h i e v e  co-ordination  not p o s s i b l e . In 1965,  formed as  the Hamburg Verkehrsverbund was  c a r r i e r f o r route planning s c h e d u l e s and  and  design,  promotion of bus,  s e r v i c e s . A common t a r i f f was  establishment  of f a r e s  a  and  tram, subway, suburban r a i l w a y and  e s t a b l i s h e d and  interchange  v a r i o u s modes were improved. Revenues c o l l e c t e d by  was  ferry  points for  the Verkehrsverbund  were d i s t r i b u t e d to the c a r r i e r s based on a formula u s i n g passenger m i l e s .  3)  Munchener T a r i f - u n d Verkehrsverbund  T h i s o r g a n i z a t i o n was as the  formed i n Munich, Germany i n 1971  on the same b a s i s  'p.m.a.' e s t a b l i s h e d i n Hamburg. S e v e r a l s t a t e and  are i n v o l v e d i n t h i s case to a c h i e v e for  (MVV)  p u b l i c t r a n s p o r t s e r v i c e and  c i t y governments  the twin g o a l s of j o i n t  planning  joint responsibilities for financing  the  services.  4)  GO  Transit  D u r i n g the m i d - n i n e t e e n - s i x t i e s p o r t and  the O n t a r i o Government  Communications, i . e . , Highways) i n Canada was  the c a p a c i t y along making use  ( M i n i s t r y of T r a n s t r y i n g to improve  the Toronto Lakeshore c o r r i d o r . A passenger r a i l  of the CN r i g h t - o f - w a y  was  service  thought to be more c o s t - e f f e c t i v e  39.  than  building extra highway lanes. The Ontario Government decided to set  the s p e c i f i c a t i o n s for the service and assume the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for i t s financing and contracted CN to run the service. A few months l a t e r , the r a i l service was  shown to be very popular and the government agency  decided to feed the end r a i l station with buses. The same arrangement for planning and financing of the bus services was made. Gray Coach Lines was contracted to run the service. A l l functions related to planning and marketing belonged  to the government agency while the operators were only  responsible for running the services according to s p e c i f i c a t i o n s . The following i s a table summarizing the r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s for marketing functions for the GO services. For more information on d i f f e r e n t types of public marketing  agencies readers can refer to Sullivan's report.  No example of the 'p.m.a.' can be found i n the area of supplying t r a n s i t services to small c i t i e s . The experience i n B. C. i s unique i n a sense that urban t r a n s i t services i n small c i t i e s are provided  province-wide  under one arrangement and one funding formula with similar service designs. Besides the commonly cited merits of the concept, the most v i s i b l e are expected benefits resulting from certain scale economies i n both the planning and marketing  functions. The following sections of  document the approach taken i n B. C. and the detailed  .this chapter  implementation  process. Recommendations and assessments are given i n a l a t e r chapter.  TABLE  3.2  RESPONSIBILITY FOR MARKETING FUNCTIONS FOR GO TRANSIT SERVICES  FUNCTION  CARRIER  Canadian N a t i o n a l  Gray Coach  T r a i l w a y s of Canada  GO  Market Research  GO  GO  Product Design: schedules routes equipment terminals  joint joint i n i t i a l l y CN CN  joint joint^ GO/GC ' GO/GC  joint joint T of C joint  Pricing:. GO joint  GO GO  GO GO  Promotion  GO  GO  GO  Channels  GO  GO  GO  Packaging  GO  fare levels f a r e c o l l e c t i o n system  GO/GC  T of C (primarily)  * " j o i n t " means t h a t GO and t h e c a r r i e r worked t o g e t h e r . " G O / c a r r i e r " means t h a t i n some s i t u a t i o n s the c a r r i e r does t h i s f u n c t i o n w h i l e i n o t h e r s , the marketing agency does. Source:  S u l l i v a n , B r i a n E., An A n a l y s i s o f Demand f o r and Supply of R u r a l P u b l i c T r a n s p o r t a t i o n : The Case of A l b e r t a , Ph.D. D i s s e r t a t i o n , S t a n f o r d U n i v e r s i t y , 1974.  41.  . 3.3  MANAGEMENT OF TRANSIT OPERATIONS -  The P u b l i c M a r k e t i n g Agency by i t s n a t u r e must f u n c t i o n i n c o n j u n c t i o n with  the o p e r a t o r s of the t r a n s i t  system '• In g e n e r a l , t h e r e a r e s e v e r a l s  3  types of o r g a n i z a t i o n s of t r a n s i t  operators i n existence. Perara  a good d e s c r i p t i o n of the d i f f e r e n t  types of o r g a n i z a t i o n s i n O n t a r i o .  They i n c l u d e T r a n s i t Commissions, P u b l i c U t i l i t y or R e g i o n a l Government  gives  Commissions,  Municipal  and P r i v a t e o p e r a t o r s . In B r i t i s h Columbia  t h e r e are t h r e e types of o r g a n i z a t i o n s which are shown i n T a b l e 3 . 3 There i s l o c a l t r a n s i t  .  s e r v i c e i n f i f t e e n of the s m a l l c i t i e s i n the  P r o v i n c e . Of these f i f t e e n systems, twelve a r e s u b s i d i z e d by the P r o v i n c e . T h i s s e c t i o n d e s c r i b e s i n d e t a i l the f u n c t i o n s which each o f  the P u b l i c  M a r k e t i n g Agency, the m u n i c i p a l i t y and the o p e r a t o r must c a r r y out i n o r d e r to p r o v i d e t r a n s i t s e r v i c e .  TABLE  3.3  ORGANIZATION OF TRANSIT OPERATIONS IN SMALL CITIES IN B. C.  TYPES  NUMBER OF SYSTEMS  MUNICIPALITY/REGIONAL OWNED AND OPERATED ( T r a i l , Nanaimo, N e l s o n , Powell  4 River)  PRIVATE OWNED AND OPERATED  10'  (Kelowna, P e n t i c t o n , P r i n c e Rupert, K i t i m a t , Maple R i d g e , ^ P o r t Alberni.,.^ P r i n c e George, Vernon , C h i l l i w a c k , Mission ) CROWN OWNED AND OPERATED  1  (Kamloops)  TOTAL:  15  * Three o f these t e n systems, namely C h i l l i w a c k , Vernon, and M i s s i o n a r e not, a t p r e s e n t , under the c o s t - s h a r i n g arrangement w i t h the P r o v i n c e . They a l l r e c e i v e d s u b s i d i e s from t h e l o c a l government. C h i l l i w a c k and M i s s i o n a r e now n e g o t i a t i n g a c o n t r a c t w i t h the P r o v i n c e t o share the s u b s i d i e s f o r t r a n s i t w h i l e Vernon's t r a n s i t system i s s t i l l owned and operated by Vernon Bus L i n e s L t d . w i t h s u b s i d i e s from the C i t y o f Vernon.  43.  3.3.1  The  P r i v a t e l y Operated T r a n s i t  most common arrangement i n B.C.  Services  i s one  which i n v o l v e s the  of s e r v i c e c o n t r a c t between the m u n i c i p a l i t y under the terms of the M u n i c i p a l Act) steps  i n v o l v e d are as  and  L o c a l government has  2)  P r o v i n c i a l government would p r o v i d e  3)  C i t y approves c o n c e p t u a l  4)  The  conceptual 5)  a p r i v a t e bus  authority  company.  The  follows:  1)  Province  (as the t r a n s i t  purchase  to go to the P r o v i n c e  for transit  a conceptual  subsidy.  plan.  plan.  produces a f u n c t i o n a l p l a n based on the approved i  p l a n .and  costs.  The  C i t y approves the p l a n and  and  bus  6)  The  plan  The  prospective  costs  ( i . e . number of bus  miles  hours). i s then sent  operating  out  for bid.  company i s r e s p o n s i b l e  for providing  services  as s p e c i f i e d i n the "purchase of s e r v i c e agreement". T h i s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y usually 1)  A l l a s p e c t s of p e r s o n n e l such as d r i v e r s e l e c t i o n , and and  2)  includes: training ,  union n e g o t i a t i o n s .  D a i l y s e r v i c i n g of v e h i c l e s i n c l u d i n g washing or c l e a n i n g , o i l changes e t c .  3)  Purchase of  The  monthly c o n t r a c t  as f u e l and per m i l e and  insurance.  tires,  r a t e pays f o r these s e r v i c e s , i n c l u d i n g such items  and  the c o n t r a c t  r a t e i s based on a v a r i a b l e c o s t  hour. P r o v i s i o n s are a l s o given  of s e r v i c e s based on the same f i n a n c i a l  f o r a d d i t i o n s and  formula.  deletions  44.  The  contractor  i s s u p p l i e d w i t h v e h i c l e s from the P r o v i n c i a l f l e e t on the  b a s i s o f the need f o r c e r t a i n v e h i c l e types or c o n f i g u r a t i o n s as determined i n the p l a n n i n g  phase. The buses a r e l e a s e d  of l o c a l government by the P r o v i n c e bus.  t o the s u c c e s s f u l  contractor  f o r a nominal f e e of one d o l l a r per  T h i s amounts t o 100% c a p i t a l f i n a n c i n g on v e h i c l e s . Leases f u n f o r a  s i m i l a r l e n g t h of time as the m u n i c i p a l  purchase of s e r v i c e c o n t r a c t . The  c o s t of major maintenance items i s a l s o covered by the P r o v i n c e . r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of the m u n i c i p a l i t y t o p r o v i d e (that i s , no r e s t r i c t i o n s on c o s t - r e c o v e r y  accounting,  I t i s the  to set fares  t a r g e t s ) and t o a d v e r t i s e  services.  The  d i v i s i o n of r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s o u t l i n e d above has e l i m i n a t e d  several  elements of r i s k f o r the c o n t r a c t o r . He does not have to be concerned w i t h major maintenance items, c a p i t a l investment i n v e h i c l e s nor e s t i m a t i n g f a r e s , revenues and income.  Once the m u n i c i p a l i t y and the P r o v i n c e  have decided  t o purchase  transit  s e r v i c e s , p u b l i c tenders a r e c a l l e d on the b a s i s of an approved s e r v i c e p l a n and submissions a r e reviewed by the J o i n t P r o v i n c i a l - M u n i c i p a l Committee. The recommendation of the Committee i s taken t o the M u n i c i p a l C o u n c i l who awards the c o n t r a c t . The awarding of the c o n t r a c t adds another member t o the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e  Although not a p a r t n e r  committee.  i n the d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g p r o c e s s r e g a r d i n g  f a r e s and  l e v e l s of s e r v i c e ( t h a t i s , expansions or abandonments), the o p e r a t i n g company r e p r e s e n t a t i v e  provides  valuable  i n s i g h t s i n t o the day-to-day  o p e r a t i o n a l problems and o p p o r t u n i t i e s . Many of the i s s u e s r e l a t e d t o the d a i l y operations  can be r e s o l v e d by the m u n i c i p a l  represnetatives  of the  45.  Committee s i n c e the P r o v i n c i a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s  are u s u a l l y not  in  l o c a t i o n when problems o c c u r .  I s s u e s : r e l a t e d to changes i n l e v e l s of s e r v i c e and c e r t a i n cost i m p l i c a t i o n s resolved  during  from the two i n g company.  (both s o c i a l and  those which have  f i n a n c i a l ) are u s u a l l y : •-  the q u a r t e r l y review s e c t i o n s between the  l e v e l s of government and  the r e p r e s e n t a t i v e  representatives from the  operate  46.  3.3.2  ,  Government Operated  Services  Governments, b o t h M u n i c i p a l and P r o v i n c i a l have been i n v o l v e d operation  of t r a n s i t s e r v i c e s because p r i v a t e i n t e r e s t s were  or unable t o p r o v i d e Municipal  in unavailable  s e r v i c e s at a c c e p t a b l e c o s t l e v e l s . G e n e r a l l y  governments became i n v o l v e d i n t r a n s i t o p e r a t i o n s  1972,while s i n c e then the P r o v i n c e  before  has become i n v o l v e d .  The Nanaimo, N e l s o n , P o w e l l R i v e r and T r a i l systems are o p e r a t e d m u n i c i p a l i t i e s , a n d regional d i s t r i c t s . T h e s e operations as an e x t e n s i o n  by  are c a r r i e d out  of the c i t y ' s a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s . T r a i l i s the  o n l y c i t y w h i c h came under m u n i c i p a l  ownership a f t e r 1972  an i n t e r i m measure b e f o r e the P r o v i n c e The  the  was  as  t o t a k e over.  T r a n s i t S e r v i c e s Act p r o v i d e s f o r the o c c a s i o n when a s u i t a b l e  p r i v a t e o p e r a t o r cannot be found by e n a b l i n g  the P r o v i n c e  a Crown bus  of t h i s o c c u r r e d when no  operating  company. Two  instances  competent l o w - c o s t c o n t r a c t o r s were found t o o p e r a t e the s e r v i c e s on t h e I s l a n d and  the l o c a l bus  to e s t a b l i s h  intercity  s e r v i c e i n Kamloops.  The  Thompson Okanagan T r a n s i t L t d . , a Crown company , o p e r a t e s the i n Kamloops. As t h e r e i s no  services  s e r v i c e c o n t r a c t agreement* the P r o v i n c e  c a r r i e s a l l the c o s t s i n c u r r e d i n r u n n i n g the company and  services  and b i l l s the m u n i c i p a l i t y ( i . e . Kamloops) on a q u a r t e r l y b a s i s . The  manager f o r the company i s p r o v i d e d  •Agency and  by the P r o v i n c i a l T r a n s i t  i s g i v e n .the r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of the o v e r a l l o p e r a t i o n  a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of the company. A l l r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s and t h a t belonged t o an o p e r a t i n g  and  functions  company a p p l y t o t h i s Crown company  as w e l l . A l l f a c i l i t i e s , buses, equipment and  garage f a c i l i t i e s  are  47.  owned by the P r o v i n c e .  In Summary, of the twelve systems i n s m a l l c i t i e s operated  i n B. C ,  under c o n t r a c t t o the m u n i c i p a l i t y by a p r i v a t e company and  four are municipal  or r e g i o n a l owned and operated  o p e r a t i o n t h a t i s operated  and t h e r e i s o n l y one  by a Crown-owned company. S i n c e management,  p l a n n i n g and marketing e x p e r t i s e can be p r o v i d e d  by the P u b l i c M a r k e t i n g  Agency c o n t r a c t u a l arrangements w i t h p r i v a t e o p e r a t o r s most convenient  o p e r a t i o n s . In  appear t o be the  o p t i o n . With t h i s arrangement, the P r o v i n c e  to purchase o p e r a t o r s  two  seven a r e  o u t - r i g h t or s e t up n e c e s s a r y  does not have  f a c i l i t i e s f o r the  the case of Kamloops, the P r o v i n c e had t o purchase the  p r i v a t e operations  term c o s t o u t l o o k  i n order t o c o n s o l i d a t e the s e r v i c e s . The l o n g -  f o r the 'purchase o f s e r v i c e ' c o n t r a c t arrangement  may not be as e f f e c t i v e as the 'government-operated' o p t i o n . The reasons for  t h i s a s s e r t i o n w i l l be d i s c u s s e d  Evaluation'.  i n Chapter F i v e on 'Program  48.  3. 4  .LEVEL OF SERVICE SUPPLIED,  S e r v i c e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are u s u a l l y d i c t a t e d by the a v a i l a b i l i t y equipment and are determined  c o s t of running the s e r v i c e . The minimum l e v e l s of s e r v i c e s by the P r o v i n c i a l T r a n s i t Agency on the b a s i s of a  set of s e r v i c e s t a n d a r d s . The P r o v i n c i a l standards (i)  a bus  bus  are:  m i l e whichever i s l e s s ;  s e r v i c e should be no l e s s f r e q u e n t than h a l f - h o u r l y i n  c o n t i n u o u s l y b u i l t - u p areas d u r i n g the day-time and d u r i n g the evening (iii)  and  Saturday;  hourly  and  f a r e s should be a b l e to cover f i f t y percent reviewed  (iv)  simple  r o u t e should be w i t h i n t e n minutes walk of every house  to be served or one-quarter (ii)  of  ( i t should  y e a r l y ) or more of the c o s t of p r o v i d i n g the  standards  be service;  of s e r v i c e can be a d j u s t e d upwards or downwards from  t h i s s t a t e d average s i t u a t i o n depending on r e s i d e n t r i d e r s h i p p a t t e r n s , d e n s i t y of s e t t l e m e n t , g e n e r a l p a t t e r n of  activity  c e n t r e i n the community.  The minimum c o s t r e c o v e r y s t a t e d by the Agency has never been implemented or adhered to due municipal)  to the r e l u c t a n c e of p o l i t i c i a n s  to i n c r e a s e f a r e s or l i m i t  m a j o r i t y of the d e c i s i o n s on c o s t s and  (both P r o v i n c i a l  the areas served by t r a n s i t .  The  The  l e v e l s of s e r v i c e have been made  by l o c a l demand p r o v i d e d t h a t the h a l f - h o u r l y frequency m i l e minimums are  and  and  one-quarter  met.  f o l l o w i n g t a b l e s document the amount of s e r v i c e s p r o v i d e d i n the  twelve  s u b s i d i z e d systems.  49.  1)  Frequency of S e r v i c e  The most common headway d u r i n g the peak p e r i o d s on any weekday i s 30 minutes w i t h the s h o r t e s t headway b e i n g 20 minutes f o r some of the runs to major i n d u s t r i a l c e n t r e s or employment c e n t r e s . The base headway f o r most systems i s 30 minutes except f o r those systems which have not been improved. The most common headway d u r i n g the evening and Saturday i s 60 minutes which meets the requirements c a l l e d f o r by the T r a n s i t T a b l e 3.4  summarizes  Agency.  the s e r v i c e f r e q u e n c i e s f o r a l l twelve systems by  time of day and day of week.  2)  D u r a t i o n of S e r v i c e  T a b l e 3.5 p r o v i d e s a summary of s e r v i c e hours i n these twelve systems. Most systems p r o v i d e evening s e r v i c e d u r i n g the weekdays which u s u a l l y c o i n c i d e w i t h shopping h o u r s . Only two systems have Sunday s e r v i c e .  The  d e c i s i o n r e g a r d i n g s e r v i c e hours a r e made by l o c a l p u b l i c o f f i c i a l s . o n l y recommendation transit  3)  The  g i v e n by the T r a n s i t Agency i s the p r o v i s i o n of  s e r v i c e f o r shopping n i g h t s f o r b o t h the workers and shoppers.  Days of S e r v i c e  Most systems operate s i x days of the week w i t h no s e r v i c e on  Sunday and  o f f i c i a l h o l i d a y s except i n two cases where the l o c a l demand overrode economic reasons. S e r v i c e s were p r o v i d e d on Sundays and h o l i d a y s f o r both Kamloops  and K i t i m a t . I t was g e n e r a l l y f e l t  u s u a l l y not h i g h enough to j u s t i f y  4)  t h a t Sunday r i d e r s h i p i s  service.  Route C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  Most of the systems a r e r a d i a l systems w i t h r o u t e s f o c u s s i n g on the  TABLE  3.4  FREQUENCY OF SERVICE  (HEADWAY)  WEEKDAY  SYSTEM  ;EVENING  SATURDAY '" AND/OR I SUNDAY  .BEAK  BASE  P r i n c e George  30,60  30,60  60  30,60  Kamloops  25-30  30-35  30  30,60  Kelowna  30  30  65  60  Nanaimo  60  60  60  60  Penticton  30  30  60  30  Port A l b e r n i  30  30,60  P r i n c e Rupert  30  30  45  30  60  75  60-120  Powell R i v e r  30,60  Kitimat  20-25  Trail  20-30  30  Maple Ridge  30-35  60-120  Nelson  25-30  30-60  30,60  30,60  45,60 60  30,60  60-80 30  -  60-120  50-60  30  TABLE 3 . 5  DURATION OF SERVICE*  SYSTEM  WEEKDAYS  SATURDAYS  SUNDAYS  P r i n c e George  7am-11pm  7am-11pm  -  Kamloops  7am-12am  7am-12am  Kelowna  6am-1Opm  8am-10pm  -  Mon--Sat  Nanaimo  7am-11pm  7am-11pm  -  Mon--Sat  Penticton  6am-10pm  9am-7pm  -  Mon--Sat  Port A l b e r n i  7 am-1 Opm'(11 pm)7am-10pm  -  Mon--Sat  P r i n c e Rupert  7am-7pm(10pm) 9am-7pm  -  Mon--Sat  Kitimat  6am-11pm  Trail  7am-7pm'(llpm) 9am-6pm  -  Mon--Sat  Maple Ridge  6am-7pm  8am-6pm  -  Mon--Sat  Nelson  6am-12am  10am-8pm  -  Mon--Sat  Powell River  7am-10pm  8am-9pm  -  Mon--Sat  * E a r l i e s t and l a t e s t the  concerned city.,  Times i n p a r e n t h e s i s  6am-11pm  s t a r t and f i n i s h  OPERATING DAYS  9 am-•8pm  6 am-•11pm  A l l Week  A l l Week  times of a l l r o u t e s i n  expressed i n n e a r e s t hours.  represent  Mon--Sat  F r i d a y evening s e r v i c e o n l y .  52.  c e n t r a l business d i s t r i c t  and major b u s i n e s s and shopping  centres with  t i m e d - t r a n s f e r - c o n n e c t i o n s . F o r P r i n c e George and Kelowna where the l a n d use p a t t e r n s  i n the community r e q u i r e d other major t i m e d - t r a n s f e r  p o i n t s o t h e r than the c i t y c e n t r e , these p o i n t s were e s t a b l i s h e d i n major shopping  c e n t r e s t o p r o v i d e the type o f t r a n s i t o r i e n t a t i o n r e q u i r e d .  There i s o n l y one r o u t e i n P r i n c e George among a l l twelve systems which i s not o r i e n t e d towards the c i t y c e n t r e . The t i m e d - t r a n s f e r o r i e n t a t i o n of s e r v i c e i s supposed t o p r o v i d e t h e l e v e l s of s e r v i c e needed w i t h minimum c o s t (Thompson, 1976)^. The t i m e d - t r a n s f e r - f o c a l - p o i n t 1974)  concept  i s w i d e l y used  i n the s t r u c t u r i n g o f r o u t e s i n a l l t h e  systems planned by the P r o v i n c i a l Agency t o guarantee  the concept o f  ' m u l t i - d e s t i n a t i o n s ' . Thompson b e l i e v e d and showed t h a t t r a n s i t ion  (Sullivan,  orientat-  (that i s , p r o v i d i n g other t r a v e l needs w i t h i n the community which  are not c i t y c e n t r e o r i e n t e d ) i s one o f the major f a c t o r s f o r a t t r a c t i n g ridership.  5)  T y p i c a l O p e r a t i n g Speeds and Length  of Routes  There i s c o n s i d e r a b l e v a r i a t i o n i n the average (Refer t o T a b l e 3.6.) The o p e r a t i n g speed  system o p e r a t i n g  ranges  speeds.  from 12.0 mph t o 16.9  mph. The mean and median speeds a r e 13.8 and 14.5 r e s p e c t i v e l y .  There i s a l s o a v a r i a t i o n of r o u t e speeds among d i f f e r e n t r o u t e s i n t h e system. The low speeds a r e g e n e r a l l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h r o u t e s w i t h s h o r t r o u t e l e n g t h s and/or through areas w i t h h i l l y  t e r r a i n w h i l e the h i g h  speeds a r e u s u a l l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h express s e r v i c e s t o o u t l y i n g  residential  areas o r i n d u s t r i a l areas w i t h r e l a t i v e l y fewer stops per r o u t e m i l e .  Length  o f r o u t e s ranges  from 3 m i l e s t o 20 m i l e s w i t h a mean and median  TABLE  SYSTEM AVERAGE  3.6  SPEED ( i n m i l e s per hour)  NELSON  12.5  NANAIMO  16.0  POWELL RIVER  13.3  KITIMAT  14.0  PRINCE GEORGE  14.1  PORT ALBERNI  12.9  KAMLOOPS  13.1  KELOWNA  14.0  PENTICTON  13.3  PRINCE RUPERT  14.0  TRAIL  12.0  MAPLE RIDGE  16.9  mean:  13.8  median:  14.5  standard d e v i a t i o n :  1.4  r o u t e l e n g t h of 7 and  6 miles  respectively.  55.  3.5  FINANCIAL CHARACTERISTICS AND PERFORMANCE IN SMALL CITIES  T h i s s e c t i o n examines the f i n a n c i a l i m p l i c a t i o n s of the s m a l l t r a n s i t program i n B. C. . As was mentioned e a r l i e r s h i p has i n c r e a s e d from During  city  i n the r e p o r t  rider-  854,400 i n 1972 to 5,595,700 i n 1977 (6.55 t i m e s ) .  t h i s p e r i o d , the r a t e of e s c a l a t i o n of s u b s i d i e s was g r e a t e r  the r a t e of i n c r e a s e i n r i d e r s h i p (Table for small c i t y t r a n s i t  2.5  )• The P r o v i n c i a l  than  subsidy  systems went from $103,600 i n 1972 t o $1,336,300  i n 1977, almost a t h i r t e e n - f o l d  i n c r e a s e over a f i v e - y e a r p e r i o d . The  worsening of the f i n a n c i a l performance of t r a n s i t - from 12c P r o v i n c i a l subsidy per r i d e i n 1972 t o 24c P r o v i n c i a l subsidy per r i d e i n 1977 - i s l a r g e l y due to the i n c r e a s e s i n the c o s t s of o p e r a t i n g  services, increases  i n the q u a l i t y o r q u a n t i t y o f s e r v i c e and the r e l a t i v e l y s t a b l e f a r e s t r u c t u r e s over the time p e r i o d from 1972 t o 1977. The f o l l o w i n g  provides  an examination of the d i f f e r e n c e s i n f a r e s t r u c t u r e s and average o p e r a t i n g c o s t s f o r the twelve systems. I t i s g e n e r a l l y b e l i e v e d t h a t low f a r e s and h i g h o p e r a t i n g c o s t s a r e r e s p o n s i b l e f o r most of the e s c a l a t i n g d e f i c i t s .  1)  Fare  As T a b l e  Structures  3.7 shows, the f a r e l e v e l s i n s m a l l c i t i e s a r e s u b s t a n t i a l l y  lower than those and  other areas  i n l a r g e r urban a r e a s . When Vancouver and V i c t o r i a i n the r e s t of the country were paying  f a r e i n 1978, n i n e of the systems were s t i l l bus  charging  50c f o r an a d u l t 250 f o r an a d u l t  r i d e . D e c i s i o n s r e l a t i n g t o s e t t i n g f a r e l e v e l s or i n c r e a s e s have  been made j o i n t l y by the m u n i c i p a l i t i e s and the P r o v i n c i a l Agency. As shown i n Table not  3.7 both the c i t y of Kamloops and P r i n c e Rupert do  charge t h e i r s e n i o r c i t i z e n s f o r u s i n g the bus s e r v i c e s . Concessions  or f r e e .fares f o r s e n i o r c i t i z e n s and other m i n o r i t y groups such as the  TABLE  1979 FARE  ADULT ONE-ZONE FARE  3.7  STRUCTURES  ADULT TWO-ZONE FARE  SENIOR ONE-ZONE FARE  NELSON  25C  NANAIMO  350 (250)  POWELL RIVER  25C  KITIMAT  25C  40c  15C  PRINCE GEORGE  35C (25c)  50C (40C)  25C (15C)  PORT ALBERNI  25C  no zones  15C  KAMLOOPS  35C (25c)  no zones  free  KELOWNA  35c  50C  25C  PENTICTON  35C  no zones  25C  PRINCE RUPERT  35c  no zones  free  TRAIL  35c (25C)  no zones  25C (15C)  MAPLE RIDGE  250  Note:  (  )  1977  fares  no zones  50C (40C) no zones  40C  15C 25C (15C) 15C  15C  (free)  57.  young or the handicapped a r e a l s o determined a t the m u n i c i p a l i t y  level.  While some p l a c e s have i n c r e a s e d  t h e i r f a r e s from 25C t o 35c i n 1979,  f i v e of the twelve systems s t i l l  charge o n l y 250 f o r an a d u l t r i d e . Most  i n c r e a s e s were implemented along w i t h the i n t r o d u c t i o n of hew o r improved s e r v i c e s . There was s t i l l  reluctance  f a r e s . T r a n s i t i s no longer p r i n c i p l e . I t i s being  on the p a r t o f p o l i t i c i a n s t o i n c r e a s e  p r i c e d on the b a s i s o f w i l l i n g n e s s - t o - p a y  p r i c e d at a l e v e l subject  to minimizing  r i s k and l o c a l budget g u i d e l i n e s . The P r o v i n c i a l Agency u s u a l l y guidance as t o what the f a r e l e v e l s should  political provides  be but the f i n a l d e c i s i o n i s  u s u a l l y made on the b a s i s of m u n i c i p a l i t y ' s w i l l i n g n e s s - t o - s u b s i d i z e , a c r i t e r i a t h a t any funding  2)  take i n t o  consideration.  Average Costs  Another c o m p l i c a t i o n the d i s c r e p a n c i e s Since  arrangement should  t o the a n a l y s i s of f i n a n c i a l performance,  i n fare levels,  i s the d i f f e r e n c e i n c o n t r a c t  besides rates.  seven of the twelve systems i n the P r o v i n c i a l Program a r e operated  by p r i v a t e o p e r a t o r s operating  under c o n t r a c t  t o the m u n i c i p a l i t i e s , the t o t a l  c o s t s of these systems a r e l a r g e l y governed by these  r a t e s . These r a t e s vary  contract  from $17.00 per bus hour t o a p p r o x i m a t e l y $23.00  per bus hour i n 1977. T a b l e 3.8 p r o v i d e s per bus hour and per bus m i l e  a summary of the average c o s t  f o r the twelve systems. In g e n e r a l , the  p u b l i c l y owned and operated systems appear t o be l e s s c o s t e f f e c t i v e than the p r i v a t e l y r u n systems. The Crown owned system appears t o be s l i g h t l y more c o s t e f f e c t i v e but the sample i s too s m a l l  (only one) t o  judge whether the e f f e c t i v e n e s s i s due t o the type of a d m i n i s t r a t i o n s t r u c t u r e o r other  f a c t o r s . The absence of a p r o f i t margin i s l a r g e l y  58.  TABLE  3.8  1977 - AVERAGE COST PER BUS HOUR AND PER BUS MILE  COST PER HOUR 1  COST PER MILE  $21.55  $1.72  $27.28  $1.70  $23.39  $1.77  $21.98  $1.57  PRINCE GEORGE^  $23.00  $1.63  PORT ALBERNI  $19.60  $1.52  KAMLOOPS  $17.70  $1.42  KELOWNA  $17.94  $1.34  $16.66  $1.25  PRINCE RUPERT^  $22.48  $1.61  TRAIL  $17.42  $1.45  $17.18  $1.02  $20.52  $1.50  3.28  0.21  NELSON  NANAIMO  1  POWELL RIVER KITIMAT  1  2  2  3  2  PENTICTON  2  1  MAPLE RIDGE  2  Mean: Standard  Note:  Deviation:  1  p u b l i c owned and operated  systems  2  owned and operated by p r i v a t e  3  Crown owned  contractors  MEAN AVERAGES  Public private  owned owned  Crown owned  PER HOUR  PER MILE  $22.41  $1.66  $19.83  $1.42  $17.70  $1.42  59.  responsible  for  company^. I t operations passenger  3)  the  i s reasonable  otherwise  of  the  Provincial transit  certain profits  w o u l d be  discrepancies  types of  of  twelve systems cost  expect  this  no  incentive  to  accrue enter  operating  to  the  private public  Indicators  and  (i)  of  business.  levels the  to  there  transport  Performance  Inspite  attractiveness  r e s u l t i n g from both  operation, can  be  recovery,  evaluation  made b a s e d  that  is,  of  on  the  the  the  differences  financial  in  fare  performance  following:  revenue  ;  cost (ii)  deficit  (iii)  deficit  per  per  r i d e , that  capita,  is  that  cost  -  total  ridership  is,  revenue  cost total  Table  3.9  provides  The  cost  the  highest  could  recovery  ies  recover  r a t i o s range  half  of  i n other  provinces  C.  Table  of  the  systems  There  3.10  i s also  ranges  transit  to  and  municipalities.  widely  Total  1977  marked cost  achieve  the the  lowest, first  twelve  to  0.44  systems. which  y e a r when no  is  system  f r o m f a r e - b o x r e v e n u e s . Many  this  cities  the  standard with  since  1972.  other  transit  i s also being recovery  witnessed  ratio  for a  The  trend propert-  here  in  number  C.  $0.29 d e f i c i t  also vary  0.18,  d e c l i n i n g cost  a wide range of  from  from  larger  revenue  population  performances of  productivity associated  shows t h e  i n B.  the  i t s operating  been able  declining financial  B.  It  summary o f  among a l l s y s t e m s .  systems have not of  a  -  ;  on  deficits per  fide  a per  subsidies  per to  r i d e among t h e  $1.08. Government  capita basis  (local  and  among t h e  twelve  systems.  subsidies twelve  P r o v i n c i a l combined)  for  for  60.  TABLE 3.9  FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE  -  1977  COST RECOVERY  DEFICIT PER RIDE  DEFICIT PER CAPITA  $  $  $  NELSON  0.31  0.42  11.97  NANAIMO  0.26  0.69  13.98  POWELL RIVER  0.24  0.99  11.52  KITIMAT  0.32  0.55  18.50  PRINCE GEORGE  0.41  0.29  4.29  PORT ALBERNI  0.39  0.32  5.37  KAMLOOPS  0.33  0.47  11.75  KELOWNA  0.30  0.69  6.39  PENTICTON  0.28  0.80  7.38  PRINCE RUPERT  0.44  0.40  6.71  TRAIL  0.28  0.54  12.15  MAPLE RIDGE  0.18  1.08  2.12  Mean:  0.31  0.60  9.34  .07  .25  4.70  Stahdard D e v i a t i o n :  TABLE 3.10 1973 - 1977 COST RECOVERY RATIO  1973  1974  1975  1976  1977  WEST VANCOUVER  0.75  0. 71  0. 62  0 .54  0 .49  POWELL RIVER  0.50  0. 43  0. 30  0 .28  0 .24  NELSON  n.a.  0. 52  0. 38  0 .35  0 .31  PRINCE GEORGE  n.a.  n. a.  0. 73  0 .45  0 .41  62.  t r a n s i t ranged from $2.12 per c a p i t a f o r Maple Ridge t o $18.50 f o r K i t i m a t . T h i s wide range of a l l o c a t i o n of P r o v i n c i a l r e s o u r c e f o r t r a n s i t c e r t a i n requirements  f o r improved f u n d i n g c r i t e r i a . The P r o v i n c i a l Agency  r e p r e s e n t i n g the P r o v i n c i a l i n t e r e s t might argue t h a t t r a n s i t p a r t l y determined is i tvalid  signals  funding i s  by the amount o f c o n t r i b u t i o n s from the l o c a l l e v e l . But  t o imply t h a t l o c a l d e c i s i o n s r e p r e s e n t the d e s i r e of the  c i t i z e n s ? What c r i t e r i a can be used to e v a l u a t e i f more f u n d i n g should be allocated  to a system l i k e P r i n c e Rupert which achieved  r e c o v e r y f o r the f i r s t average share All  the h i g h e s t c o s t  year of s e r v i c e and was r e c e i v i n g l e s s than the  (on a per c a p i t a b a s i s ) of P r o v i n c i a l f u n d i n g f o r t r a n s i t .  these q u e s t i o n s w i l l be addressed  a g a i n i n the f i n a l e v a l u a t i o n of the  Program.  An attempt has been made to c o l l e c t more f i n a n c i a l i n d i c a t o r s a s i d e the ones above. Two i n d i c a t o r s t h a t a r e b e l i e v e d t o be u s e f u l f o r e v a l u a t i n g system performance a r e : ' r a t i o of d r i v e r s to o t h e r employees' and 'hourly wages f o r bus d r i v e r s ' . Determining  a r a t i o of d r i v e r s t o other  employees f o r these s m a l l systems i s a d i f f i c u l t Many o f t h e t r a n s i t  i f not i m p o s s i b l e t a s k .  systems i n B. C. employ d r i v e r s who work p a r t - t i m e as  d r i v e r s and p a r t - t i m e as maintenance s t a f f or s c h o o l bus d r i v e r s . F o r the same reasons  p l u s d i f f e r e n t a c c o u n t i n g p r a c t i c e s adopted by d i f f e r e n t  o p e r a t o r s , h o u r l y wage r a t e s f o r d r i v i n g a r e a l s o d i f f i c u l t to o b t a i n .  or impossible  63. 3.6  SUMMARY  T h i s chapter o u t l i n e d some of the a s p e c t s of the t r a n s i t i n B. C .  As was  simply a matter marketing  supply program  p o i n t e d out i n the i n t r o d u c t i o n , supply of t r a n s i t of o p e r a t i n g buses on the s t r e e t . Funding,  planning  the P u b l i c Marketing Agency i n c o n j u n c t -  i o n w i t h the l o c a l m u n i c i p a l i t i e s p l a n s and markets t r a n s i t two  and  are a l s o r e q u i r e d .  The P r o v i n c i a l government through  The  i s not  i n small c i t i e s .  l e v e l s of government work t o g e t h e r so t h a t l o c a l and r e g i o n a l g o a l s  can be c o n s i d e r e d i n the p l a n n i n g and running of the systems.  The P r o v i n c e and  the M u n i c i p a l i t y share o p e r a t i n g d e f i c i t s e q u a l l y w h i l e  the P r o v i n c e owns the bus  f l e e t s and  l e a s e s them to the o p e r a t o r s at a  r a t e of one d o l l a r per bus „,  An important  f e a t u r e of the supply program i s the P u b l i c M a r k e t i n g  which embodies the concept Marketing  of s e p a r a t i o n of f u n c t i o n s and  responsibilities.  and p l a n n i n g d e c i s i o n are a s s i g n e d to the Agency w h i l e  o p e r a t i o n s of the s e r v i c e i s executed  the t r a n s i t  thought  actual  by a p r i v a t e l y or p u b l i c l y owned  c a r r i e r , under a c o n t r a c t u a l arrangement. T h i s concept was B. C. p r i m a r i l y because i t was  Agency  adopted  to be a good means of  in  controlling  s u b s i d y program.  In B. C. t h e r e are a number of d i f f e r e n t  types of t r a n s i t o p e r a t o r s which  run the s e r v i c e and come under the c o n t r o l or i n f l u e n c e of the 'p.m.a.'. There are seven: p r i v a t e l y owned systems, f o u r systems owned by  the  m u n i c i p a l i t i e s and one owned by the Crown.  S e r v i c e i s p r o v i d e d to minimum standards which a r e : a bus r o u t e w i t h i n ten  64.  minutes walk o r a q u a r t e r m i l e of a l l areas to be s e r v e d , h a l f - h o u r l y bus  frequency  ( d u r i n g weekdays) and 50% c o s t r e c o v e r y r a t i o . L e v e l s , of  course can be a d j u s t e d upwards i f the demand warrants i t .  The  important  f i n a n c i a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of s m a l l c i t i e s a r e as f o l l o w s :  the s u b s i d y per r i d e was 24c i n 197-7 and f a r e s were 25c both of which were much lower bus  than i n l a r g e c i t i e s .  C o n t r a c t r a t e s f o r the supply of  s e r v i c e range from $17.00 per bus hour to $23.00 per bus hour. Cost  r e c o v e r y r a t i o s range from 0.18 to 0.44 and the d e f i c i t s per r i d e range from $0.29 t o $1.08.  T h i s completes the o u t l i n e on t r a n s i t  supply i n s m a l l c i t i e s .  to p r o v i d e a s i m i l a r s k e t c h of the demand the T r a n s i t Program.  I t remains  f o r t r a n s i t and f i n a l l y  evaluate  65.  FOOTNOTES  1.  I t was b e l i e v e d t h a t the u t i l i z a t i o n of P r o v i n c i a l standard bus stop s i g n s and p u b l i c t i m e t a b l e s c o u l d encourage r e c o g n i t i o n and f a m i l i a r i t y amongst r e s i d e n t s of c e n t r e s anywhere i n the Province.  2.  S u l l i v a n , B r i a n E., "New Methods of P u b l i c T r a n s p o r t A d m i n i s t r a t i o n - The P u b l i c M a r k e t i n g Agency", Canadian T r a n s p o r t Commission Research P u b l i c a t i o n s , October, 1972.  3.  P e r a r a , Maximus H., "The T r a n s i t Systems o f Small C i t i e s i n O n t a r i o " , Research Report No. 39, A p r i l , 1977, U n i v e r s i t y o f T o r o n t o , York U n i v e r s i t y , J o i n t Program i n T r a n s p o r t a t i o n .  4.  Thompson, Gregory, " P l a n n i n g C o n s i d e r a t i o n s F o r I n c r e a s i n g M e t r o p o l i t a n Area T r a n s i t Impact", Bureau of T r a n s i t S e r v i c e s , P r o v i n c e of B r i t i s h Columbia, January, 1976.  5.  S u l l i v a n , B r i a n E., "Timed-Transfer F o c a l P o i n t Concept", Bureau of T r a n s i t S e r v i c e s , P r o v i n c e of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1974.  6.  Thompson, i b i d .  7.  Crown companies were not s e t up t o make p r o f i t , margin.  t h e r e f o r e no p r o f i t  66.  CHAPTER FOUR THE DEMAND FOR TRANSIT  4.0  INTRODUCTION  The p r e v i o u s chapter o u t l i n e d the supply of t r a n s i t i o n touched  s e r v i c e s . The d i s c u s s -  on the o r g a n i z a t i o n , r o l e s and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of the p a r t i e s  i n v o l v e d i n s u p p l y i n g t r a n s i t . The l e v e l o f s e r v i c e p r o v i d e d and the f i n a n c i a l performance of t h a t s e r v i c e was d e t a i l e d . I n order to e v a l u a t e the P r o v i n c i a l t r a n s i t  supply program i t i s n e c e s s a r y  to examine the  extent and n a t u r e o f t r a n s i t use, who uses the s e r v i c e and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the t r a n s i t market. I n f o r m a t i o n c o n c e r n i n g the extent o f t r a n s i t use and  the u s e r s o f t r a n s i t i s p r o v i d e d by on board passenger  w h i l e t r a n s i t market i n f o r m a t i o n i s p r o v i d e d by household r e s u l t s of the on board passenger  surveys a r e p r e s e n t e d  of t h i s chapter and the household  survey d a t a i s p r e s e n t e d  surveys s u r v e y s . The  i n the f i r s t  part  i n the l a s t  h a l f . T h i s d a t a i s combined w i t h the supply d a t a t o e v a l u a t e the T r a n s i t Program i n Chapter  Five.  The q u e s t i o n n a i r e used  f o r the household  survey can be found  i n Appendix  A l w h i l e the background i n f o r m a t i o n on t h e t h r e e s e l e c t e d c i t i e s f o r the survey, t o g e t h e r w i t h the h i s t o r i c a l development of t h e i r t r a n s i t are p r e s e n t e d  i n Appendix A2.  service  67.  4.1  Who  CHARACTERISTICS OF TRANSIT USAGE IN SMALL CITIES IN B. C.  uses t r a n s i t , why  used a r e a l l  they use i t , when they use i t and how much i t i s  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t r a n s i t usage. These q u e s t i o n s a r e  answered by examining: the socio-economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of u s e r s , the t r i p purpose, weekly and d a i l y v a r i a t i o n s i n demand and the u t i l i z a t i o n r a t e s of the s e r v i c e .  On board surveys of f o u r t r a n s i t  systems ( P r i n c e George,  Kelowna and Nanaimo) were undertaken  Kamloops,  b e f o r e and a f t e r s e r v i c e improve-  ments. G e n e r a l s e r v i c e l e v e l s and e x i s t i n g performance of the f o u r systems a r e g i v e n i n T a b l e 4.1. As t h i s t a b l e shows, the q u a n t i t y of s e r v i c e i n terms of bus hours or bus m i l e s have almost doubled i n most cases w h i l e the q u a l i t y of s e r v i c e has a l s o improved i n the f o u r  P r i o r to the improvements  cities.  the m a j o r i t y of u s e r s d i d not have a c c e s s to a  c a r and the predominant t r i p purposes were work, shopping, s c h o o l and v i s i t i n g . The second s e t of s u r v e y s showed t h a t the t r i p making  character-  i s t i c s and the demographics of r i d e r s were much the same as those found p r i o r to the s e r v i c e improvements. b a s i c usage f o r t r a n s i t  These f i n d i n g s i n d i c a t e t h a t the  i n s m a l l communities does not d i f f e r  i n s p i t e of d i f f e r e n c e s i n s e r v i c e  levels.  widely  TABLE S E R V I C E AND  4.1  PERFORMANCE FOUR  C H A R A C T E R I S T I C S OF  SMALL C I T Y SYSTEMS  (BEFORE AND  AFTER  IMPROVEMENTS)  Kelowna  Nanaimo  1975  1979  1975  1978  1975  1977  1975  1977  60,000  60,000  35,000  52,000  57,000  58,000  40,000  40,000  ( ,000)  744  1,500  140  482  480  1,258  582  816  Per C a p i t a  12.4  25.0  4.0  9.3  8.6  22.1  14.8  20.4  $1.09  $5.38  $0.93  $5.60  $1.92  $11.50  $11.00  $14.00  Number O f V e h i c l e s I n S e r v i c e D u r i n g Peak Hour  6  11  2  8  5  11  6  6  Number O f R o u t e s  7  7  4  5  6  10  8  8  51  144  32  94  94  170  75  80  19  3  5  26  17  52  25  28  Population  Served  Passengers  Carried  Per  Year  Rides  Deficits  Number Trips  Per Capita  Of O u t b o u n d F r o m Downtown  Number Of B u s H o u r s Per Year  ( ,000)  7  Number o f B u s M i l e s Per  year  ( ,000)  Passengers  P e r B u s Hour.  Passengers  P e r Bus  Mile  Bus  Hours Per C a p i t a  Bus  Miles  Per Capita  228  443  65  372  223  668  396  444  39  41  28  19  28  24  23  29  3.3  3.4  2.2  1.3  2.2  1.9  1.5  1.8  0.32  0.62  0.14  0.50  0.30  0.90  0.63  0.70  3.8  7.4  1.9  7.2  3.9  11.5  9.9  . 11.1  69.  4.1.1  Socio-Economic  C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of T r a n s i t R i d e r s i n Small  The d e t a i l s of socio-economic  Cities  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t r a n s i t r i d e r s o b t a i n e d  from the surveys taken a f t e r s e r v i c e improvements are presented i n t h i s s e c t i o n . The survey r e s u l t s show t h a t younger r i d e r s y e a r s of age) accounted cities.  Senior c i t i z e n s  ( i . e . under  30  f o r the major p o r t i o n of r i d e r s h i p i n s m a l l accounted  f o r about  2% to 17% of the  total  r i d e r s h i p s among these f o u r c i t i e s . The d i f f e r e n c e s were m a i n l y due to the age c o m p o s i t i o n of the o v e r a l l c i t y p o p u l a t i o n . (Refer t o Census s t a t i s t ^ i e s i n T a b l e 4.2(a) f o r comparison).  The s l i g h t l y h i g h p r o p o r t i o n of young  r i d e r s i n P r i n c e George than the o t h e r t h r e e c i t i e s can a l s o  be  e x p l a i n e d by the same h i g h p r o p o r t i o n i n the o v e r a l l p o p u l a t i o n composition.  (About 63% of a l l p o p u l a t i o n are under 30 y e a r s of  age.)  The number of female to male r i d e r s i s a p p r o x i m a t e l y two'-to-one, the same as those found i n the e a r l i e r s u r v e y s . T h i s r e f l e c t s the need f o r female members from one-car f a m i l i e s to t r a v e l to work or shopping by  I t was  transit.  found t h a t most r i d e r s i n Nanaimo and Kamloops were from  lower  income f a m i l i e s w h i l e those i n P r i n c e George and Kelowna came from  family  i e s w i t h v a r i o u s income l e v e l s . T h i s d i f f e r s from the r e s u l t s found i n e a r l y surveys t h a t t r a n s i t i s m a i n l y p a t r o n i z e d by low income c i t i z e n s of the community. The r e s u l t s from the a t t i t u d i n a l survey conducted i n K i t i m a t , T r a i l and P e n t i c t o n a l s o agreed w i t h the above f i n d i n g s . These f i n d i n g s suggest t h a t people from v a r i o u s income l e v e l s would p a t r o n i z e transit  i f the l e v e l of s e r v i c e was  to the i n d u s t r y s t a n d a r d s .  The p r o p o r t i o n of r i d e r s from e a r l e s s households reflecting  the need f o r these group  ranged  from 13% to 27%  of r e s i d e n t s to t r a v e l by  transit.  The r e s t of the r i d e r s are q u i t e evenly s p l i t among one-car to m u l t i p l e  70.  TABLE SOCIO-ECONOMIC  4.2(a) CHARACTERISTICS  OF TRANSIT RIDERS AND  (a)  AGE  OF TRANSIT  18 - 29  30 - 44  45 - 64  15%  21%  39% 32%  8% 17%  4% 41%  28% 29%  36%  George  Kelowna Kamloops Nanaimo  CENSUS CANADA. -  Prince  George  Kelowna Kamloops Nanaimo  (b)  SEX OF TRANSIT  POPULATION  RIDERS 17 o r Younger  Prince  THE  13% 27% 11%  1976 - AGE  29% 12%  18 - 29  30 - 44  45 - 64  42%  21%  33% 39% 34%  15% 19% 17%  21% 17% 21% 18%  13% 21% 16% 21%  RIDERS FEMALE  TOTAL  63% 72%  100% 100%  Kamloops  37% 28% 26%  74%  100%  Nanaimo  31%  69%  100%  Prince  George  Kelowna  CENSUS CANADA - 1976 - SEX OF MALE  FEMALE  POPULATION  TOTAL  51%  49%  100%  Kelowna Kamloops  49% 50%  100% 100%  Nanaimo  50%  51% 50% 50%  Prince  George  2%  TOTAL  17% 12%  100% 100% 100%  7%  100%  65 & Over  TOTAL  3% 14% 5% 10%  100% 100% 100% 100%  OF :POPULATION  17 o r Younger  MALE  65 & Over  100%  71.  TABLE 4.2(a)  (c)  HOUSEHOLD  INCOME OF TRANSIT  (Continued)  RIDERS  Less Than  $5,001-  $10,001-  $15,001  Over  Don't  $5,000  $10,000  $15,000  $20,000  $20,000  Know  TOTAL  P r i n c e George Kelowna  15% 10%  13% 12%  11% 12%  11% 15%  13% 20%  37% 30%  100% 100%  Kamloops Nanaimo  23% 24%  21%  22% 14%  14% 7%  11% 7%  9% 33%  100%  16%  d i d n o t know t h e i r  household  *  Children  generally  income  100%  car f a m i l i e s . T h i s can be e x p l a i n e d by the s u b s t a n t i a l number of young r i d e r s , female r i d e r s and n o n - d r i v e r s who r e g a r d l e s s of car-ownership r i d e r s who  4.1.2  and  families  income which accounts f o r the c a p t i v e  are young and cannot d r i v e .  Purpose  c o u l d be from any  (Refer to Table.4.2(b))  of T r i p  The r e s u l t s from these surveys do not d i f f e r much from the p r e v i o u s findings. purposes accounted  'Work' and  'shopping' t r i p s were s t i l l  the predominant  trip  a c c o u n t i n g f o r over 60% of a l l t r i p s made. 'School' t r i p s f o r from 12% to 14% of a l l t r i p s on a normal  s c h o o l day.  The  percentage of s c h o o l t r i p s u s u a l l y drop i n the Summer months (e.g. Nanaimo) but the p o r t i o n f o r r e c r e a t i o n and entertainment t r i p s i n c r e a s e as expected due to the extent of usage by young e a r l e s s r i d e r s f o r r e c r e a t i o n a l purposes. The r e s t of the t r i p s were d i s t r i b u t e d e v e n l y among o t h e r purposes.  4.1.3  (Refer to T a b l e  quite  4.3)  T r a n s i t Users and A l t e r n a t i v e Means of T r a v e l  Most t r a n s i t u s e r s s t a t e d t h a t without bus s e r v i c e i t would be n e c e s s a r y to take l i f t s  from f r i e n d s or f a m i l y , walk or h i t c h - h i k e . The p o r t i o n s  of r i d e r s who  c o u l d have d r i v e n a c a r f o r t h e i r t r i p s  (choice r i d e r s )  ranged from 5% t o 18% among the f o u r c i t i e s surveyed. Between 14% to 23% of the r i d e r s would not be a b l e to make t h e i r t r i p s or d i d not know what to do without the bus s e r v i c e  ( c a p t i v e r i d e r s ) . The l e v e l of  ' c h o i c e ' r i d i n g can be i n t e r p r e t e d as the extent of modal s h i f t auto to t r a n s i t w h i l e the extent of usage by  from  'captive' r i d e r s represents  the i n c r e a s e i n m o b i l i t y t h a t i s sought by the T r a n s i t  Program. About  9% to 14% of the r i d e r s would have to r e s o r t to a more expensive of t r a v e l , such as t a k i n g a t a x i . (Refer to T a b l e  4.4)  way  TABLE 4.2(b).  AUTO-OWNERSHIP AND DRIVER'S LICENCE (a)  TRANSIT PASSENGERS WITH DRIVER'S LICENCE % WITH LICENCE  % WITHOUT LICENCE  P r i n c e George  45  55  Kelowna  41  59  Kamloops  50  50  Nanaimo  32  68  (b)  HOUSEHOLD CAR OWNERSHIP OF TRANSIT PASSENGERS NONE  ONE  MORE THAN ONE  TOTAL  P r i n c e George  13%  36%  51%  Kelowna  N.A.  N.A.  N.A.  Kamloops  27%  42%  31%  100%  Nanaimo  22%  37%  .'41%  100%  100%  STATISTICS CANADA - 1973 - CITY POPULATION  P r i n c e George  10%  54%  36%  100%  Kelowna  13%  49%  30%  100%  Kamloops  18%  52%  30%  100%  Nanaimo  16%  52%  32%  100%  TABLE 4.3  PURPOSE OF TRIP  Work  P r i n c e George  Shopping  School  Entertainment/ Recreation  Medical/ Dental  Visiting  Other  TOTAI  28%  34%  14%  8%  4%  7%  6%  100%  29%  39%  12%  7%  7%  7%  5%  100%  Kamloops  36%  37%  11%  4%  6%  2%  3%  100%  Nanaimo*  30%  33%  3%  12%  6%  12%  4%  100%  . •r.' * '  Kelowna • - .-'-^*'c:\. c  ^Survey taken i n a Summer Month  TABLE 4.4  TRANSPORTATION  ALTERNATIVES TO BUS TRAVEL  P r i n c e George  Kelowna  Ride w/Family  17%  19%  15%  22%  Ride w/Friends  11%  14%  17%  11%  Taxi  14%  9%  13%  11%  Walked  29%  23%  10%  25%  Hitch-hiked  7%  18%  4%  9%  D r i v e n Car  8%  11%  18%  5%  Not a b l e t o make t r i p  8%  13%  16%  11%  Don't Know  6%  9%  7%  8%  100%  100%  100%  100%  TOTAL  Kamloops  Nanaimo  76.  By  examining the p r o f i l e of t r a n s i t usage i n the f o u r s m a l l  above, c e r t a i n g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s The  p r o v i s i o n of t r a n s i t  given it.  cities  can be made on the b e n e f i t s o f t r a n s i t .  s e r v i c e has i n c r e a s e d  the m o b i l i t y of some and  a cheaper or a l t e r n a t e means of t r a v e l t o those who choose t o use  The f i n d i n g s a r e not s u r p r i s i n g . T r a n s i t b e n e f i t s mostly the young,  the n o n - d r i v e r s , lifts).  the c a p t i v e and the s e m i - c a p t i v e (those who r e l y on  The l e v e l of modal s h i f t  i s low v e r s u s what can be expected i n  l a r g e r urban a r e a s . I t i s r e a s o n a b l e t o conclude t h a t t r a n s i t i n small  services  c i t i e s a r e consumed p r i m a r i l y by those who need them ( t h a t i s ,  those who a r e e a r l e s s ) . The c o s t s of a c h i e v i n g the b e n e f i t s i n the ' e v a l u a t i o n '  chapter.  t h i s w i l l be compared to  77.  4.1.4  Transit  U t i l i z a t i o n of Systems i n Small C i t i e s i n B.  Simple comparisons of r i d e r s h i p  l e v e l s among d i f f e r e n t  among d i f f e r e n t y e a r s cannot be used to e v a l u a t e the these s e r v i c e s  over time and  ion with a t t r i b u t e v a r i a b l e s . that and  are b e l i e v e d  l a n d use  service.  known s e t s of  of the  service  area and  trip-making c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  This section  examines the  s m a l l c i t i e s and  the  The  e v a l u a t i o n are  d a t a f o r the  several  characteristics  and  evaluated i n conjunct-  and  attributes  demand f o r  most commonly acknowleged s e t s of  characteristics  maker c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , of  There are  systems  performance of  to d i r e c t l y or i n d i r e c t l y a f f e c t the  i t s u t i l i z a t i o n . The  are:  space u n l e s s they are  C.  transit  attributes  c i t y , the  trip-  l e v e l s or  supply  transit u t i l i z a t i o n rates i n of  t r a n s i t usage i n these  from s e v e r a l  cities.  s e l e c t i v e passenger counts  conducted i n Kamloops, Kelowna, P r i n c e George, P e n t i c t o n and  Trail.  I n f o r m a t i o n on  are  service  i n t e n s i t i e s and  e x t r a c t e d from r e p o r t s submitted by s u b s i d y payments.  the  system p r o d u c t i v i t i e s twelve c i t i e s  for  Provincial  78.  T r a n s i t U t i l i z a t i o n b y Time of  The most e v i d e n t  difference  i n small c i t i e s versus  between  demand f o r t r a n s i t  i s normally  t r a v e l times and parking Business  The  peak-to-base  the r a t i o s  found i n l a r g e r c i t i e s .  The  are  reasons f o r  are: congestion  -  low  d u r i n g the peak p e r i o d s  the day base v a r i e s from system to system and  s u b s t a n t i a l l y lower than those this  the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of usage  l a r g e r c i t i e s i s the c o m p a r a t i v e l y  r a t i o s i n s m a l l c i t i e s . The versus  Day  not  a problem i n s m a l l  cities;  t r a v e l d i s t a n c e s are u s u a l l y s h o r t ;  and  i s p l e n t i f u l i n most s m a l l c i t i e s even i n the C e n t r a l Districts.  commuting movements are r e a l i z e d o n l y i n systems where s u p p l y i n g  s e r v i c e s to major work l o c a t i o n s i s one  of the primary o b j e c t i v e s .  For example, K i t i m a t , Kamloops and P r i n c e George have developed c e r t a i n l e v e l s of peak p e r i o d t r a v e l s by t r a n s i t to  that  the number of work p l a c e s that are served by t r a n s i t .  trippers"*" are p r o v i d e d  i n K i t i m a t to p r o v i d e  employers of the D i s t r i c t , namely A l c a n and and  can be a t t r i b u t e d d i r e c t l y  departure  Special  the employees of the major Eurocan, convenient  arrival  times f o r t h e i r s h i f t s . While i n the c i t y of Kamloops where  most of the work p l a c e s are c e n t r a l i z e d and were tapped by the o l d system, a c e r t a i n l e v e l of work t r i p s made by female r i d e r s a l r e a d y e x i s t e d . As  can be  seen from  F i g u r e 4.1  the so c a l l e d peak-to-base  that are r e a l i z e d i n Kamloops and P r i n c e George are v i r t u a l l y i n c i t i e s such as Kelowna and  Penticton.  ratios non-existent  79, FIGURE  4.1  RIDERSHIP PROFILE OF FIVE SELECTED SMALL CITY SYSTEMS  P r i n c e George 250 _  0600  0900  1200  1500  1800  2100  2400  2100  2400  Kelowna  100 >-  0600  0900  1200  1500  1800  50 |_ Penticton  40 30 20 . 10 . 4-  1  0600  1  1  1  0900  1  1  1  1200  1  1500  1800  250  2400  Kamloops  200  L  _ l  100 \50 |0  J  150  2100  0600  0600  1  1  L  J  0900  1200  0900  1200  I  L  1800  1500  1800  DOWNTOWN BUS CONNECTING TIME T t i m e o f day)  2100  2100  2400  2400  80.  F i g u r e • 4.2 shows t h e . t r a n s i t u t i l i z a t i o n by time of day f o r a t y p i c a l weekday and a Saturday. More t r i p s a r e made d u r i n g the mid-day on Saturday due  to the amount of shopping and r e c r e a t i o n a c t i v i t i e s which occur  d u r i n g the weekend. The percentages of d a i l y  transit  t r i p s observed  ing  different  are  shown i n T a b l e .4.5. T h i s t a b l e i n d i c a t e s t h a t w h i l e most  times on a t y p i c a l weekday and Saturday f o r v a r i o u s systems trips  o c c u r r e d d u r i n g the morning and a f t e r n o o n peak p e r i o d s , a l a r g e of  dur-  percentage  t r i p s were made d u r i n g o f f - p e a k hours. The lowest l e v e l of d a i l y  demand was d u r i n g evening hours. The v a r i a t i o n s among systems a r e not v e r y pronounced  except f o r T r a i l where t h e r e was no evening s e r v i c e and the  commuter market was w e l l s e r v e d . Saturday u t i l i z a t i o n p a t t e r n s a r e q u i t e similar  among a l l systems because  dominant t r i p purposes  shopping and r e c r e a t i o n a r e the p r e -  i n a l l c i t i e s on t h i s day.  SI-  FIGURE  4.2  TRANSIT UTILIZATION BY TIME OF DAY FOR A WEEKDAY AND A SATURDAY  WEEKDAY  KAMLOOPS  Pi  !=> o tn i  PH  W  300 |-  il  Jl  250 200 -  PH  w O >  w e> W  150 " 100 •  -jj  J :.  50^  cn  C/3  <tj PH  0_  opoo  h-l PH  -t0900  pi H Q  § 1-1 <3 H O H  1  1200 KAMLOOPS  1500 -  1800  \-  2100  . 2400  2100  2400  SATURDAY  300 250 200 150 100 50 00600  nJ  JL  4-  0900  1200  1500  1800  .THOMPSON PARK MALL (downtown) BUS C0NNETING ( Time o f Day )  TIME  TABLE  4.5  RIDERSHIP BY TIME OF DAY  (a)  WEEKDAY  DEMAND  TIME PERIOD Morning peak: |(start t o 9:30 a.m.)  PRINCE GEORGE  KELOWNA  PENTICTON  KAMLOOPS  TRAIL  21%  17%  20%  21%  30%  ,0f f-peak (9:30 a.m. t o 3:00 p.m.)  37%  46%  39%  32%  25%  A f t e r n o o n peak (3:00 p.m. t o 6:30*p.m.)  34%  32%  32%  39%  45%  Evening (6:30 p.m. t o end of day)  8%  5%  9%  8%  100%  100%  100%  100%  100%  TOTAL .(b)  SATURDAY DEMAND  Morning ( s t a r t t o 10:30 a.m.)  10%  8%  7%  9%  9%  Mid-day (10:30 a.m. t o 6:30 p.m.)  80%  84%  84%  81%  85%  4%  8%  10%  6%  100%  100%  100%  100%  Evening (6:30 p.m. t o end o f day) TOTAL  9% . 100%  83.  T r a n s i t U t i l i z a t i o n of S e r v i c e by  'Rides per c a p i t a ' i s w i d e l y  System  used as a measure of s e r v i c e u t i l i z a t i o n  by system. Many people ( F i e l d i n g and  G l a u t h i e r , 1976  ; Drosdat,  1977;  2 among o t h e r s )  have argued t h a t i t i s not  usage because of the d i f f i c u l t i e s penetration,-and of p o p u l a t i o n  a v a l i d measure of s e r v i c e  i n v o l v e d i n d e f i n i n g a r e a of market  as a r e s u l t , most people use the a r e a p o p u l a t i o n  served. Although i n B.  C. the g u i d e l i n e of p r o v i d i n g a  maximum walk of a q u a r t e r m i l e to e i g h t y percent was  s t a t e d , i t was  never e n f o r c e d .  The  reason  c r i t e r i a i n d e f i n i n g the b o u n d a r i e s of the  Table  of t o t a l c i t y  ' t r a n s i t envelope'. F o r  the  an overview of s e r v i c e  c i t i e s , the area p o p u l a t i o n was  4 . 6 . shows t h a t t h e r e was  population  f o r t h i s is.'the l a c k .of  purpose of t h i s a n a l y s i s , which was to present u t i l i z a t i o n of d i f f e r e n t  instead  used.  c o n s i d e r a b l e v a r i a t i o n i n ' r i d e s per  c a p i t a ' among the systems i n B. C..  Experience  elsewhere (e.g.  and A l b e r t a ) i n d i c a t e s that r i d e s per c a p i t a g e n e r a l l y i n c r e a s e  Ontario with  3  city size  ( P e r a r a 1977 ; and H u t c h i n s o n , 1977).. H u t c h i n s o n shows that  the annual number of revenue passengers and of bus  transit  p o p u l a t i o n . He  the annual revenue m i l e s  s u p p l i e d both i n c r e a s e e x p o n e n t i a l l y w i t h urban f u r t h e r explains that t r a n s i t  e x p o n e n t i a l l y w i t h CBD  employment s u g g e s t i n g  charges i n the l a r g e r c i t i e s and  r i d e r s h i p tends to t h a t the h i g h e r  area increase  parking  the g r e a t e r number of non-work t r i p s  c o n t r i b u t e to t h i s i n c r e a s e d r i d e r s h i p . T h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p between ' r i d e s per c a p i t a ' and c i t y systems i n B.  C.  r i d e s per c a p i t a and  ' c i t y p o p u l a t i o n ' w a s not  as s t r o n g f o r s m a l l  . F i g u r e 4 . 3 shows v e r y weak c o r r e l a t i o n between c i t y p o p u l a t i o n . T h i s can be e x p l a i n e d by  d i f f e r e n c e i n the l e v e l s of s e r v i c e among c i t i e s r e s u l t i n g from  the the  TABLE 4.6  TRANSIT UTILIZATION - 1977 STATISTICS  SYSTEM  POPULATION  RIDERSHIP  AVERAGE RIDES PER CAPITA  TRANSIT UTILIZATION BY MILE : BY HOUR  MILES HOURS PER CAPITA PER CAPITA  NELSON  9,235  261,351  28. 3  2. 80  .00 . 35.  10.,10  .81  NANAIMO  40,000  816,000  20. 4  1>-•84  29..45  11,,11  .69  POWELL RIVER  13,694  158,851  11. 6  1. 35  17.,95  8,,56  .65  KITIMAT  12,500  418,750  33. 5  1. 95  27..31  17,,19  1.23  PRINCE GEORGE  61,290  913,221  14. 9  3. 35  47. 10  4,,45  .32  PORT ALBERNI  20,105  333,743  16. 6  2. 91  37..49  5.,71  .44  KAMLOOPS  57,000  1,425,000  25. 0  2. 12  27..64  11,,81  .91  KELOWNA  52,000  481,768  9. 3  1. 35  18..91  6,.86  .49  PENTICTON  21,344  187,851  9. 3  1. 14  15,.17  8,,14  .61  PRINCE RUPERT  18,130  306,397  16. 9  2. 26  31..60  7.,49  ..'54  TRAIL  10,000  225,000  22. 5  1. 93  23.,20  11..63  .97  MAPLE RIDGE  29,462  57,746  2.0  0. 77  13..04  2,,54  . 15  WEST VANCOUVER  37,380  2,119,446  56. 7  2. 86  29..03  19,,81  1.95  FIGURE  4.3  RIDES PER CAPITA VERSUS CITY POPULATION  -40  • Kitimat 30 Nelson RIDES  * Kamloops Trail  PER  » Nanaimo 20 Port . Alberni  CAPITA  10  f  Prince Rupert  •Prince George  Powell, River • Kelowna  Penticton  Maple Ridge JL  10  20  30  40  ± 50  CITY POPULATION ( i n thousands)  60  00  86.  following  factors:  the  approach used by  the  r e s o u r c e a l l o c a t i o n or the  f i n a l decision  on  the P r o v i n c i a l T r a n s i t Agency f o r  the  supply of s e r v i c e s  -  as  there i s no  i s very  l i m i t on the  to s u b s i d i z e '  recommended by  the T r a n s i t Agency.  demand s e r v i c e s  Annual passengers c a r r i e d by  ( See  F i g u r e 4,4  the  s i g n a l s the  close  and  Table  revenue-miles  4.7)  or  annum i s a l s o a common i n d i c a t o r of t r a n s i t  u t i l i z a t i o n . P e r e r a , w i t h data-from O n t a r i o , showed that  the  local  above the minimum l e v e l s  a system d i v i d e d by  hours of s e r v i c e p r o v i d e d per  a system and  rather  l e v e l of P r o v i n c i a l s u b s i d i e s ,  can  was  municipal  service;  municipalities  c o e f f i c i e n t of 0.96  crude;  l e v e l s of s u b s i d y are u s u a l l y made by  o f f i c i a l s on the b a s i s of t h e i r ' w i l l i n g n e s s than on the needs f o r  estimating  found between the  a correlation  annual passengers c a r r i e d  annual:.revenue m i l e s o p e r a t e d by  the  system.  by  This  r e l a t i o n s h i p between the passengers c a r r i e d and  the  4 revenue m i l e s accummulated over a year..The d i s c r e p a n c i e s of s e r v i c e s the  o f f e r e d and  summary of bus  the  t r a n s i t u t i l i z a t i o n rates  hours, bus  m i l e s and  4.7  found between the  annual passengers c a r r i e d and  and  • A c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t of 0.92  hours r e s p e c t i v e l y .  s e r v i c e ) . : . i s one  T h i s means t h a t  provided.  levels  seen from  twelve systems and  0.93  was  annual revenue m i l e s  supply:of s e r v i c e  ( i . e . the  l e v e l of  of the major a t t r i b u t e s f o r t r a n s i t usage. That i s ,  t h e r e i s a d i r e c t , r e l a t i o n s h i p between rider-ship and service  can be  r i d e r s h i p f o r the  provided i n Table  i n the  the  amount of  FIGURE  4.4  RIDES PER CAPITA VERSUS TRANSIT UTILIZATION  PER MILE  AND  LEVELS OF SERVICE  0  0.5  1.0  1.5  TRANSIT UTILIZATION (I) (IT). (III) (IV)  5 revenue m i l e s p e r c a p i t a 10 revenue m i l e s p e r c a p i t a 15 revenue m i l e s p e r c a p i t a 20 revenue m i l e s p e r c a p i t a  2.0  2.5  ( : passengers ) revenue m i l e s  3.0  3.5  TABLE 4.7  .  RIDERSHIP VS. LEVELS OF SERVICE (1977 DATA)  SYSTEMS  NELSON  ANNUAL HOURS  ANNUAL MILES  ANNUAL RIDERSHIP  AVERAGE SPEED  BUS MILES PER CAPITA  BUS/HOURS TEER. .CAPITA  7,460  93,244  261,351  12,5  10 .10  .81  27,711  444,191  816,000  16.0  11 .11  .69  8,848  117,255  158,851  13.3  8 .56  .65  KITIMAT  15,334  214,830  418,750  14.0  17 .19  1.23  PRINCE GEORGE  19,392  272,791  913,221  14.1  4 .45  .32  8,902  114,836  333,743  12.9  5 .71  .44  NANAIMO POWELL RIVER  PORT ALBERNI KAMLOOPS  51,554  673,352 1,425,000  13.1  11 .81  .91  KELOWNA  25,473  356,616  481,768  14.0  6 .86  .49  PENTICTON  13,041  173,770  197,851  13.3  8 .14  .61  PRINCE RUPERT  9,696  135,744  306,397  14.0  7 .49  .54  TRAIL  9,696  116,352  225,000  12.0  11 .63  .97  MAPLE RIDGE  4,427  74,745  57,746  16.9  2 .54  .15  740,384 2,119,446  10.1  19 .81  1.95  WEST VANCOUVER 73,000  CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS W/O WEST VANCOUVER  WITH WEST VANCOUVER  Miles vs. Ridership  0.92  0.94  Hours v s . R i d e r s h i p  0.93  0.97  89.  4.2  THE TRANSIT MARKET IN SMALL CITIES  The p r e v i o u s s e c t i o n s i n t h i s c h a p t e r p r o v i d e d d e t a i l s  on the c h a r a c t e r -  i s t i c s of t r a n s i t u s e r s . The purpose of the f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n s i s to examine the whole t r a n s i t market,  t h a t i s , both those who  use t r a n s i t . A household a t t i t u d i n a l survey was  do and do not  conducted, the  results  of which are used i n the f o l l o w i n g manner: 1)  To i d e n t i f y  the s e c t o r of the community b e n e f i t t i n g from the program.  2)  To determine the adequacy  of the s e r v i c e s designed a c c o r d i n g to the  standards p r o v i d e d by the T r a n s i t Agency. 3)  To determine the g e n e r a l o p i n i o n of t r a n s i t  i n these  communities,  and whether the r e s i d e n t s a c c e p t the program. 4)  To determine the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of t r a n s i t  i n reducing residents'  dependence on the automobile. 5)  To examine the impacts of marketing and whether the marketing component of the program  6)  can be improved  To examine the requirements f o r t r a n s i t  and/or m o d i f i e d . i n s m a l l c i t i e s and to  p r o v i d e a b e t t e r u n d e r s t a n d i n g of what t r a n s i t can and cannot  do.  Survey D e s i g n  K i t i m a t , P e n t i c t o n and T r a i l were the c i t i e s chosen f o r the a t t i t u d i n a l survey. The c r i t e r i a f o r the s e l e c t i o n p r o c e s s are as f o l l o w s : (i)  A l l systems were planned from t h e i r  i n c e p t i o n by the  T r a n s i t Agency, (ii) (iii)  One of the c i t i e s was  not i n the marketing program,  Each c i t y chosen r e c e i v e d d i f f e r e n t usage and supply c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .  r a t i n g s f o r the f o l l o w i n g  The u t i l i z a t i o n and l e v e l of  90.  s e r v i c e f a c t o r s a r e intended t o be used as c o n t r o l  factors  i n a modal c h o i c e model, i f the model i s needed f o r o t h e r s t u d i e s . These supply and usage f a c t o r s a r e : h o u r s / m i l e s per c a p i t a , passengers per bus m i l e / h o u r , and r i d e s per c a p i t a .  Of the t h r e e c i t i e s chosen, K i t i m a t r a t e d rated  'medium' and P e n t i c t o n r a t e d  'high' i n a l l items,  Trail  'low' i n these c r i t e r i a . A l l t h r e e  systems were planned by the T r a n s i t Agency. Both T r a i l and P e n t i c t o n were i n the marketing program w h i l e K i t i m a t d i d not r e c e i v e any marketing effort.  Having s e l e c t e d the c i t i e s ,  i t was n e c e s s a r y t o s e l e c t households f o r  sampling. S i n c e income was b e l i e v e d t o be an important determinant of modal c h o i c e , i t i s n e c e s s a r y t o r e a c h a m i x t u r e of income l e v e l As a r e s u l t , d i f f e r e n t  types of neighbourhoods  groups.  were surveyed. These  neighbourhood  were v i s i t e d p e r s o n a l l y t o o b t a i n a b e t t e r f e e l f o r the  neighbourhood  and t o ensure t h a t a broad range of housing u n i t s would be  i n c l u d e d i n the sample. B l o c k s were then s e l e c t e d from d i f f e r e n t  areas  i n such a way as t o o b t a i n a mix o f d i s t a n c e s from t r a n s i t r o u t e s and a c r o s s - s e c t i o n of types of housing  units.  The planned sample s i z e was b u i l t up w i t h r e f e r e n c e t o minimum c e l l  size  requirements f o r c r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n a n a l y s i s . The same survey methodology was employed i n a survey conducted  i n the San F r a n c i s c o Bay A r e a ^ . I t  was found t h a t between 70% t o 75% response r a t e s c o u l d be expected. The number of b l o c k s s e l e c t e d f o r i n c l u s i o n i n the survey r e f l e c t e d the planned s i z e of the sample. I n o r d e r t o o b t a i n a t l e a s t 300 responses from each c i t y surveyed, 500 q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were d i s t r i b u t e d the t h r e e c i t i e s  chosen.  i n each of  91.  The q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were d e l i v e r e d by survey workers to every o t h e r house on the b l o c k . A l l members of the house were surveyed except those who were under 18 y e a r s of age and were l i k e l y to be c a p t i v e t r a n s i t u s e r s . The d e l i v e r y procedures i n v o l v e d dropping o f f q u e s t i o n n a i r e s one evening, r e t u r n i n g two evenings l a t e r a t an agreed time to p i c k up  completed  responses, and subsequently making a t h i r d v i s i t  to c o l l e c t q u e s t i o n n a i r e s  s t i l l uncompleted  which had not responded  on the second  t r i p . Households  by the t h i r d evening were g i v e n stamped addressed envelopes and asked to m a i l i n t h e i r r e s p o n s e s . I f people were out when the survey workers c a l l e d , they were r e p l a c e d by the housing u n i t to the l e f t them. Less than two  or r i g h t of  p e r c e n t of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were r e t u r n e d by  m a i l and l e s s than f o u r p e r c e n t of the households v i s i t e d r e f u s e d to p a r t i c i p a t e . The unusable q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were d i s c a r d e d and these accounted f o r l e s s than two p e r c e n t of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s r e c e i v e d . A f t e r the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were checked  f o r gross i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s , they were coded  and keypunched. The d a t a was then a n a l y s e d u s i n g programs from SPSS.  Survey R e s u l t s and F i n d i n g s  The r e s u l t s and f i n d i n g s p r e s e n t e d i n t h i s s e c t i o n were drawn from the 1,100 responses from the survey. More than 300 responses were c o l l e c t e d from each c i t y and the o v e r a l l response r a t e was 80% .  Demographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the respondents were summarized i n o r d e r to show t h e r e were no p e c u l i a r i t i e s i n the sample. The summary i s presented i n T a b l e 4.8 to T a b l e 4.13.  There i s almost an e q u a l s p l i t between male and female i n the o v e r a l l sample. N e a r l y 60% of respondents had no c o l l e g e o r post-secondary  .  THE FOLLOWING T A B L E S , 4.8 t o 4.1,3 G I V E C H A R A C T E R I S T I C S OF RESPONDENTS TO THE HOUSEHOLD SURVEYS  TABLE DEMOGRAPHIC  4.8  CHARACTERISTICS  SEX Male  48%  Female  52%  TOTAL  100%  TABLE  4.9  AGE BREAKDOWN OF RESPONDENTS AGE GROUPS (Aged 18 o r U n d e r Group I s E x c l u d e d )  KITIMAT  (%)  TRAIL  (%)  PENTICTON  20 Or L e s s  7.9  6.9  8.3  21 - 24  9.5  7.2  4.8  25 - 34  37.1  18.3  15.5  35 - 44  22.3  14.0  19.0  45 - 54  15.3  20.9  15.0  55 - 64  6.8  22.9  15.8  65 A n d O v e r  1.1  9.7  21.4  TOTAL  100.0  100.0  T A B L E 4.10 MARITAL  * P E O P L E AGED  STATUS  Single  14%  Married  77%  Other  8%  TOTAL  100%  18 OR UNDER ARE EXCLUDED FROM THE SURVEY  100.0  TABLE 4.11 SCHOOLING  (EDUCATION)  Post Secondary Or B a c h e l o r  34%  No Post-Secondary  66%  TOTAL  100%  TABLE 4.12 HOUSE VALUES  (ASSESSED VALUES)  Less Than $40,000  52%  $41,000 - $50,000  23%  $51,000 - $60,000  14%  $61,000 - $70,000  4%  Over $70,000  1%  No Answer  6%  TOTAL  100%  TABLE 4.13 YEARS IN COMMUNITY  0-2  Years  12%  3-5  Years  13%  6-10  Years  Over 10 Years No Answer TOTAL  18% 55% 2% 100%  94.  education. by  The  average  the economic base of  ural,  industrial  Almost  70%  of  having  lived  and  those  education l e v e l these  the respondents  three c i t i e s ,  which happens  c a n be t o be  explained agricult-  mining.  surveyed  are  long-time  residents  of  the  community,  t h e r e f o r s i x o r more y e a r s .  Approximately  90%  of a l l houses  surveyed  $60,000 and  s l i g h t l y more t h a n h a l f  valued  than  less  of  consists mainly  of  have a s s e s s e d v a l u e s of  the respondents  $40,000. I t i s r e a s o n a b l e of average  income  families.  under  l i v e i n houses  t o assume t h a t  the  sample  95.  4.2.1  The S e c t o r of Community B e n e f i t i n g from the Program  The on-board passenger  survey i d e n t i f i e d  T h e r e f o r e i n order to i s o l a t e excluded  youth t r a n s i t u s e r s as c a p t i v e s .  and i d e n t i f y  a d u l t u s e r s t h e youth were  from t h e survey.  T a b l e 4.14 shows t h e degree o f use by t h e a d u l t male and female p o p u l a t i o n . The  first  The  second  o b s e r v a t i o n t o be made i s t h a t women use t r a n s i t more than men. o b s e r v a t i o n which can be drawn from these r e s u l t s  13% o f t h e a d u l t p o p u l a t i o n a r e r e g u l a r u s e r s of t r a n s i t , c a p t i v e and 8% a r e c h o i c e  i s that only  5% of which a r e  riders.  The use of t r a n s i t by age group i s shown i n T a b l e 4.15 . Approximately 37% of c a p t i v e r e g u l a r u s e r s were over 55 y e a r s of age. These f i n d i n g s agree w i t h the r e s u l t s  from on .board passenger  surveys which showed t h a t  women and the aged r e p r e s e n t a l a r g e r p o r t i o n o f t r a n s i t u s e r s i n s m a l l communities i n B. C .  The mode c h o i c e by t r a n s i t usage groups f o r work and non-work t r i p s are presented i n T a b l e 4.16 and T a b l e 4.17 . These t a b l e s show t h a t about half bus  o f those who s a i d  they were r e g u l a r bus u s e r s chose t o take t h e  t o work w h i l e r e g u l a r t r a n s i t u s e r s r e l i e d more h e a v i l y on t h e auto  and w a l k i n g f o r non-commute  In  trips.  summary, women and t h e o l d e r c i t i z e n s made up t h e l a r g e s t  group o f  t r a n s i t u s e r s . H a l f of t h e r e g u l a r u s e r s • t a k e t h e p u b l i c mode f o r work. Only 5% of a l l respondents  surveyed were c a p t i v e u s e r s  young who were not i n c l u d e d i n t h e s u r v e y ) .  (other than t h e  96.  TABLE  4.14  BREAKDOWN OF USERS AND NON-USERS BY SEX  DEGREE OF USE  MALE  FEMALE  TOTAL  Non-User  57%  43%  542 (100%) (49.9%)  O c c a s i o n a l Users  42%  58%  398 (100%) (36.6%)  Regular  29%  71%  94 (100%) ( 8.6%)  26%  74%  53 (100%) ( 4.9%)  Choice  Regular C a p t i v e  (100%) 0.352 <0.0001  TABLE 4.15 AGE COMPOSITION OF USERS AND NON-USERS  USAGE CLASS 2124  2534  3544  4554  5564  5%  8%  27%  19%  16%  14%  10%  100%  11%  6%  20%  18%  20%  16%  10%  100%  8%  5%  25%  22%  14%  18%  8%  100%  9%  11%  17%  13%  11%  11%  26%  100%  20 Or Less  • - -. '  Non-Users O c c a s i o n a l Users Regular  AGE  Choice  Regular C a p t i v e  65 And Over  Total  TABLE 4.16 TRANSIT USAGE VERSUS CHOICE OF MODE FOR WORK TRIPS  MODES  NON-USERS  D r i v e Auto  OCCASIONAL USERS  REGULAR CHOICE  REGULAR CAPTIVE  Alone  62%  39%  10%  10%  R i d e with: Others  23%  31%  17%  15%  0%  8%  49%  49%  12%  16%  21%  18%  3%  6%  3%  8%  100%  100%  100%  100%  Bus . Walk o r B i c y c l e Others  TOTAL  TABLE 4.17 TRANSIT USAGE VERSUS CHOICE OF MODE FOR NON-COMMUTE TRIPS  MODES  NON-USERS  OCCASIONAL USERS ;..  REGULAR CHOICE  REGULAR CAPTIVE 29%  72%  57%  34%  Motorcycle  1%  1%  1%  Bicycle  7%  5%  7%  7%  Taxi  1%  : i %  2%  1%  Bus  0%  10%  31%  36%  18%  25%  25%  25%  1%  1%  100%  100%  Auto  Walk H i t c h h i k e d / F r iend s  TOTAL  2%  100%  100%  98.  4.2.2  The Adequacy of the L e v e l of S e r v i c e P r o v i d e d  T r a n s i t systems i n s m a l l c i t i e s were designed and  j o i n t l y by the m u n i c i p a l i t i e s  the P r o v i n c e based on the c r i t e r i a of meeting both l o c a l and  Provincial  g u i d e l i n e s . The P r o v i n c i a l g u i d e l i n e s p r o v i d e d a minimum l e v e l of s e r v i c e f o r these s m a l l c i t i e s and i)  they were:  T r a n s i t r o u t e s should f o c u s on a c t i v i t y c e n t r e s i n the community.  ii)  Day-time s e r v i c e frequency  i n b u i l t - u p urban areas  should  be a t l e a s t h o u r l y , but p r e f e r a b l y h a l f - h o u r l y , iii)  A maximum w a l k i n g  d i s t a n c e to the bus  stops i n a  fully  b u i l t - u p urban area should be not more than a q u a r t e r m i l e . iv)  Local transit  s e r v i c e s should be designed  to connect  with  other forms of p u b l i c t r a n s p o r t s e r v i n g the r e g i o n .  The  purpose of a p p l y i n g these g u i d e l i n e s i n d i s c r i m i n a n t l y to a l l s m a l l  c i t i e s was  to put i n a new  system or improve e x i s t i n g s e r v i c e s i n the  P r o v i n c e to meet n a t i o n a l l y accepted  l e v e l s of s e r v i c e g u i d e l i n e s . As  documented e a r l i e r , s e r v i c e l e v e l s v a r i e d among c i t i e s and s e r v i c e s were u s u a l l y allowed  additional  i f requested by l o c a l governments. In the  case of K i t i m a t when l o c a l g u i d e l i n e s r e q u i r e d t h a t " d u r i n g p e r i o d s of peak demand, the f a s t e s t and most d i r e c t  s e r v i c e r o u t e between d w e l l i n g  u n i t s and p l a c e s of work should be sought" ^, the P r o v i n c e was to share the d e f i c i t s of t r i p p e r s to meet s h i f t  willing  times a t ;.the D i s t r i c t ' s  major employment c e n t r e s .  The  above shows t h a t the l e v e l s of s e r v i c e from the view of s u p p l i e r  or governments are u s u a l l y measured by the number of s e a t - m i l e s p r o v i d e d i n each community. However, from the u s e r ' s p o i n t of view, the p e r c e i v e d  99.  l e v e l of s e r v i c e i s determined by whether the s e r v i c e meets h i s needs and whether the c o s t i s r e a s o n a b l e . The c o s t f a c t o r i n c l u d e s p r i c e ,  travel  time,  w a i t i n g time and w a l k i n g time e t c . D i f f e r e n t i n d i v i d u a l s have d i f f e r e n t v a l u e s f o r t h e i r time. Therefore,'.the e v a l u a t i o n of the adequacy of s e r v i c e l e v e l s i s a s u b j e c t i v e one. The r e s u l t s from the a t t i t u d i n a l survey are used  to p r o v i d e the b a s i s f o r the e v a l u a t i o n .  Reasons f o r Not U s i n g T r a n s i t  Those who  d i d not use t r a n s i t were asked t h e i r reasons f o r not u s i n g i t .  Approximately  29% of the respondents d i d not answer t h i s q u e s t i o n and  19% s t a t e d t h a t they d i d not have any reason f o r not u s i n g t r a n s i t (Table 4.18 ) . The most o f t e n quoted r e a s o n was was  that other t r a n s p o r t a t i o n  a v a i l a b l e . Other reasons g i v e n were t h a t bus s e r v i c e s were i n c o n v e n i -  ent, i m p r a c t i c a l and t h a t they a l s o had d i f f i c u l t y stops becuase  i n r e a c h i n g the bus  of p h y s i c a l c o n d i t i o n s or the w a l k i n g d i s t a n c e between  home and s t o p . Other problems encountered were the d e s i g n of bus and t i m e t a b l e s which people found d i f f i c u l t  The l a r g e number of non-responses the l a c k of i n t e r e s t who  schedules  to understand.  p r e c l u d e any g e n e r a l i z a t i o n c o n c e r n i n g  towards the t r a n s i t mode. I t i s suspected t h a t  d i d not respond were not i n t e r e s t e d i n t r a n s i t because  have the need f o r i t or they knew n o t h i n g about reasons were s t r o n g l y r e l a t e d  those  they d i d not  the s e r v i c e . None of the  to the adequacy of s e r v i c e p r o v i d e d . When  the responses from non-users were compared to those from the o c c a s i o n a l u s e r s , the a v a i l a b i l i t y of o t h e r t r a n s p o r t a t i o n becomes a s t r o n g e r f a c t o r f o r not choosing the t r a n s i t mode. (58% of non-users a t i o n as compared to 36% f o r o c c a s i o n a l u s e r s . )  had o t h e r t r a n s p o r t -  100.  TABLE 4.18(a) REASONS FOR NOT USING BUS SERVICE No Answer  29%  No Reason  19%  Have Other T r a n s p o r t a t i o n  33%  Not P r a c t i c a l  5%  Generally Inconvenient  5%  Bus Schedule - O v e r a l l T i m e t a b l e  3%  Does Not Go To R i d e r ' s D e s t i n a t i o n  2%  S e r v i c e Too Slow  1%  Others*  3%  Total *  100%  Others c i t e d were: Problem u n d e r s t a n d i n g s c h e d u l e . -  Stop too f a r from home or work.  -  P h y s i c a l l y i n c a p a b l e o f g e t t i n g to s t o p .  TABLE 4.18(b) NON-USERS. AND OCCASIONAL USERS REASONS FOR NOT USING TRANSIT REASONS FOR NOT USING Not  TRANSIT  Practical  NON-USERS  OCCASIONAL USERS  6%  8%  58%  36%  Generally Inconvenient  6%  8%  Bus Schedule  4%  6%  Doesn't Go To R i d e r ' s D e s t i n a t i o n  3%  2%  Other Reasons  4%  6%  19%  34%  100%  100%  Other T r a n s p o r t a t i o n  No Reason Total  101.  Extent  The  of A c c e s s i b i l i t y by T r a n s i t to Work or  School  r e s u l t s show t h a t 93% of the respondents l i v e d w i t h i n a q u a r t e r of  a mile  (walking d i s t a n c e ) to the bus  According  stop and  to the i n d u s t r y ' s rule-of-thumb,  80%  l i v e w i t h i n 900  anyone l i v i n g w i t h i n a q u a r t e r  of a m i l e walking  d i s t a n c e to a bus  stop i s s a i d to be l i v i n g  ' t r a n s i t envelop'  (which i s d e f i n e d by the a r e a s e r v i c e d by  Only 23% of the workers s t a t e d t h a t i t was  thought t h a t i t was  Problems Encountered With Bus  Those who  inconvenient  to do so.  i n the  transit).  i m p o s s i b l e to take  to work. H a l f responded t h a t they c o u l d e a s i l y take the bus the r e s t , 28%  feet.  transit  to work and  (Table 4.19  )  Service  were t r a n s i t u s e r s were asked to i n d i c a t e the problems encount-  ered i n u s i n g t r a n s i t . The common, (Table 4.20  ).  problems p e r c e i v e d by a l l u s e r s were q u i t e .-.  Most were d i r e c t e d at the q u a l i t y of s e r v i c e ,  t h a t i s , r e l i a b i l i t y , d u r a t i o n of s e r v i c e , p r o x i m i t y to bus  stop,  d i f f i c u l t i e s encountered w i t h o b t a i n i n g i n f o r m a t i o n through t i m e t a b l e s .  In summary, the l e v e l s of s e r v i c e p r o v i d e d  i n s m a l l c i t i e s are adequate  i n terms of coverage i n r e s i d e n t i a l o r i g i n s , but not  so good i n terms of  work or study d e s t i n a t i o n s . 'Other t r a n s p o r t a t i o n ' (which most r e f e r s to the  'automobile'  or the  f a c t o r f o r the l a c k of i n t e r e s t  likely  'auto passenger' mode) i s the dominant  i n the t r a n s i t mode. Two  marketing  i m p l i c a t i o n s a r i s e from e v a l u a t i n g the problems encountered by  transit  users. i)  I t i s important are e a s i l y  to have w i d e l y a v a i l a b l e t i m e t a b l e s t h a t  understood.  TABLE 4.19  EXTENT OF ACCESSIBILITY  BY TRANSIT TO WORK  OR SCHOOL  Easily  49%  Inconvenient  28%  Impossible  16%  Unsure Total  7% 100%  103.  - TABLE 4.20  '  PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED WITH BUS SERVICE  % Responses No Problem  57.5%  Not  27.0%  Stated  Bus Too L a t e o r Too E a r l y  2.9%  T i m e t a b l e s Do Not C o i n c i d e With S e r v i c e  2.4%  Yes,  2.0%  (But No  Explanation)  Found Bus System and Schedule Bus  Schedule  Others*  *  -  -  Confusing  Should be Posted on Signs  1.5% 1.0% 5.7%  Got l o s t Had problems i n other c i t i e s Buses taken o f f r o u t e d u r i n g w i n t e r a t n i g h t Problem w i t h bus d r i v e r Roads t o bus stop u n s u i t a b l e f o r w a l k i n g Too f a r from r e s i d e n c e U n s h e l t e r e d w a i t i n g areas - no benches e i t h e r Having exact f a r e Bus d r i v e r l e t s passenger out i n t o snow d i t c h Buses don't r u n l a t e enough Other passengers - e.g. - a l c o h o l i c s , k i d s , overcrowded, e t c . Does n o t go t o r i d e r ' s d e s t i n a t i o n P h y s i c a l d i s a b i l i t y hinders Problem o b t a i n i n g bus schedule Bus doesn't s t a r t e a r l y enough i n A.M. Buses a r e u n r e l i a b l e - sometimes never show up Long w a i t s between buses  104. ii)  Running a p r e d i c t a b l e and on time system i s a n e c e s s i t y f o r s m a l l c i t y systems due t o long headways.  105.  4.2.3  General  O p i n i o n and L o c a l Acceptance of P u b l i c T r a n s i t  The measures r e g a r d i n g respondents'  a t t i t u d e s and p e r c e p t i o n of p u b l i c  t r a n s i t were used to i n d i c a t e whether the r e s i d e n t s ' g e n e r a l o p i n i o n of t r a n s i t was  f a v o u r a b l e and whether they accepted  or r e s i s t e d the i d e a .  Both u s e r s ' s and non-users' p o i n t s of view were presented whether the o p i n i o n of found  to show  non-users were f a v o u r a b l e . L o v e l o c k ,  that t r a n s i t users  in his  study,  (he c o n s i d e r e d o n l y the c h o i c e r i d e r s ) r a t e d g  bus  t r a v e l more f a v o u r a b l e than non-users • . T h e r e f o r e ,  i t is  important  to determine whether the g e n e r a l p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e and p e r c e p t i o n of public transit the t r a n s i t  found  i n t h i s survey were a f f e c t e d by the responses from  users.  A n a l y s i s of A t t i t u d e Measures  T a b l e 4.21  shows the means and  standard  deviations for  respondents' 9  s c o r e s under each of the s i x t e e n a t t i t u d e items measured by the S i x of these were phrased of these s i x items was represented  n e g a t i v e l y towards p u b l i c t r a n s i t . The  t h e r e f o r e r e v e r s e d , so t h a t  a s t r o n g l y p r o - t r a n s i t a t t i t u d e and  Most of the a t t i t u d e s expressed i s , having  '5' the r e v e r s e .  were i n favour of p u b l i c t r a n s p o r t ( t h a t  r e s i s t e d the i d e a of u s i n g p u b l i c t r a n s i t  (Question 2)  responded t h a t they c o u l d not manage without  The m a j o r i t y of the respondents f e l t (Question 12), and most had  scoring  '1' s c o r e always  a s c o r e of l e s s than 3 ) . Only 8% of the respondents  a t t r i b u t e s of v e h i c l e s and  survey  , and  completely  only  15%  a car f o r a few months.  t h a t t h e r e was  a future for transit  f a v o u r a b l e a t t i t u d e s about the p h y s i c a l the f r i e n d l y bus  f o r a l l a t t i t u d e measures were above  85%.  d r i v e r s . The  response r a t e  TABLE MEANS AND  4.21  STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF  ATTITUDE  ITEMS  KITIMAT  ITEMS TRAIL  PENTICTON  ALL MEAN  S.D.  2. 63  2. 84  2. 00  2. 82  1. 32  2. 10  1. 71 2. 35  2. 29 2. 59  2. 03  1. 32  2. 81  2. 59  1. 31  3. 37 3. 51 3. 87 2. 24  3. 2. 3. 2.  48  3. 35 3. 20 3. 78  3. 38 3. 22 3. 82  1. 33  94 76 05  2. 20  2. 17  1. 23  2. 28  2. 26  2.49  2. 38  1. 26  2. 46  2. 00  2. 76  2. 41  1. 41  10)  routes. I h a v e n e v e r b o t h e r e d t o f i n d o u t d e t a i l s o f what p u b l i c t r a n s p o r t a t i o n s e r v i c e s are a v a i l a b l e around here. I would use p u b l i c t r a n s p o r t a t i o n a l o t more i f f a r e s were  3. 62 2. 15  4. 16  11) 12)*  lower. I c o u l d manage w i t h o u t a c a r I r e a l l y c a n ' t s e e much o f a  3. 56 2. 27 2. 04  3. 78 2. 33 1. 82  1. 23 1. 48 1. 16  2. 59  2. 78  1. 63  3. 67 1. 95 1. 94  3. 67 1. 82  1. 33 0. 97 1. 01  1) 2)*  The  3)  Travelling  4)  I might  5)*  r o u t e s and s c h e d u l e s w e r e e a s i e r t o o b t a i n . I h a t e t o be t i e d t o f i x e d s c h e d u l e s f o r t r a v e l l i n g . I d o n ' t e n j o y d r i v i n g v e r y much.  6) 7)* 8) 9)*  13)* 14)  idea  16). *  car-pooling  appeals  to  me.  use  by  bus  the  i s so  bus  much m o r e r e l a x i n g  s e r v i c e more o f t e n  transport-  than d r i v i n g .  i f information  about  I have bad memories o f p u b l i c t r a n s p o r t a t i o n e l s e w h e r e . I t i s i m p o r t a n t t o me t h a t my home s h o u l d be c l o s e t o b u s  I don't I have have  15>  of  I would n e v e r t r a v e l r e g u l a r l y by any f o r m o f p u b l i c a t i o n , no m a t t e r how much t h e y i m p r o v e d t h e s e r v i c e .  The The  Order  think  there's  sometimes not  the  exact  fare  a  parking  tried  to  few m o n t h s i f I h a d to. for public transportation.  problem  use  the  i n our  bus  community.  because  handy.  buses are c l e a n . bus d r i v e r s h e r e a r e reversed  for a future  friendly  and  courteous.  I did  1. 88 4. 02  2. 60 1. 55 1. 64  1. 40 1. 37  not 3. 36 1. 91 2. 11  4. 01 1. 59 1. 53  1. 86  F a v o u r a b l e O p i n i o n Towards T r a n s i t 1.  Strongly  2. 3. 4. 5.  S l i g h t l y agree N e i t h e r a g r e e nor Slightly disagree Strongly disagree  agree disagree  107.  A n a l y s i s of P e r c e p t i o n Measures  The survey asked respondents to r a t e bus t r a v e l on each o f n i n e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . T a b l e 4.22 summarizes r a t i n g s on the semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l showing  mean v a l u e s and s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s on n i n e d i f f e r e n t  To f a c i l i t a t e  scales,  attributes.  the a n a l y s i s and t h e comparison of r a t i n g s , the mean s c o r e s  were a l s o reproduced i n g r a p h i c a l form i n F i g u r e 4.5. Scores o f l e s s  than  2 a r e f a v o u r a b l e , s c o r e s between 5 and 6 a r e u n f a v o u r a b l e , w h i l e those i n between r e p r e s e n t mean r a t i n g s c o r e s .  Since the respondents were not g i v e n o t h e r modes to compare w i t h bus t r a v e l , i t i s not s u r p r i s i n g t o f i n d t h a t a l l a t t r i b u t e s r a t e d f a v o u r a b l e . While  'safety',  'speed',  ' r e l i a b i l i t y ' and ' p u n c t u a l i t y ' r a t e d h i g h e r than o t h e r s ,  'enjoyment' and 'convenience' r a t e d lower than cot.hers. The f i r s t  three r e f l e c t  the a c t u a l performance  of t h e t r a n s i t system, w h i l e the o t h e r  three a r e i n h e r e n t d i s a d v a n t a g e s o f t h e p u b l i c mode. More than 80% of the respondents r a t e d most o f these p e r c e p t i o n measures and o n l y the two 'speed' measures had a response r a t e o f l e s s than 80%. The non-responses (about 28%) were m a i n l y from non-users who might n o t have any knowledge of t h i s q u a l i t y a s p e c t of the t r a n s i t mode.  A t t i t u d e F a c t o r s and P e r c e p t i o n o f T r a n s i t between Users and Non-users  The f o l l o w i n g i s an examination of whether u s e r s have more f a v o u r a b l e a t t i t u d e s towards  p u b l i c t r a n s p o r t and have b e t t e r r a t i n g s f o r the  p e r c e p t i o n measures of bus t r a v e l than non-users. P e r c e p t i o n i n t h i s study i s d e f i n e d as 'the meaning we a t t r i b u t e , on the b a s i s o f past  108.  TABLE 4.22 MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF PERCEPTION MEASURES  KITIMAT  TRAIL  PENTICTON  ALL MEAN S.D.  Safety  1.65  1.42  1.57  1.55  0.86  Comfort  2.24  1.82  2.08  2.05  1.15  Convenience  2.90  1.82  2.60  2.45  1.64  Enjoyment  3.20  2.20  2.72  2.72  1.47  Reliability  2.16  1.57  1.89  1.88  1.20  Punctuality  2.31  1.59  1.93  1.95  1.19  Speed on Commute T r i p s  3.38  2.37  2.82  2.87  1.50  Speed on Non-Commute T r i p s  3.24  2.38  2.83  2.84  1.40  Cost of T r a v e l  2.39  1.68  2.51  2.20  1.40  FIGURE  4.5  MEAN SCORES OF PERCEPTION MEASURES BY CITY  MEAN SCORES OF PERCEPTION MEASURES  110.  e x p e r i e n c e , t o s t i m u l i as r e c e i v e d  through our f i v e s e n s e s ' ^ , and 1  'attitude' i s defined  as 'a person's enduring f a v o u r a b l e o r u n f a v o u r a b l e  cognitive evaluations,  emotional f e e l i n g s , o r a c t i v e t e n d e n c i e s towards  some o b j e c t  o r idea'''" . 1  T a b l e 4.23 d i s p l a y s  the mean s c o r e s o b t a i n e d f o r each o f t h e s i x t e e n  a t t i t u d e items by each o f the s i x c l a s s e s i n d i c a t e that t r a n s i t choice users  of t r a n s i t users.  (both r e g u l a r  and o c c a s i o n a l  have a more f a v o u r a b l e a t t i t u d e towards t r a n s i t than the However, the r e g u l a r the c h o i c e u s e r s ,  captive users rated  The s c o r e s users)  non-users.  t r a n s i t l e s s f a v o u r a b l e than  even though the r a t i n g s were s t i l l more f a v o u r a b l e than  those g i v e n by non-users.  By  employing two measures o f a s s o c i a t i o n t o e v a l u a t e the  between p a i r s o f v a r i a b l e s to draw c o n c l u s i o n s  relationship  i n c r o s s - c l a s s i f i c a t i o n analysis, i t i s possible  on whether the r e s u l t s could have a r i s e n by chance and  whether the r e l a t i o n s h i p i s s t r o n g .  The two measures used a r e the  Chi  2 Square ( 7^ ) , which i s employed t o t e s t f o r t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e o f the r e l a t i o n s h i p and Gamma ( % ) ,  which t e s t s t h e s t r e n g t h  o f the  relationship.  Negative Gamma i n d i c a t e s a n e g a t i v e r e l a t i o n and P o s i t i v e Gamma i n d i c a t e s a positive relation. The  r e l a t i o n s h i p between a t t i t u d e measures and t r a n s i t usage was found t o be  significant but  f o r most o f t h e s i x t e e n  the a s s o c i a t i o n was n o t s t r o n g .  items (except q u e s t i o n s 1,7,10,and 13) However, the d i r e c t i o n o f the r e l a t i o n -  s h i p s was c o n s i s t e n t l y t h e same i n d i c a t i n g t h a t was  associated  i n c r e a s i n g use o f t r a n s i t  w i t h more f a v o u r a b l e a t t i t u d e towards i t . I t was a l s o  t h a t when the c a p t i v e u s e r s and the o c c a s i o n a l  found  u s e r s were excluded, t h e  a s s o c i a t i o n between usage and a t t i t u d e was s t r o n g e r .  T h i s means that  there  TABLE MEAN SCORES FOR  4.23  ATTITUDE ITEMS BY TRANSIT USAGE  ITEMS  TRANSIT USAGE CLASS  The i d e a of c a r - p o o l i n g a p p e a l s to me. 1) 2 ) * I would never t r a v e l r e g u l a r l y by any form of p u b l i c t r a n s p o r t a t i o n , no matter how much they improved the s e r v i c e . T r a v e l l i n g by bus i s so much more r e l a x i n g than d r i v i n g . 3) I might use the bus s e r v i c e more o f t e n i f i n f o r m a t i o n about 4) r o u t e s and schedules were e a s i e r to o b t a i n . 5 ) * I hate to be t i e d to f i x e d s c h e d u l e s f o r t r a v e l l i n g . I don't enjoy d r i v i n g v e r y much. 6) 7 ) * I have bad memories of p u b l i c t r a n s p o r t a t i o n elsewhere. I t i s important to me t h a t my home should be c l o s e to 8) bus r o u t e s . 9 ) * I have never bothered to f i n d out d e t a i l s of what p u b l i c t r a n s p o r t a t i o n s e r v i c e s are a v a i l a b l e around here. I would use p u b l i c t r a n s p o r t a t i o n a l o t more i f f a r e s 10) were lower. I c o u l d manage without a car f o r a few months i f I had t o . 11) 12)* I r e a l l y can't see much of a f u t u r e f o r p u b l i c t r a n s portation. 13)* I don't t h i n k t h e r e ' s a p a r k i n g problem i n our community. I have sometimes not t r i e d to use the bus because I d i d 14) not have the exact f a r e handy. The buses are c l e a n . 15) The bus d r i v e r s here are f r i e n d l y and courteous. 16) * Order  reversed.  ** These measures are based upon the e n t i r e sample of respondents ( e x c l u d i n g c a p t i v e u s e r s ) and the two o c c a s i o n a l u s e r c a t e g o r i e s are combined.  ASSOCIATION  r  (A) 2. 85  (B) 2. 71  (C) 2. 76  (D) 2. 88  (E) 2. 81  (F) 3. 40  2. 61 2. 95  2. 04 2. 75  2. 16 2. 76  1. 63 2. 17  1.20 2. 93  1. 76 0.338 <0. 0001 2. 52 -0.246 *0. 0001  3. 3. 4. 2.  3. 3. 4. 2.  34 17 78 39  3. 31 2. 85 3. 69 1. 83  3. 24 2. 49 3. 10 1. 79  3. 2. 2. 2.  63 62 07 37  34 51 01 22  3. 3. 3. 2.  30 87 92 24  0.008  n. s.  -0.116 *0. 06 -0.292 *0. 0001 -0.240 «0. 0001 -0.165 n. s.  3. 00  2. 44  2. 21  2. 18  1. 56  1. 42 -0.348 «0. 0001  3. 11  2. 73  2. 46  1.68  1. 63  1. 58 -0.400 <0. 0001  3. 90 2. 80  3. 79 2. 56  3. 53 2. 26  3. 92 2. 09  3. 70 1. 66  3. 61 -0.035 n. s. 2. 07 -0.218 <0. 0001  2. 14 2. 91  1. 87 2. 86  1. 99 3. 06  1. 48 2. 46  1. 26 2. 43  1. 89 -0.282 ^0.0001 2. 59 -0.094 n. s.  3. 77 2. 32 2. 43  3. 69 2. 04 2. 06  3. 49 1. 75 1. 82  3. 71 1. 45 1. 45  3. 56 1. 29 . 1.38  3. 73 -0.077 <0. 0001 1. 34 -0.469 <0.0001 1. 31 -0.454 <0. 0001  (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F)  Do not use, never have Do not use, have O c c a s i o n a l use, when have to O c c a s i o n a l use, by c h o i c e Regular use, by c h o i c e Regular use, no a l t e r n a t i v e  112.  was a d e f i n i t e d i f f e r e n c e i n a t t i t u d e between u s e r s and non-users. Even though the non-users were l e s s f a v o u r a b l e about t r a n s i t they d i d not completely  resist  the i d e a . T h i s can be seen from the low mean s c o r e s  g i v e n by these two non-user c l a s s e s to Q u e s t i o n Question  2 and Question  2 was d i r e c t e d to complete r e s i s t a n c e to p a t r o n i z e  no matter how much the s e r v i c e was improved. Q u e s t i o n  12.  transit  12 was about the  f u t u r e of p u b l i c t r a n s p o r t . (Refer to T a b l e 4.24.)  When comparison was made of the p e r c e p t i o n measures between the major user c l a s s e s , s i m i l a r r e s u l t s were found. (Refer to T a b l e 4.25.) On every c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , t r a n s i t u s e r s r a t e bus t r a v e l more f a v o u r a b l e  than  do non-users. The r e s u l t s were more s h a r p l y d e f i n e d when o n l y the r e g u l a r c h o i c e u s e r s and non-users were c o n s i d e r e d . Among the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , where the d i f f e r e n c e i n r a t i n g s between the two user groups i s p a r t i c u l a r l y marked, a r e 'convenience', t r a v e l ' . The c h o i c e r i d e r s  'enjoyment', ' r e l i a b i l i t y ' and 'cost of  (both o c c a s i o n a l and r e g u l a r ) gave much more  f a v o u r a b l e r a t i n g s to the t h r e e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which were g e n e r a l l y r a t e d the lowest. These t h r e e items were 'convenience', 'speed'  'enjoyment' and  on both commute and non-commute t r i p s . Even though the r a t i n g s  g i v e n by non-users were lower than those g i v e n by u s e r s , none of the s c o r e s g i v e n were  unfavourable.  In summary, one can say t h a t t r a n s i t was accepted t i e s , and o n l y a few (8%) were completely  i n these  small  against using t r a n s i t  communii n the  future.  Only 15% d i d not c o n s i d e r t r a n s i t as a p o s s i b l e a l t e r n a t i v e i f they were without  the use of t h e i r c a r s . A l l p e r c e p t i o n a t t r i b u t e s were  TABLE 4.24 ASSOCIATION BETWEEN TRANSIT USAGE AND ATTITUDE FACTORS ASSOCIATION  % 1) The idea of car-pooling appeals to me. 2)* I would never t r a v e l regularly by any form of public transportation, no matter how much they improved the service. 3) Travelling by bus i s so much more relaxing than d r i v i n g . 4) I might use the bus service more often i f information about routes and schedules were easier to obtain. 5)* I hate to be t i e d to fixed schedules f o r t r a v e l l i n g . 6) I don't enjoy d r i v i n g very much. 7)* I have bad memories of public transportation elsewhere. 8) It i s important to me that my home should be close to bus routes. 9 ) * I have never bothered to find out d e t a i l s of what public transportation services are available around here. 10) I would use public transportation a l o t more i f fares were lower. 11) I could manage without a car for a few months i f I had to. 12)* I r e a l l y can't see much of a future f o r public transportation. 13)* I don't think there's a parking problem i n our community. 14) I have sometimes not t r i e d to use the bus because I did not have the exact fare handy. 15) The buses are clean. 16) The bus drivers here are f r i e n d l y and courteous.  0.008 -0.338 -0.246  >•* n. s. ^0.0001  r  ASSOCIATION 0.064  X  4 n. s.  *0.0001  -0.714 0.518  ^0.0001 -tO.0001  -0.116 *0.06 -0.292 <0.0001 -0.240 ^0.0001 -0.165 n. s. -0.348 *0.0001  -0.156 -0.526 -0.481 -0.381 -0.644  n. s. *0.0001 <0.0001 -£0.002 <0.0001  -0.400 < 0 . 0 0 0 1 -0.035 n. s. . -0.218 <r 0.0001 -0.282 <0.0001 -0.094 n. s.  -0.625 -0.044 -0.538 -0.634 -0.192  *0.0001 n. s. *0.0001 -iO.0001 n. s.  -0.077 ^0.0001 -0.469 <: 0.0001 -0.454 rfO.0001  -0.080 <0.0001 -0.699 *0.0001 -0.672 <0.0001  * Orders reversed. * These measures are based upon the entire sample of respondents (excluding captive users and the two occasional user categories have been combined). 2 These measures are based upon a sub-sample of regular choice t r a n s i t users and non-users; occasional are excluded and the two non-user categories are combined.  users  TABLE 4 . 2 5 MEAN SCORES FOR PERCEPTION ITEMS BY TRANSIT USAGE A S S O C I A T I O N ITEMS  (E0  (A)  Safety Comfort Convenience Enj oyment Reliability Punctuality Speed on Commute T r i p s Speed on NonCommute T r i p s Cost o f T r a v e l  54 17 86 01 98 08  (C)  (D)  (E)  (F)  (ALL)  1. 2. 2. 3. 2. 2.  1. 1. 1. 2. 1. 1.  1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1.  39 81 56 99 63 60  1.43 2.21 2.10 2.29 1.57 1.72  1.55 2.05 2.45 2.72 1.88 1.95  -0.102 -0.145 -0.302 -0.217 -0.189 -0.138  N.S. <: 0 . 0 0 3 ^ 0.0001 ^0.0001 ^0.0001 ^ 0.028  -0.330 -0.376 -0.69 -0.513 -0.457 -0.382  N.S. i0.002 ^0.0001 ^ 0.0001 * 0.0001 -c-0.009  <0.002  -0.375  <r 0 . 0 0 0 2  -0.366 -0.423  z 0.0031 < 0.0004  ( I )  1. 64 1. 99 2 . 67 2 . 94 2 . 01 2 . 02  1. 2. 2. 3. 1. 2.  2 . 98  2 . 94  3 . 20  2 . 61  2 . 42  2.95  2.87  -0.134  2 . 98 2 . 28  2 . 89 2 . 29  3 . 14 2 . 53  2 . 61 1 . 97  2 . 42 1. 76  2.84 2.27  2.84 2.20  -0.144 -0.148  69 28 73 22 19 30  45 85 95 18 58 68  (A)  Do not use, never have  (B)  Do not use, have  (C)  O c c a s i o n a l use, when have to  (D)  O c c a s i o n a l use, by  (E)  Regular by c h o i c e  (F)  Regular,  (I)  E x c l u d i n g c a p t i v e u s e r s and two o c c a s i o n a l user c a t e g o r i e s are combined.  TC*  * 0.0023 <- 0 . 0 3 5  choice  no a l t e r n a t i v e  (II) Based on a sub-sample o f r e g u l a r c h o i c e t r a n s i t u s e r s and non-users, o c c a s i o n a l users a r e excluded and the two non-user c a t e g o r i e s are combined.  115.  r a t e d f a v o u r a b l e . The  c h o i c e r i d e r s g e n e r a l l y had  the most  favourable  r a t i n g s f o r a l l p e r c e p t i o n a t t r i b u t e s about t r a n s i t . The most pronounced d i f f e r n e c e s i n r a t i n g s between c h o i c e and items  such as  'convenience',  captive/non-users  'enjoyment' and  'speed'. One  were f o r  can  conclude  t h a t the c h o i c e r i d e r s are u s u a l l y more s a t i s f i e d w i t h t r a n s i t e i t h e r the c a p t i v e u s e r s or the non-users. I t was usage was  a l s o found  than  that  transit  r e l a t e d to ones a t t i t u d e about t r a n s i t and h i s p e r c e p t i o n of  the a t t r i b u t e s c o n c e r n i n g  bus  travel.  116.  4.2.4  The E f f e c t i v e n e s s of T r a n s i t on  In Reducing R e s i d e n t s ' Dependence  Automobile  There a r e two  i s s u e s t o be addressed. The f i r s t  t r a n s i t and the second i s the impact of t r a n s i t  i s the a v a i l a b i l i t y of i n reducing people's  dependence on the automobile. R e s u l t s from both passenger  survey and  the  household survey were used to p r o v i d e the needed e v i d e n c e .  R e s u l t s from the passenger on the c i t y ) of a l l t r a n s i t f o r t r i p making  (either  survey show t h a t between 35% to 50%  (depending  u s e r s would have to depend on the automobile  as d r i v e r or passenger) i f t r a n s i t was  not  a v a i l a b l e . The household survey a l s o p r o v i d e s some e v i d e n c e of the a v a i l a b i l i t y of t r a n s i t  to a l l r e s i d e n t s i n small c i t i e s .  I t was  more than 90% of the r e s i d e n t s i n the. t h r e e s m a l l c i t i e s  found  that  surveyed had  r e a s o n a b l e a c c e s s to a bus stop ( i . e . w i t h i n the q u a r t e r - m i l e l i m i t ) and 75% of a l l workers had the c h o i c e of t a k i n g the bus to work i f they wanted t o . The l a t e r t r a v e l was  f i n d i n g s show t h a t an a l t e r n a t i v e to automobile  p r o v i d e d to at l e a s t  t h r e e - q u a r t e r s of the p o p u l a t i o n f o r  work and other purposes, and the former f i n d i n g s p r o v i d e the e v i d e n c e that t r a n s i t  reduced some p e o p l e ' s dependence on the automobile mode.  In o r d e r t o show the impact of t r a n s i t  on r e d u c i n g dependence on the  auto mode some measures must be i d e n t i f i e d .  One  of them i s household  car-ownership l e v e l . About 5% of the r e s i d e n t s surveyed responded transit  had a f f e c t e d the l e v e l of car-ownership i n t h e i r household,  another 6% responded  t h a t i t was  o r n e r s h i p l e v e l s might 4.27).  that and  p r o b a b l e or p o s s i b l e t h a t t h e i r c a r -  be reduced due to t r a n s i t  (Table 4.26  and T a b l e  117.  TABLE 4.26 DOES TRANSIT AFFECT CAR OWNERSHIP? KITIMAT  TRAIL  PENTICTON  ALL  Yes  5%  6%  3%  5%  No  95%  94%  97%  95%  100%  100%  100%  100%  Total  TABLE 4.27 WILL CAR-OWNERSHIP LEVEL BE REDUCED IN FUTURE? Probably  3%  Possibly  3%  P r o b a b l y Not  80%  Don't Know  5%  Not S t a t e d  9%  Total  100%  118.  In summary, t r a n s i t significantly,  had not a f f e c t e d the l e v e l of car-ownership  even though about t h r e e - q u a r t e r s of the p o p u l a t i o n  c o u l d r e a c h most of the a c t i v i t y c e n t r e s and work l o c a t i o n s by  transit.  119. 4.2.5  The  Impact of M a r k e t i n g  consumer-oriented approach to marketing t r a n s i t was  T r a n s i t Agency s i n c e i t s i n c e p t i o n . have to know about the s e r v i c e and schedules and Since ing  f a r e s etc.) before  t r a n s i t was  campaign was  a new  The  p r i n c i p l e was  be a b l e to use  adopted by  t h a t people would  i t ( i . e . knowing  the  they adopted the i d e a of u s i n g i t .  i d e a i n most s m a l l c i t i e s i n B.C.,  c a r r i e d out d u r i n g  s t a r t - u p of the new  weeks of a d v e r t i s i n g on the r a d i o s .  an a d v e r t i s -  systems.  i n c l u d e d a f u l l page advertisement i n the newspapers and  out  the  This  at l e a s t  two  T i m e - t a b l e s were e i t h e r m a i l e d  to the r e s i d e n t s or were d i s t r i b u t e d a t major a c t i v i t y  centres,  such as shopping c e n t r e s , major department s t o r e s , p o s t - o f f i c e , r e c r e a t i o n c e n t r e s , c i t y h a l l and and  the l i b r a r y .  The  l o c a l r e s i d e n t s could Penticton  first  other day  t r y out  public places  of s e r v i c e was  the s e r v i c e .  such as  the h o s p i t a l  n o r m a l l y f r e e so  Both the C i t y of T r a i l  experienced t h i s type of marketing programme, w h i l e  D i s t r i c t of K i t i m a t had  that and  the  no a d v e r t i s i n g programme, except d u r i n g  the  times of s c h e d u l e changes.  T h i s s e c t i o n examines whether the marketing programme was informing  the r e s i d e n t s of new  the s e r v i c e and  s e r v i c e and  usage of t i m e - t a b l e s  has  successful in  the impact of knowledge about  on t r a n s i t use.  The  of marketing i s a l s o examined by comparing the knowledge and of those who  l i v e i n a c i t y w i t h a marketing programme v e r s u s  importance perception one  without.  Most of the marketing e f f o r t was  spent i n i n t r o d u c i n g the  transit  The  rather  to the l o c a l r e s i d e n t s . than p e r s u a s i v e .  In order  a d v e r t i s e m e n t s were  i d e a of p u b l i c informative  to a s s e s s whether the m a r k e t i n g  120. component of t h e T r a n s i t Programme i s a success o r n o t , one has t o address t h e f o l l o w i n g  issues.  1.  living  Are the r e s i d e n t s  i n the m a r k e t i n g - o r i e n t e d areas more  informed of t h e s e r v i c e than those l i v i n g  i n a r e a s w i t h no  marketing ? 2.  Do those l i v i n g transit  3.  i n the marketing a r e a s have a b e t t e r  opinion of  than t h e ones without t h e marketing exposure?  I s t h e marketing  e f f o r t necessary?  I s i t worth i t ?  Answers t o t h e above c a n p r o v i d e some b a s i s  to judge whether t h e market-  i n g component of t h e T r a n s i t Programme was e f f e c t i v e and whether i t was n e c e s s a r y and worth the c o s t and e f f o r t .  121.  1)  Success of Marketing  Programme i n Informing  Residents  of the S e r v i c e  Almost a l l respondents i n a l l c i t i e s knew t h e r e was bus s e r v i c e i n the community, w h i l e o n l y 44% knew the day-time f r e q u e n c i e s and o n l y 19% knew those f o r the evening. ures of t h e i r t r a n s i t and  Over 70% of the respondents knew the f a r e s t r u c t systems. Over 85% knew t h e i r bus stop l o c a t i o n s  o n l y 8% d i d not know where the stops were. (Table 4.28)  Approximately  70% of a l l respondents knew where t o o b t a i n f u r t h e r  t i o n concerning  the s e r v i c e . The t h r e e major sources  g i v e n as the C i t y H a l l ,  informa-  o f i n f o r m a t i o n were  the C i t y Bus Company and t h e phone book.(Table 4.29)  About 63% o f respondents i n d i c a t e d t h a t they had bus t i m e t a b l e s a t home, w h i l e o n l y 35% o f those who had t i m e t a b l e s s a i d they used them r e g u l a r l y or o c c a s i o n a l l y , and 47% d i d not o f f e r any response.  Most responded t h a t  they d i d not use t i m e t a b l e s because they d i d not use the s e r v i c e . The major d e t e r r e n t s f o r u s i n g t i m e t a b l e s were c i t e d a s : -  do not know where to o b t a i n them; cannot understand  -  a l r e a d y know found  them;  schedule;  t i m e t a b l e u n r e l i a b l e and not u p - t o - d a t e ;  ask f r i e n d s i n s t e a d .  In g e n e r a l , people were q u i t e i g n o r a n t of the frequency  of s e r v i c e , but  the m a j o r i t y of them knew where to o b t a i n f u r t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n  concerning  ther s e r v i c e .  Over 50% had seen o r heard a d v e r t i s i n g on t r a n s i t have seen or heard  (Table 4.30). Most  about the bus s e r v i c e b e f o r e the s e r v i c e was s t a r t e d .  122. TABLE  4.28  KNOWLEDGE ABOUT BUS SERVICE IN COMMUNITY  Know Of  Don't Know Of  U  n  s  u  r  Existence  97%  1%  2%  Daytime Frequency  44%  26%  30%  Evening  19%  39%  42%  Frequency  e  Fare  70%  8%  22%  Stop L o c a t i o n  87%  6%  7%  How To O b t a i n F u r t h e r Information  70%  24%  6%  TABLE 4.29  SOURCES OF INFORMATION ON BUS SERVICE  C i t y Bus Company  26.8%  City Hall  24.1%  Phone Book  7.2%  Misuse  5.5%  Chamber of Commerce  3.9%  Bus D r i v e r  3.2%  Other Bus Users  2.2%  Phone Number on Bus S i g n  2.2%  O b t a i n Bus T i m e t a b l e s  1.7%  Look on Bus Schedule f o r Phone Number  1.2%  H o t e l or T r a n s i t I n f o r m a t i o n  0.8%  Others  0.8%  No Answer  20. 6%  124.  T h i s was  due  to the a d v e r t i s i n g programme sponsored by  T r a n s i t Agency b e f o r e  and  during  of them i n d i c a t e d t h a t they had paper and  on the r a d i o - the two  a d v e r t i s i n g during  Contrary Trail  start-ups.  to e x p e c t a t i o n s ,  and  s t a r t - u p of s e r v i c e s . Approximately  medias used f o r the  (Table  respondents r e s i d i n g i n the  marketing-oriented  g e n e r a l l y b e t t e r informed  of t r a n s i t  services in their  r e s i d e n t s were more knowledgeable about t h e i r t r a n s i t  T h i s awareness may  postal-walk T h i s was  areas.  system than  be due  stop l o c a t i o n s than the P e n t i c t o n r e s i d e n t s . to the f a c t t h a t the K i t i m a t system was  a b l i s h e d t h r e e years b e f o r e table possession  than  P e n t i c t o n , but K i t i m a t r e s i d e n t s were more knowledgeable  about frequency, f a r e s and  Trail.  institutional  4.31)  P e n t i c t o n s e r v i c e areas were not  both K i t i m a t and  90%  heard or seen a d v e r t i s i n g i n the news-  K i t i m a t r e s i d e n t s about a l l a s p e c t s Trail  the P r o v i n c i a l  the P e n t i c t o n system. The  i n T r a i l was  mail-out  above average and may  of t i m e t a b l e s  during  i n c i d e n c e of  be a s c r i b e d to  s t a r t - u p and  esttimethe  schedule changes.  a l s o r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the h i g h l e v e l of t i m e t a b l e usage i n (Table  In summary, no  4.32)  c o n c l u s i v e statement can be made on whether the marketing  program i s s u c c e s s f u l i n i n f o r m i n g  r e s i d e n t s of the s e r v i c e . Knowledge  of the s e r v i c e might have been gained  through coverage by  the news  media r a t h e r than the a d v e r t i s e m e n t s i n the newspapers or on the r a d i o .  TABLE 4.30  SEEN OR HEARD ADVERTISEMENTS  Yes  53.4%  No  27.3%  Unsure  14.6%  No Response  4.8%  TABLE 4.31  WHEN?  SEEN ADVERTISING  No Response  61.0%  When S e r v i c e S t a r t e d  17.1%  Before the Service Started  6.5%  A f t e r t h e s e r v i c e has been i n f o r a While  4.2%  Regularly  2.5%  Recently  2.2%  Past  2.3%  6-12 Months  When Bus Times Changed  1.5%  Unsure  2.7%  TABLE  4.32  KNOWLEDGE OF TRANSIT VS. CITY  % Knowing KITIMAT  TRAIL  PENTICTON  About Frequency  (Day)  51%  65%  42%  About Frequency  (Night)  35%  4%  27%  Fares  75%  90%  62%  Stop L o c a t i o n  91%  97%  89%  YES TO KITIMAT  TRAIL  PENTICTON  P o s s e s s i o n o f Timetable?  56%  86%  42%  Frequent Use o f Timetalbe?  12%  39%  19%  O c c a s i o n a l Use of Timetable?  39%  40%  41%  127.  2)  Knowledge and P e r c e p t i o n s of Those Who M a r k e t i n g Versus One  Live i n a C i t y with  Without  The knowledge and p e r c e p t i o n measures of those respondents l i v i n g i n T r a i l and P e n t i c t o n ( w i t h marketing program) are compared w i t h those living  i n K i t i m a t (without m a r k e t i n g ) . T a b l e 4 . 3 3 shows that  residents  i n T r a i l and P e n t i c t o n were more aware of the s e r v i c e than those  living  i n K i t i m a t . However, the r e l a t i o n s h i p between knowledge of the s e r v i c e and a d v e r t i s i n g i s not s t r o n g .  The p e r c e p t i o n measures of those who  l i v e i n K i t i m a t were compared w i t h  i n T r a i l and P e n t i c t o n . (Table 4 . 3 4 ) .  those who  live  non-users  i n the marketing a r e a s ( T r a i l and P e n t i c t o n ) c o n s t a n t l y r a t e d  bus t r a v e l more f a v o u r a b l e than s i m i l a r groups  o  Both u s e r s and  i n K i t i m a t . R a t i n g s by  the r e g u l a r u s e r s of the two a r e a s (marketing and non-marketing) were d i s p l a y e d i n g r a p h i c a l form i n F i g u r e 4 . 6 to h i g h l i g h t  the d i f f e r e n c e  i n r a t i n g s between the two a r e a s . D i f f e r e n c e s i n r a t i n g s a r e s t r o n g e r among the user group  than among the non-user  group, as can be seen by  the h i g h e r gamma measures o c c u r r i n g f o r u s e r s . The marketing impact i s significant  f o r 'convenience',  T h i s means t h a t marketing may of  'enjoyment', ' r e l i a b i l i t y ' and  'punctuality'.  be used to i n f l u e n c e p e o p l e ' s p e r c e p t i o n  bus t r a v e l . Whether the i n c r e a s e i n p e o p l e ' s p e r c e p t i o n of bus  travel  i s worth the marketing e f f o r t remains t o be i n v e s t i g a t e d i n the next section.  3)  Is the M a r k e t i n g E f f o r t Necessary?  Is I t Worth I t ?  T a b l e 4 . 3 5 shows t h a t t h e r e i s a s t r o n g r e l a t i o n s h i p between t r a n s i t usage and knowledge of t r a n s i t  s e r v i c e s . A s i m i l a r r e l a t i o n s h i p was  found  TABLE 4.33 IMPACT OF ADVERTISING ON KNOWLEDGE ( K i t i m a t v e r s u s T r a i l and P e n t i c t o n )  Association  r Seen o r Heard A d v e r t i s i n g  -0 .415  * 0.001  Possession o f Timetable  -0 .398  * 0.001  Use  -0 .383  - 0.001  E x i s t e n c e o f Bus S e r v i c e  -0 .177  N.S.  Frequency o f S e r v i c e (Day)  -0 .161  0.001  Fare  -0 .257  ^ 0.001  Stop L o c a t i o n  -0 .285  0.001  o f Timetable  NOTE:  Negative gamma means t h a t t h e r e i s p o s t i v e impact, w h i l e p o s i t i v e gamma means t h e r e i s no impact.  TABLE A.34 BUS TRAVEL RATINGS BY TRANSIT USAGE CLASS AND BY AREA  MEAN RATINGS BY NON-USERS  Kitimat  Penticton & Trail  Safety  1.65  1.55  -0.127  Comfort  2.14  2.08  Convenience  3.17  Enj oyment  MEAN RATINGS BY USERS Penticton & Trail  n.s.  1.55  1.30  -0.106  n.s.  -0.060  n.s.  2.24  1.56  -0.416  n.s.  2.56  -0.242  <0.02  2.13  1.32  -0.574  ^0.04  3.30  2.82  -0.276  2.52  1.79  -0.448  < 0.01  Reliability  2.09  1.93  -0.114  2.13  1.39  -0.525  ^ 0.05  Punctuality  2.23  1.95  -0.206  2.19  1.29  -0.740  * 0.001  Speed  (Commute)  3.25  2. 77  -0.254  8.10  2.02  -0.463  * 0.03  Speed  (Non-Commute)  3.12  2.77  -0.227  2.90  2.11  -0.462  n.s.  2.37  2.21  -0.078  2.38  1.56  -0.539  *0.03  Attributes  Cost o f T r a v e l  NOTE:  N e g a t i v e gamma means t h a t t h e r e on p e r c e p t i o n s o f s e r v i c e .  Association  Association  Kitimat  Perception  *  0.001 n.s.  * 0.05 n.s, 0.02 n.s.  i s impact o f marketing  JL  A  FIGURE  4.6  RATINGS OF.BUS TRAVEL BY REGULAR USERS SERVED IN (A) MARKETING ORIENTED AREAS (B) NON-MARKETING ORIENTED AREAS safety  comfort  convenience  enj oyment  reliability  punctuality speed on commute t r i p speed on -commute t r i p cost of travel  (A)  (B)  TABLE 4.35 KNOWLEDGE OF TRANSIT SERVICES BY DEGREE OF USAGE ASSOCIATION DO NOT USE NEVER HAVE  DO NOT USE HAVE USED BEFORE  OCCASIONAL* USERS  REGULAR USERS BY CHOICE  1  A*  Have Heard o r Seen T r a n s i t Advertising  55%  58%  56%  58%  -0.015  n.s.  Possess a T i m e t a b l e  42%  54%  73%  90%  -0.488  ^0.001  Know the Frequency of S e r v i c e (Day)  36%  44%  62%  79%  -0.460  ^0.001  Know the Frequency of S e r v i c e (Night)  17%  17%  26%  46%  -0.312  ^0.0001  Know the Fare  47%  64%  91%  97%  -0.690  ^ 0.0001  Know the Stop L o c a t i o n  85%  92%  94%  99%  -0.397 ^ 0.001  NOTE:  Regular, No A l t e r n a t i v e Users a r e excluded.  *  O c c a s i o n a l Users  (both 'Choice' and 'When Have To') a r e combined.  N e g a t i v e gamma supports the statement t h a t knowledge i s r e l a t e d to t r a n s i t and p o s i t i v e ones c o n t r a d i c t the statement.  usage  132.  by L o v e l o c k i n the survey conducted i n the Bay Area  . P o s s e s s i o n and  frequency o f t i m e t a b l e usage were a l s o found to be a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t r a n s i t usage.  (Table 4.35 and T a b l e 4.36). However, the r e s u l t s d i d not i n d i c a t e  which comes f i r s t  - a cause and e f f e c t  if  people use the s e r v i c e because  of  a d v e r t i s i n g ) or i f people know about  question. I t i s d i f f i c u l t  they know about  to judge  i t ( i . e . the impact  the s e r v i c e because  they use i t .  I t was a l s o found t h a t the r e l a t i o n s h i p between a d v e r t i s i n g o r t h e aware-.', ness of a d v e r t i s i n g and t r a n s i t usage i s n o t s i g n i f i c a n t .  Both of these f i n d i n g s p r e c l u d e any c o n c l u s i o n s on t h e v a l u e of the marketing program. Since i t i s common knowledge t h a t people have t o know about t h e s e r v i c e b e f o r e they can use i t , i t i s n e c e s s a r y to p r o v i d e some form o f i n f o r m a t i o n campaign to promote the use o f t r a n s i t . Due to the  l i m i t e d e x t e n t o f t h e marketing e f f o r t i n s m a l l c i t i e s ,  difficult  t o g e n e r a l i z e t h e v a l u e o f marketing i n t h i s  i t is  report.  133.  TABLE 4.36 FREQUENCY OF USE OF TIMETABLE VERSUS TRANSIT USAGE  Use  T r a n s i t Usage  of T i m e t a b l e  (C)  .(D)  #  8%  54%  37%  100%  1%  13%  73%  13%  100%  1%  26%  58%  15%  100%  25%  29%  39%  8%  100%  (A)  (B)  Frequently  1%  Occasionally Once o r Twice Never  Association:  Total  = -0.535  7^* = ^o.oooi  (A)  Do n o t use, never have  (B)  Do not use, have  (C)  O c c a s i o n a l use  (D)  Regular  use, by c h o i c e  134.  4.2.6  Requirements  f o r T r a n s i t In Small C i t i e s and What  T r a n s i t Can and Cannot Do  The B. C. approach  t o marketing  t r a n s i t was  based on the b e l i e f t h a t know-  ledge and p e r c e p t i o n has an i n f l u e n c e on t r a n s i t usage. I t was n e c e s s a r y to improve  found  people's p e r c e p t i o n about bus t r a v e l and  i n f o r m them  of the v a r i o u s a s p e c t s of the s e r v i c e . The a n a l y s i s i n the l a s t shows that marketing has not had any d i c e r n a b l e impact I t was  not c l e a r whether t h i s was  due  section  on t r a n s i t  usage.  to the l i m i t e d e f f o r t of marketing  or t h a t people's requirements f o r t r a n s i t i n s m a l l c i t i e s a r e d i f f e r e n t from those i n the l a r g e r urban a r e a s (such as t h e San F r a n c i s c o Bay Area, as i n L o v e l o c k ' s s t u d y ) . The requirements of t r a n s i t i n s m a l l c i t i e s can be e v a l u a t e d from the f o l l o w i n g  The r e s u l t s from the household  findings.  survey show t h a t a p p r o x i m a t e l y 75%  of a l l  respondents had p e r s o n a l use of c a r 'always' or 'most of the time' ( T a b l e 4.37)  and the m a j o r i t y of them were from m u l t i p l e c a r f a m i l i e s . An i n v e r s e  r e l a t i o n s h i p was  found between usage of c a r or c a r ownership  and  transit  usage. T h i s shows t h a t t r a n s i t has not been a b l e to a p p e a l t o the c a r u s e r s or owners. The low l e v e l of t r a n s i t usage to work (8%) transit  indicates  that  i s not e s p e c i a l l y needed f o r work t r i p s i n s m a l l c i t i e s . The  peak-to-base  r a t i o s i n small c i t y services  (as documented e a r l i e r )  shows the low demand f o r the work t r i p by t r a n s i t . The absence and h i g h p a r k i n g charges which i s common i n l a r g e r c i t i e s non-existent i n small c i t i e s ) i s believed low performance  Therrequirements  of t r a n s i t  i n attracting  and  also  of congestion  (but v i r t u a l l y  to be one of t h e r r e a s o n s f f o r :t.ae commuters.  f o r t r a n s i t have found to be m a i n l y r e l a t e d  m o b i l i t y to the e a r l e s s  low  to p r o v i d i n g  the s e m i - c a p t i v e u s e r s from one-car  families  135.  TABLE 4.37(a)  AVAILABILITY OF CAR FOR PERSONAL USE  Yes Always  60%  Most o f the time  15%  P a r t o f the time  6%  Occasionally  6%  Never  3%  Total  100%  ASSOCIATION OF CAR USAGE WITH TRANSIT USAGE *  0.553  * Exclusive of captive  users.  TABLE 4.37(b) TRANSIT USAGE VERSUS CAR-OWNERSHIP  NUMBER OF CARS IN HOUSEHOLD  USE OF TRANSIT  NONE  ONE  TWO  THREE  FOUR PLUS  TOTAL  Don't Use, Never Have  16 ( 7%)  86 ( 35%)  104 ( 42%)  22 ( 9%)  17 ( 7%)  245 (22.4%)  Don't Use, Have  20 ( 7%)  117 ( 39%)  121 ( 41%)  24 ( 8%)  16 ( 5%)  298 (27.2%)  O c c a s i o n a l I f Have To  20 ( 11%)  81 ( 45%)  61 ( 34%)  11 ( 6%)  8 ( 4%)  181 (16.5%)  O c c a s i o n a l By Choice  20 ( 9%)  105 ( 48%)  67 ( 31%)  20  9%)  8 ( 4%)  220 (20.1%)  R e g u l a r By C h o i c e  21 ( 22%)  41  42%)  26 ( 27%)  7 ( 7%)  2 ( 2%)  97 ( 8.9%)  R e g u l a r , No A l t e r n a t i v e  19 ( 36%)  18 ( 34%)  15 ( 28%)  1 (1 .9%)  0 (0 .0%)  53 ( 4.8%)  116 (10.6%)  448 (41.0%)  394 (36.0%)  85 (7.8%)  51 (4.7%)  TOTAL  Association  - 0.210 ^  0.0001 2  =  (  (•  1094 (100%)  137.  for  'work' and 'shopping' purposes. I t i s a l s o r e q u i r e d as an a l t e r n a t i v e  to automobile use and thus lowers some people's dependence on t h e a a u t o m o - i l ^ bile.  T h i s i s t h e r o l e t h a t t r a n s i t has been r e q u i r e d to p l a y i n s m a l l  cities.  The s u b s t i t u t i o n e f f e c t o f t r a n s i t f o r investment i n the p r i v a t e  mode has not been m a t e r i a l i z e d i n t h e s m a l l c i t i e s  i n B. C. due to t h e  low l e v e l of usage by commuters. The i n h e r e n t d i s a d v a n t a g e of t r a n s i t ( i t i s slower and more i n c o n v e n i e n t than the p r i v a t e mode) i s d i f f i c u l t and expensive t o overcome i n s m a l l c i t i e s even though some c i t i e s a r e - c . i compact and work l o c a t i o n s a r e c l u s t e r e d . At most, p u b l i c t r a n s i t i s mainly u t i l i z e d  as a r e l i e f or stand-by s e r v i c e and not t o be c o m p e t i t i v e  w i t h t h e p r i v a t e mode f o r t h e j o u r n e y to work.  138.  4.3  SUMMARY  T h i s c h a p t e r has examined the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t r a n s i t u s e r s , t h e i r demands and u t i l i z a t i o n o f the s e r v i c e and t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e community.-withihl. which t h e s e r v i c e o p e r a t e s . On board passenger household a t t i t u d i n a l survey were undertaken a f t e r s e r v i c e to o b t a i n t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n . The f o l l o w i n g was found about and  surveys and  improvements t r a n s i t users  s e r v i c e s from t h e on board s u r v e y s : The  socio-economic  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t r a n s i t users i n small c i t i e s  does n o t d i f f e r w i d e l y i n s p i t e o f l a r g e d i f f e r e n c e s i n s e r v i c e _ levels. -  The young, women and t h e aged were primary u s e r s o f t h e s e r v i c e .  -  Some u s e r s d i d not have a c c e s s t o a c a r but were not n e c e s s a r i l y from low income households.  -  Work, shopping and s c h o o l were the predominant Small c i t i e s have lower peak-to-base because  t h e work t r i p by t r a n s i t  trip  purposes.  r a t i o s than l a r g e  cities  i s n o t as important i n s m a l l  c i t i e s as i t i s i n l a r g e c i t i e s . T h i s i s due to t h e l a c k of c o n g e s t i o n and t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y o f cheap p a r k i n g i n s m a l l c i t i e s . There i s a d i r e c t r e l a t i o n s h i p between r i d e r s h i p l e v e l s and t h e amount of s e r v i c e ; p r o v i d e d .  The household a t t i t u d i n a l survey p r o v i d e d the f o l l o w i n g o b s e r v a t i o n s : -  Approximately  13% o f the a d u l t p o p u l a t i o n i n s m a l l c i t i e s a r e  r e g u l a r u s e r s of t r a n s i t , : 5% o f which a r e c a p t i v e and 8% a r e choice -  riders.  The a v a i l a b i l i t y o f o t h e r t r a n s p o r t a t i o n  (auto or t h e auto  passenger mode) i s the dominant r e a s o n non-users  do n o t choose  o  .  139.  the  t r a n s i t mode.  About 93% of the respondents l i v e d w i t h i n a q u a r t e r m i l e of the bus s t o p , however, o n l y 50% thought the  i t was  convenient to take  bus to work.  Choice r i d e r s  are u s u a l l y more s a t i s f i e d w i t h t r a n s i t  than  e i t h e r c a p t i v e u s e r s or non-users. G e n e r a l l y , the a t t i t u d e to t r a n s i t by both u s e r s and non-users i s favourable. T r a n s i t has not a f f e c t e d the l e v e l of car-ownership  significant-  ly. I t was  not p o s s i b l e to conclude t h a t marketing had a p o s i t i v e  impact on t r a n s i t  use.  I t i s important to note t h a t p e r c e p t i o n s and a t t i t u d e s to t r a n s i t determined by surveys can sometimes be d i f f e r e n t That i s , people may  say t h a t t r a n s i t  from b e h a v i o u r .  i s good but a r e not w i l l i n g  to support the d e f i c i t . In s m a l l c i t i e s i n B. C. the  citizens  v o t e to support the t r a n s i t d e f i c i t s ( h a l f of the o p e r a t i n g deficit).  140.  FOOTNOTES  1.  S e r v i c e s u p p l i e d t o p r o v i d e a d d i t i o n a l c a p a c i t y r e q u i r e d t o handle excess demand. I t u s u a l l y does not f i t i n t o the r e g u l a r s c h e d u l e s or shown on the r e g u l a r schedule.  2.  F i e l d i n g , G. J . , G l a u t h i e r , R. E. and Lave, C. A., Performance I n d i c a t o r s F o r T r a n s i t Management, I n s t i t u t e of T r a n s p o r t a t i o n S t u d i e s and School of S o c i a l S c i e n c e s , U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a , I r v i n e , C a l i f o r n i a , January 1978. Drosdat, H.A., T r a n s i t Performance Measures: T h e i r S i g n i f i c a n c e i n L o c a l Funding A l l o c a t i o n , Ph.D. D i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f Washington, 1977.  3.  P e r a r a , Maximus H., The T r a n s i t Systems of Small C i t i e s i n O n t a r i o , Research Report No. 39, U n i v e r s i t y of T o r o n t o , York U n i v e r s i t y J o i n t Program i n T r a n s p o r t a t i o n , A p r i l 1977. Hutchinson, B. G., Unpublished r e s e a r c h p r o p o s a l , of Waterloo, Waterloo, O n t a r i o .  1977, U n i v e r s i t y  4.  T h i s i s not s u r p r i s i n g . Passenger volume i n c r e a s e s as long as passenger m i l e s i n c r e a s e u n t i l a c e r t a i n p o i n t when t r a n s i t cannot a t t r a c t more t r i p s or d i v e r t more t r i p s from the auto mode.  5.  L o v e l o c k , C h r i s t o p h e r H., Consumer O r i e n t e d Approaches t o M a r k e t i n g Urban T r a n s i t , DOT/UMTA Research Report No. 3, S t a n f o r d U n i v e r s i t y , March 1973, S t a n f o r d , C a l i f o r n i a .  6.  The survey d e s i g n proved t o be more than s a t i s f a c t o r y . A s i m i l a r survey methodology was used f o r a marketing study i n the Bay Area (Lovelock's study) the response r a t e was 70%.  7.  K i t i m a t , D i s t r i c t o f , K i t i m a t Townsite P l a n , March 1969.  8.  Lovelock,  9.  While c a l c u l a t i n g means and standard d e v i a t i o n s assumes i n t e r v a l s c a l e d p r o p e r t i e s i n the s c o r i n g which may not be e n t i r e l y j u s t i f i e d , i t n e v e r t h e l e s s p r o v i d e s a u s e f u l measure of the extent of agreement or disagreement w i t h each statement.  10.  Stanton, W i l l i a m J . , Fundamentals of M a r k e t i n g , T h i r d E d i t i o n , 1971, McGraw H i l l .  ibid.  141.  FOOTNOTES (continued)  11.  Krech, D a v i d , R i c h a r d S. C r u t c h f i e l d , and E g e r t o n L. B a l l a c h e y , I n d i v i d u a l i n S o c i e t y , McGraw H i l l Book Company, N.Y. 1962, Chapter 5, and D a n i e l K a t z , "The F u n c t i o n a l Approach t o the Study o f A t t i t u d e s " , P u b l i c O p i n i o n Q u a r t e r l y , Summer 1960, pp. 163-204.  12.  Lovelock,  ibid.  142.  CHAPTER FIVE PROGRAM EVALUATION  5.0  INTRODUCTION  The p r e c e e d i n g c h a p t e r s p r o v i d e d background i n f o r m a t i o n f o r the e v a l u a t i o n of the T r a n s i t Supply Program i n B. C .  The purpose of t h i s chapter i s t o  e v a l u a t e both the supply program and the i n s t i t u t i o n a l arrangement, the p u b l i c m a r k e t i n g agency, which implemented the program. The e v a l u a t i o n presented h e r e i n f o l l o w s a framework e s t a b l i s h e d by Weiss f o r a s s e s s i n g s o c i a l programs"'". T h i s chapter i s s t r u c t u r e d i n the f o l l o w i n g manner a c c o r d i n g t o Weiss' (i) (ii) (iii) (iv)  framework:  Determine the program g o a l s and objectives.' E s t a b l i s h c r i t e r i a f o r e v a l u a t i o n of the T r a n s i t  Program,  Measure how w e l l g o a l s have been a c h i e v e d , Determine the economic e f f i c i e n c y of the supply program and the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the f u n d i n g arrangement,  (v)  E v a l u a t e the implementation of the program through the p u b l i c marketing agency.  5.1  In  PROGRAM GOALS AND OBJECTIVES  B r i t i s h Columbia, Mr. Lorimer  1975)  ( M i n i s t e r of M u n i c i p a l A f f a i r s  (1972-  who was r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the T r a n s i t Program) made the f o l l o w i n g  2 statements about the d i r e c t i o n or purpose of the T r a n s i t Program . (i)  t o pursue a l t e r n a t i v e s t o automobile t r a v e l i n B. C , p a r t i c u l a r emphasis on p u b l i c t r a n s p o r t a t i o n . I t was that public t r a n s i t  (ii)  with felt  could  o f f e r a means of m o b i l i t y t o those w i t h o u t a c c e s s to an automobile such as the young, the e l d e r l y , those away from homes without c a r s and housewives  when the husband has the  f a m i l y c a r a t work. I t was a l s o b e l i e v e d t h a t a (iii)  successful transit  system c o u l d c o n t r i b u t e t o p o s t p o n i n g or  e l i m i n a t i n g the e x p e n d i t u r e of p u b l i c funds on new roadways and b r i d g e s and (iv)  c o u l d b r i n g i n d i r e c t b e n e f i t s such as the l e s s e n i n g of environmental p o l l u t i o n and the c o n s e r v a t i o n of energy reserves.  One primary and two secondary g o a l s can be i n f e r r e d from .".these statements (i)  The primary g o a l of the program was t o i n c r e a s e the m o b i l i t y of  (ii)  those who do not have access t o a c a r .  Two secondary g o a l s were t o p r o v i d e an a l t e r n a t i v e t o p u b l i c e x p e n d i t u r e s on the auto mode thereby c o n s e r v i n g l a n d and l i v a b i l i t y and  (iii)  decrease dependence on the p r i v a t e automobile.  Both the P r o v i n c i a l and l o c a l governments have not e s t a b l i s h e d any s p e c i f  144.  and c l e a r c r i t e r i a  to be used to judge the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the program.  B e s i d e s the s e r v i c e s t a n d a r d s (more l i k e were e n f o r c e d u n o f f i c i a l l y , the  i n d u s t r y ' s r u l e s - o f - t h u m b ) which  the T r a n s i t Agency has no c r i t e r i a by which  program can be a s s e s s e d . T h i s l a c k of measureable o b j e c t i v e s and  criteria  i s d i s c u s s e d i n the next s e c t i o n .  145.  5.2  CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION OF THE TRANSIT PROGRAM  The statements of the M i n i s t e r a r e of l i t t l e h e l p f o r e v a l u a t i o n purposes. An important step on the way t o e v a l u a t i n g government  programs i s t o  e s t a b l i s h a s e t of c r i t e r i a which can be used t o measure achievements. There a r e two s e t s o f c r i t e r i a which can be a p p l i e d i n t h i s  evaluation:  the  s o c i a l and t h e economic c r i t e r i a . The s o c i a l c r i t e r i a determine whether  the  program i s moving towards i t s s o c i a l g o a l s w h i l e t h e economic c r i t e r i a  are  used t o judge the economic e f f i c i e n c y  of t h e program and t o f l a g  problem areas of t h e f u n d i n g arrangement.  The success of the program must u l t i m a t e l y be determined by t h e government which should r e l a t e achievements as measured by the s o c i a l c r i t e r i a t o the  c o s t s as measured by ithe economic c r i t e r i a . Success o r f a i l u r e of t h e  program depends t o a g r e a t d e a l on t h e weights p l a c e d on the s o c i a l c r i t e r i a . The v a l u e p l a c e d on the s o c i a l c r i t e r i a a r e l a r g e l y  subjective  and t h e r e f o r e any e v a l u a t i o n must be s u b j e c t i v e .  The f o l l o w i n g a r e t h e s o c i a l c r i t e r i a which a r e examined h e r e i n f o r each of t h e t h r e e program g o a l s : 1.  M o b i l i t y f o r those without a c c e s s t o a c a r . (i) (ii)  What s e c t o r s of t h e community Does the community the  community  are affected?  t h i n k the s e r v i c e i s adequate ( t h a t i s ,  v o t e s l o c a l l y t o fund t r a n s i t  and t h e r e f o r e  should be s a t i s f i e d w i t h what they a r e paying (iii)  Do t h e needs f o r t r a n s i t of  2.  for)?  i n s m a l l B. C. c i t i e s match t h e g o a l s  the program?  C o n s e r v a t i o n of l a n d and l i v a b i l i t y . (i)  Is t r a n s i t  a more e f f i c i e n t mode i n terms of energy consumption?  146.  (ii)  Is t h e r e a r e d u c t i o n i n t r a f f i c  congestion  and  parking  requirements? (iii)  To what degree has  i n t e g r a t i o n of l a n d use p l a n n i n g  and  t r a n s p o r t p l a n n i n g been achieved? 3.  Reducing dependence on auto. (i) (ii)  What i s the extent Can if  (ill)  of s w i t c h and  people i n these  choice r i d i n g ?  s m a l l c i t i e s do without  t h e i r automobile  they have to?  Does t r a n s i t have any  impact on  auto-ownership?  Four economic c r i t e r i a were s e l e c t e d f o r e v a l u a t i o n purposes. They are l i s t e d below and The  criteria (i)  the reasons f o r t h e i r s e l e c t i o n are g i v e n i n S e c t i o n 5.4.1.  are:  c o s t r e c o v e r y , which i s d e f i n e d as the t o t a l o p e r a t i n g as a percentage of o p e r a t i n g c o s t and  i s considered  revenues  the b a s i c  measure of system p r o f i t a b i l i t y ; (ii)  d e f i c i t per c a p i t a , which i s d e f i n e d as t o t a l o p e r a t i n g d i v i d e d by t o t a l p o p u l a t i o n s e r v e d . While the c o s t standard  recovery  s e t s an upper l i m i t on s e r v i c e l e v e l s , the d e f i c i t  c a p i t a s e t s the maximum l e v e l of f i n a n c i a l support. an i n d i c a t i o n of the magnitude of d e f i c i t (iii)  Deficit  It  per  provides  i n c u r r e d by each c i t y ,  per r i d e i s d e f i n e d as the t o t a l o p e r a t i n g  d i v i d e d by the t o t a l number of passengers c a r r i e d (iv)  deficit  deficit in a  year.  Rides per c a p i t a i s d e f i n e d as t o t a l passengers c a r r i e d d i v i d e d by t o t a l p o p u l a t i o n served of t r a n s i t  i n the  and measures the market  community.  penetration  147.  5.3  ACHIEVEMENT OF GOALS  T h i s s e c t i o n p r e s e n t s a d i s c u s s i o n on the T r a n s i t Program's achievements i n terms of the s t a t e d g o a l s . These g o a l s were i n f e r r e d from p u b l i c s t a t e ments and were paraphased as f o l l o w s : (i)  t o i n c r e a s e the m o b i l i t y of those who do not have access t o a car;  (ii)  t o p r o v i d e an a l t e r n a t i v e t o p u b l i c e x p e n d i t u r e s  on the auto  mode thereby c o n s e r v i n g l a n d and l i v a b i l i t y ; (iii)  The  t o decrease  dependence on the p r i v a t e mode.  government p e r c e i v e d t h a t t h e r e were 'needs' t o be f u l f i l l e d and  t h e r e were 'requirements'  f o r meeting these needs. The 'needs' were  d e f i n e d as d e v e l o p i n g t r a n s i t  systems i n s m a l l c i t i e s  which were d e p r i v e d of a r e a s o n a b l e  (5,000 t o 70,000)  l e v e l of t r a n s i t s e r v i c e . The ' r e q u i r e -  ments' were t h a t s e r v i c e s should be s u b s i d i z e d t o a l e v e l e q u i v a l e n t t o the a c c e p t a b l e standards  s e t by the i n d u s t r y f o r b u i l t - u p urban a r e a s .  These standards were viewed as the r e a s o n a b l e  l e v e l s of s e r v i c e f o r s m a l l  communities. These standards were: (i)  T r a n s i t r o u t e s should focus on a c t i v i t y c e n t r e s i n the community.  (ii)  Day-time s e r v i c e frequency  i n b u i l t - u p urban areas should be  at l e a s t h o u r l y , but p r e f e r a b l y h a l f - h o u r l y , (iii)  A maximum w a l k i n g d i s t a n c e t o the bus stop i n a f u l l y b u i l t - u p urban area should be not more than a q u a r t e r m i l e ,  (iv)  Local transit  s e r v i c e s should be designed  t o connect w i t h  forms of p u b l i c t r a n s p o r t s e r v i n g the r e g i o n .  other  148.  E v a l u a t i n g the v a l u e o f the investment s u b j e c t i v e because i t i s d i f f i c u l t  i n t r a n s i t has t o be p a r t l y  t o q u a n t i f y the ' q u a l i t y of l i f e '  f a c t o r s which a r e a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t r a n s i t  3  . I n order t o conduct  a  s u b j e c t i v e e v a l u a t i o n t h r e e p a r t i c i p a n t s ' p o i n t s of view a r e c o n s i d e r e d . These p a r t i c i p a n t s a r e : the u s e r , the community a t l a r g e , and the  4 government of  . The user of the s e r v i c e u s u a l l y r e p r e s e n t s the r a i s o n d ' e t r e  the s e r v i c e i t s e l f . The w e l f a r e of the u s e r s i s the major concern of  government. T h e r e f o r e i t i s important  t o know who uses the s e r v i c e , how  they p e r c e i v e the s e r v i c e and whether they f i n d the s e r v i c e adequate. I n the view o f government, i t i s important  t o know whether the s e r v i c e  i s g e n e r a l l y accepted by community r e s i d e n t s (both u s e r s and non-users) and whether t r a n s i t has a c t u a l l y served the m o b i l i t y - d i s a d v a n t a g e d . F i n d i n g s from passenger surveys and household used t o p r o v i d e the evidence  of the t r a n s i t  a t t i t u d i n a l surveys were  impacts.  T h i s s e c t i o n examines  the achievements o f the supply program i n terms of the s o c i a l s t a t e d i n the p r e v i o u s s e c t i o n .  criteria  149.  5.3.1  1.  Mobility  Objective  What s e c t o r of the community a r e a f f e c t e d ?  ( D e t a i l s are presented  i n S e c t i o n 4.2.1.)  The  household survey f i n d i n g s showed t h a t the young, the o l d and the  female p o p u l a t i o n were a f f e c t e d most. I t was a l s o found t h a t h a l f of the adult population  (that i s , population  over 18 y e a r s of age) used the  s e r v i c e . While 13% of the a d u l t p o p u l a t i o n were r e g u l a r u s e r s , out  o n l y 5%  of 13% were c a p t i v e . Approximately 37% o f these c a p t i v e u s e r s were  over 55 y e a r s of age.  2.  Does the community t h i n k the s e r v i c e i s adequate ( t h a t i s , the community v o t e s l o c a l l y t o fund t r a n s i t and t h e r e f o r e  should be  s a t i s f i e d w i t h what they a r e paying f o r ) ? ( D e t a i l s a r e p r e s e n t e d i n S e c t i o n 4.2.'2 and 4.2.3.)  The  f i n d i n g s from the surveys p r o v i d e d  the b a s i s t o b e l i e v e t h a t the  l e v e l s of s e r v i c e i n s m a l l c i t i e s were adequate i n terms o f coverage i n r e s i d e n t i a l o r i g i n s (93% of respondents l i v e d w i t h i n a q u a r t e r - m i l e  to a  bus  stop) but not so good i n terms of work or s c h o o l d e s t i n a t i o n s . About  23%  of the workers s t a t e d t h a t i t was i m p o s s i b l e  'Other t r a n s p o r t a t i o n '  t o take t r a n s i t  t o work.  (which most l i k e l y r e f e r s t o the 'automobile' o r  'auto passenger' mode) i s the dominant f a c t o r f o r the l a c k of i n t e r e s t i n the t r a n s i t mode.  T r a n s i t was found to be g e n e r a l l y accepted i n s m a l l c i t i e s , and o n l y a few  (8%) were c o m p l e t e l y a g a i n s t u s i n g  d i d not c o n s i d e r  transit  i n the f u t u r e . N e a r l y 15%  t r a n s i t as a v i a b l e a l t e r n a t i v e i f they were without  the use o f t h e i r c a r s f o r a month.  150.  The  c h o i c e r i d e r s g e n e r a l l y had  than the c a p t i v e and related  the most f a v o u r a b l e p e r c e p t i o n s of  non-users. I t was  a l s o found  to one's a t t i t u d e towards t r a n s i t and  a t t r i b u t e s concerning  bus  t h a t t r a n s i t usage  h i s p e r c e p t i o n of the  a v a i l a b i l i t y of a car f o r p e r s o n a l  In g e n e r a l , both the u s e r s ' and surveyed  Do  non-users' o p i n i o n of t r a n s i t i n s m a l l  the needs f o r t r a n s i t  to have f o r t h e i r  community.  i n s m a l l B. ,C. c i t i e s match the g o a l s of i n S e c t i o n 4.2.6.)  government at the o u t s e t of the t r a n s i t supply program d e c i d e d what  the needs o f s m a l l c i t i e s were without household and have found  on board  to be mainly  surveys  c a r r y i n g out any  study.  show t h a t the requirements  r e l a t e d to p r o v i d i n g m o b i l i t y to the e a r l e s s and  purposes. T h i s i s the major r o l e t h a t t r a n s i t To a l e s s e r degree i t was  found  fills  'shopping'  i n small  cities.  to be an a l t e r n a t i v e to automobile  low usage of t r a n s i t by commuters i s mainly  of the p r i v a t e auto and  The  for transit  the s e m i - c a p t i v e u s e r s from one-car f a m i l i e s f o r 'work' and  The  and  use.  the program? ( D e t a i l s a r e presented  The  ..-Z'ZJ:.  were f a v o u r a b l e . T h i s means t h a t the l o c a l r e s i d e n t s were  s a t i s f i e d w i t h what they voted  3.  was  t r a v e l to a c e r t a i n e x t e n t . However, the major  d e t e r r e n t to u s i n g t r a n s i t i s the l e v e l of household car-ownership  cities  transit  due  to the  use.  availability  the f r e e p a r k i n g a t work l o c a t i o n s i n s m a l l  c i t i e s . At most, p u b l i c t r a n s i t was  found  stand-by s e r v i c e f o r the c h o i c e r i d e r s and the p r i v a t e mode f o r the journey  to be u t i l i z e d as a r e l i e f not to be c o m p e t i t i v e  to work. I t can be s a i d t h a t  government's p e r c e p t i o n s of the needs f o r t r a n s i t  or  with  the  i n s m a l l c i t i e s were  c o r r e c t , t h a t i s , to p r o v i d e m o b i l i t y f o r those without  a c c e s s to an  auto.  151.  5.3.2 1.  'Conserving Land  and L i v a b i l l t y ' O b j e c t i v e  I s t r a n s i t a more e f f i c i e n t mode i n terms of energy  The o i l embargo of 1973-74 showed t h a t t h e r e are a few  consumption?  alternative  methods of c o n s e r v i n g energy: i)  Make fewer t r i p s ;  t h i s was  the s o l u t i o n w i d e l y adopted d u r i n g  the embargo. ii)  Adopt v e h i c l e s t h a t consume l e s s f u e l ; r i s i n g  fuel  prices  and government p r e s s u r e are pushing the v e h i c l e market i n this iii)  direction.  C a r - p o o l i n g ; c a r - p o o l i n g i s not v e r y p o p u l a r because i t l a c k s the a t t r a c t i v e f e a t u r e s of p r i v a t e automobile such as independence  iv)  Expand t r a n s i t  of movement and  travel,  privacy,  s e r v i c e ; f o r t h i s c o n s e r v a t i o n s t r a t e g y to  succeed the a d d i t i o n a l energy consumed by t r a n s i t must be l e s s than what the passengers who  s w i t c h to t r a n s i t  from  automobiles would o t h e r w i s e have consumed.  of bus f u e l consumption  i s complex due to the f o l l o w i n g r e a s o n s :  Deadheading m i l e s v a r y from r o u t e to r o u t e and from to system.  system  I t i s d i r e c t l y a r e s u l t of the l o c a t i o n of bus  garages. 'Switch r i d e r s ' , those who  s w i t c h from a l e s s energy  mode have to be d i s t i n g u i s h e d from who  'captive' r i d e r s ,  would not have t r a v e l l e d a t a l l i n :the absence  No d i r e c t energy s a v i n g s can be c o n t r i b u t e d to c a p t i v e r i d e r s . r i d e r s conserve almost a l l t h e i r d r i v i n g f u e l i f they occupy  of  efficient those transit.  Switch  excess  c a p a c i t y i n a bus t h a t i s r u n n i n g anyway to c a r r y c a p t i v e r i d e r s .  As  152.  Piper  ' i n h i s study on energy consumption  of d i f f e r e n t  t r a n s i t modes has  p o i n t e d out, when the bus i s f u l l , m a r g i n a l c a p t i v e r i d e r s cause a c o r r e s ponding  fuel  ' p e n a l t y ' i f they r e p l a c e a s w i t c h r i d e r . I f another  bus  i s put i n s e r v i c e to handle t h i s o v e r l o a d s i t u a t i o n , the m a r g i n a l consumption  of f u e l f o r t h i s e x t r a bus must be c o n s i d e r e d . However, i n  most cases i n s m a l l c i t i e s , o v e r l o a d s i t u a t i o n seldom o c c u r s . So i t can be assumed t h a t the l e v e l of s w i t c h r i d i n g r e p r e s e n t s the extent of energy s a v i n g s r e s u l t i n g from t r a n s i t . The survey f i n d i n g s i n d i c a t e o n l y about  5% to 18% of t r a n s i t  r i d e r s were former auto u s e r s . S i n c e t r a n s i t  accounts f o r not more than 8% of a l l t r i p s i n the community of t r a n s i t on energy  2 •  , the  impact  conservation i s small.  Is t h e r e a r e d u c t i o n i n t r a f f i c c o n g e s t i o n and p a r k i n g requirements? ( D e t a i l s are presented i n S e c t i o n 4.2.6.)  Due  to the low usage by commuters, both the s u b s t i t u t i o n e f f e c t of  transit  to investment  i n the p r i v a t e mode and the r e d u c t i o n of t r a f f i c c o n g e s t i o n  have not  m a t e r i a l i z e d i n the s m a l l c i t i e s . The  of t r a n s i t difficult  i n h e r e n t disadvantage  ( i t i s slower and more i n c o n v e n i e n t than the p r i v a t e mode) i s and expensive to overcome i n s m a l l c i t i e s even though  some  c i t i e s are compact and work l o c a t i o n s are c l u s t e r e d .  3.-  To what degree has i n t e g r a t i o n of l a n d use p l a n n i n g and  transport  p l a n n i n g been achieved?  These f i n d i n g s are m a i n l y q u a l i t a t i v e . I t i s a case of whether t h e r e i s i n t e g r a t i o n or no i n t e g r a t i o n . L o c a l p o l i t i c i a n s and c i t y were encouraged  to review the l o c a t i o n , d e n s i t y and l a y o u t of new  s i d e n t i a l s u b d i v i s i o n s and elements  officials re-  the l o c a t i o n of s e r v i c e areas as important  i n the a b i l i t y of t r a n s i t  s e r v i c e s to serve the requirements  153.  of l o c a l r e s i d e n t s . I n f o r m a t i o n was conceptual  planning  a l s o made a v a i l a b l e d u r i n g  stage showing t h a t p o l i c i e s designed to enhance  q u a l i t y of automobile t r a v e l c o u l d be d e t r i m e n t a l transit  the  to the performance of  s e r v i c e s . However, no major r e v i s i o n s of the m u n i c i p a l  p r a c t i c e were seen. T r a n s i t i s s t i l l being to road, water and  sewer. T r a n s i t has  placed  i n the downtown areas ( T r a i l ) and  planning  as a secondary s e r v i c e  o n l y been r e q u i r e d  more economic means of r e l i e v i n g s h o r t - t e r m  the  to serve  problems, such as  as a  parking  s o c i a l needs such as p r o v i d i n g a means  of t r a v e l to y o u n g s t e r s f o r r e c r e a t i o n purposes ( K i t i m a t ) or g i v i n g some means of t r a v e l f o r the t o u r i s t s ( P e n t i c t o n ) . B a s i c a l l y , l a n d use  d e c i s i o n s i n s m a l l c i t i e s are made on the b a s i s of p r i v a t e  profits  r a t h e r than o v e r a l l s o c i a l b e n e f i t s . U n l e s s land d e v e l o p e r s become more c o n s c i o u s of s o c i a l i s s u e s , i t i s d o u b t f u l whether t r a n s i t w i l l become p a r t of the o v e r a l l community p l a n n i n g of a f u l l y i n t e g r a t e d system can be t r a n s i t planning d e s i g n s and  process.  ( An  r e c e i v e s the same amount of a t t e n t i o n as roadway  planning^  s e c t i o n 5.5  where the  At p r e s e n t ,  i t is fair  and  example  found i n the c i t y of Edmonton where  .) Since  t h i s i s a l s o one  of the f u n c t i o n s of  'p.iiua.', more d e t a i l e d d i s c u s s i o n on improvements can be  land use  ever  'p.m.a.' i s  evaluated.  to conclude t h a t t h e r e  transport planning  found i n  i s no  i n small c i t i e s  i n t e g r a t i o n of  i n B.  C.  the  154.  5.3.3  'Reduce Dependence on Auto' O b j e c t i v e ( D e t a i l s a r e p r e s e n t e d i n S e c t i o n 4.2.4.)  1)  What i s the e x t e n t o f s w i t c h and c h o i c e r i d i n g ?  I t was found t h a t between 35% t o 50% o f a l l t r a n s i t u s e r s would have t o depend on the automobile f o r t r i p making ( e i t h e r as d r i v e r or passenger) if  t r a n s i t was not a v a i l a b l e . While c h o i c e r i d e r s  ( r e g u l a r and o c c a s i o n a l  u s e r s ) i n s m a l l c i t i e s r e p r e s e n t s about 45% o f the a d u l t p o p u l a t i o n , i t i s f a i r to say t h a t t r a n s i t has reduced these people's dependence on the auto t o a c e r t a i n  2)  degree.  Can people i n these s m a l l c i t i e s do w i t h o u t t h e i r automobile i f they have t o ?  I t was found t h a t 85% o f those surveyed responded  t h a t they c o u l d  go without the use of t h e i r automobiles i f they had t o . T h i s p r o v i d e s the  stand-by v a l u e of the s e r v i c e a h d _ i n d i c a t e s t h a t people a r e l e s s  dependent on t h e i r automobiles because  of t r a n s i t .  3)  auto-ownership?  Does t r a n s i t have any impact on  About 5% o f the r e s i d e n t s surveyed responded  t h a t t r a n s i t had a f f e c t e d the  l e v e l o f car-ownership i n t h e i r households, and another 6% responded i t was p r o b a b l e or p o s s i b l e t h a t t h e i r car-ownership l e v e l s might be reduced due t o t r a n s i t .  that  In summary, t r a n s i t was Both the u s e r s ' and About 75%  the non-users' o p i n i o n of t r a n s i t were  of the r e s i d e n t s c o u l d  These f i n d i n g s p r o v i d e provided  found to be g e n e r a l l y accepted i n s m a l l  take the bus  cities.  favorable.  to work i f they chose t o .  the b a s i s to b e l i e v e t h a t the l e v e l s of  service  i n these c i t i e s were adequate i n the eyes of those who  pay  for  them.  T r a n s i t was  a l s o found to p r o v i d e  an a l t e r n a t i v e means of t r a v e l to most  of the r e s i d e n t s i n s m a l l c i t i e s . The  stand-by v a l u e  of the s e r v i c e  was  what the non-users i n the community were v o t e d to have even though they d i d not n e c e s s a r i l y use surveys a l s o p r o v i d e  the s e r v i c e themselves. The  the evidence to b e l i e v e t h a t t r a n s i t has  some people's dependence on the  I t was  f i n d i n g s from  the  reduced  automobile.  a l s o found t h a t the needs f o r t r a n s i t i n s m a l l c i t i e s match  the  g o a l s of the program, t h a t i s , to p r o v i d e m o b i l i t y f o r those w i t h o u t a c c e s s to an auto. The  o l d , the  have b e n e f i t t e d the most from  However, t r a n s i t has  young, and  i s minimal and  The  above has  not been a b l e to i n f l u e n c e land use  i n small c i t i e s  parking  of t r a n s i t  i n terms of  associated  of d e c i s i o n s r e q u i r e s  reducing congestion  i n small  ciites.  i n v e s t i g a t i o n of  c o s t s , i t i s important to know whether  b e n e f i t s of the program j u s t i f y the l e v e l of f u n d i n g . t i g a t e d . - i n the f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n .  or  u s u a l l y f r e e of charge.  the achievements of t r a n s i t  Since assessment of the m e r i t  decisions  i s somewhat a myth because  i s p l e n t i f u l and  identified  a l t e r n a t i v e s and  population  transit.  reduce energy consumption. The v a l u e t r a f f i c congestion  the female  This question  the i s inves-  156.  5.4  ECONOMIC EFFICIENCY OF THE OF THE  The  SUPPLY PROGRAM AND  THE  EFFECTIVENESS  FUNDING ARRANGEMENT  p r e v i o u s s e c t i o n o u t l i n e d the achievements of the t r a n s i t program  determined whether i t has p r e s e n t s a d i s c u s s i o n on transit  a c h i e v e d what i t was  the economic e f f i c i e n c y and  to do.  This  section  e f f e c t i v e n e s s of  the  program.  Economic e f f i c i e n c y i s d e f i n e d inputs  set up  and  as the p r o d u c t i o n  of outputs  f o r minimum  (or c o s t ) w h i l e e f f e c t i v e n e s s i s l a r g e l y a q u a l i t a t i v e measure which  r e l a t e s the degree to which outputs are consumed or used.  First  of a l l , i t i s important to know how  approach the q u e s t i o n Act  of 1972  the program was  of economic e f f i c i e n c y . The  (Appendix A3)  provided  Rapid T r a n s i t  a 50-50 o p e r a t i n g  arrangement f o r t r a n s i t because i t was  set up  thought to be  deficit  to  Subsidy  sharing  i n the i n t e r e s t of  the p u b l i c to encourage the development by m u n i c i p a l i t i e s and d i s t r i c t s of a p u b l i c t r a n s p o r t a t i o n  i n order  regional  system. Under the c o n d i t i o n s  of  grant  that: "  (a) the p u b l i c t r a n s i t a u t h o r i t y keep such books, r e c o r d s ,  accounts of i t s o p e r a t i o n s , may  i n such form as the M i n i s t e r of Finance  p r e s c r i b e , open to i n s p e c t i o n by  the M i n i s t e r of F i n a n c e ;  (b) the p u b l i c t r a n s i t a u t h o r i t y p r o v i d e such r e p o r t s f i n a n c i a l statements r e l a t i n g to i t s o p e r a t i o n s F i n a n c e may  The  s p e l l i n g out  as the M i n i s t e r  proposed and  passed i n 1974  the long-term p l a n f o r t r a n s i t  (Appendix  i n the P r o v i n c e .  mentioned which c o u l d be r e l a t e d to f u n d i n g arrangements or criteria.  and of  require."  T r a n s i t S e r v i c e s Act was  and  A4)  Nothing  was  evaluation  157.  In summary,  ( i ) n e i t h e r A c t s have any mention of the a l l o c a t i o n  funds and p r o v i d e no upper l i m i t  f o r f u n d i n g . That  of t r a n s i t  i s , can a l l systems  go under the same f u n d i n g arrangement, OR what i s the b a s i s f o r a l l o c a t i o n ? ( i i ) The A c t s a l s o make no mention of t r a n s i t Should  a l l systems r e c e i v e the same P r o v i n c i a l  support  performance.  ( i . e . 50% o p e r a t i n g  d e f i c i t ) no matter how w e l l or how b a d l y i t i s performing? ( i i i ) The A c t s a l s o p r o v i d e no b a s i s f o r e v a l u a t i n g the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of t r a n s i t transit  s u b s i d i e s . The A c t s s t a t e d t h a t f i n a n c i a l  p r o p e r t i e s have t o be submitted  share of the d e f i c i t  and these f i n a n c i a l  The A c t s do not i d e n t i f y  statements o f  b e f o r e the P r o v i n c e p r o v i d e s ^ i t s statements  need not be a u d i t e d .  the p o t e n t i a l uses of these r e p o r t s .  158. 5.4.1  E v a l u a t i o n of E f f i c i e n c y and E f f e c t i v e n e s s  Four performance measures were s e l e c t e d f o r the e v a l u a t i o n . The s e l e c t i o n of these (i)  f o u r economic c r i t e r i a was  ease of data o b t a i n a b i l i t y , e.g. served'are  (ii)  very d i f f i c i l t  'passenger-mile'  to o b t a i n without  and  expensive  'population surveys;  can be used on a system-wide or province-wide l e v e l , e.g. ability',  'route headway' and  l i t t l e merits (iii)  based on.the f o l l o w i n g :  'reli-  'route u t i l i z a t i o n ' measures have  f o r showing program performance;  d a t a - a p p l i c a b i l i t y on a p r o v i n c i a l b a s i s , e.g.  'number of  s c h o o l c h i l d r e n served' i s d i f f e r e n t from system to system based on the d e s i g n of the s e r v i c e and  The  local  requirements.  f o u r measures chosen f o r t h i s e v a l u a t i o n a r e : (i)  c o s t r e c o v e r y , which i s d e f i n e d as the t o t a l o p e r a t i n g as a percentage of o p e r a t i n g c o s t and measure of system  (ii)  i s considered  profitability;  d i v i d e d by t o t a l p o p u l a t i o n s e r v e d . While the c o s t  s e t s an upper l i m i t on s e r v i c e l e v e l s , the d e f i c i t  an i n d i c a t i o n of the magnitude of d e f i c i t  It  per  provides  i n c u r r e d by each c i t y ,  D e f i c i t per r i d e i s d e f i n e d as the t o t a l o p e r a t i n g d i v i d e d by the t o t a l number of passengers c a r r i e d  (iv)  deficit  recovery  c a p i t a s e t s the maximum l e v e l of f i n a n c i a l support.  (iii)  the b a s i c  d e f i c i t per c a p i t a , which i s d e f i n e d as t o t a l o p e r a t i n g  standard  revenues  deficit i n a year,  Rides per c a p i t a i s d e f i n e d as t o t a l passengers c a r r i e d d i v i d e d by t o t a l p o p u l a t i o n served of t r a n s i t  i n the  and measures the market  community.  penetration  159. Comparison With Large Urban Areas  In 1977,  the P r o v i n c i a l Government spent  $1,336,600 on the Small C i t y  sit  Program. T h i s i s e q u i v a l e n t to a d e f i c i t  and  deficit  Small  per r i d e r o f  C i t y Program was  $0.48 (Table 5.1). about 0.31.  of about $7.80 per c a p i t a  The  cost-recovery r a t i o  Comparing these  the magnitude of P r o v i n c i a l  support  i n the P r o v i n c e ,  for  small c i t y  was  The  d e f i c i t per c a p i t a f o r the l a r g e urban areas was  not out of l i n e by a simple n o t i o n of  s m a l l c i t i e s , yet the r i d e s per c a p i t a was  transit  i n s m a l l and  performance of t r a n s i t  c i t y operations (Table 5.1).  The  the B. C.  f o u r times of t h a t f o r  a l s o f o u r times of t h a t f o r  the d i f f e r e n t requirements f o r  i n Western Canada  i n s m a l l c i t i e s must be compared to o t h e r  to g a i n a b e t t e r understanding d a t a f o r these  of s m a l l c i t y  higher d e f i c i t s  per c a p i t a which suggests g r e a t e r market p e n e t r a t i o n . The  prairie  small c i t i e s i s probably  c i t i e s have had  public transit  due  1975  per c a p i t a compared  s m a l l c i t i e s . However, they do show a h i g h e r  p e n e t r a t i o n i n B. C.  small  operations  s m a l l c i t i e s i n Western Canada a r e  f i g u r e s . These c i t i e s show s l i g h t l y to  equity.  large c i t i e s .  Comparison With Small C i t i e s The  the  f o r the  l a r g e r urban areas  s m a l l c i t i e s . These d i f f e r e n c e s r e f l e c t  of  . .  f i g u r e s to those  two  transit  Tran-  level  low market  to the f a c t  f o r many y e a r s and  h a b i t have l o n g been developed. S i m i l a r p a t t e r n s can be  of r i d e s  that  people's  found w i t h  Nelson T r a n s i t System. T h i s system when compared to o t h e r B. C.  the riding the  small c i t  c i t i e s shows the second h i g h e s t market p e n e t r a t i o n even though the  level  of s e r v i c e s u p p l i e d i s lower than i n the other c i t i e s . Nelson a l s o  has  one  of the h i g h e s t  transit  u t i l i z a t i o n r a t e meaning t h a t the c i t y i s  s l i g h t l y more compact than o t h e r s  (Figure  4.4).  TABLE  5.1  TRANSIT SYSTEMS PERFORMANCE DATA  Small C i t i e s In B.C.  L a r g e r Urban A r e a s * Vancouver & V i c t o r i a 1977  Small C i t i e s In Western Canada** (1975 Data) Red Deer  Data  Medicine Hat  30  30  -  -  Lethbridge  Moose Jaw  Brandon  342  1,304  ($,000)  1,336  44,920  D e f i c i t s ($,000)  2,673  44,920  176  243  283  222  234  0.31  0.37  0.61  0.49  0.60  0.50  0.41  7.80  34.44  5.88  8.10  6.91  6.34  9.21  0.48  0.42  0.19  0.17  0.16  0.17  0.22  .16.4  81.7  31  47  43  38  41  25C  350  -  -  -  -  -  Hours Per C a p i t a  0.59  2.34  0.83  1.39  1.22  1.08  1.30  M i l e s Per C a p i t a  8.15  27.9  11.93  15.5  15.9  11.3  16.9  Cost Per Hour  ($)  20.5  23.4  17.9  11.4  14.1  11.8  11.9  Cost Per M i l e  ($)  1.50  1.96  1.30  1.02  1.08  1.12  0.90  2.0  2.9  3.5  4.0  4.7  3.3  2.5  Population  (  ,000)  Provincial  Subsidies  Cost Recovery Deficit  Per C a p i t a  ($)  D e f i c i t Per R i d e ($) Rides Per C a p i t a Adult  Fare  Rides Per Bus M i l e  SOURCE:  * B.C. Hydro and Power A u t h o r i t y , P l a n n i n g Department ** P u b l i c T r a n s p o r t Study, M e d i c i n e Hat, Grimble C o n s u l t i n g Group, J u l y 1976  41  35  37  -  -  -  at  o  161.  Comparison of Performance Among Small C i t i e s i n B.  C.  Comparison between d i f f e r e n t s m a l l c i t i e s i n B. C.  i s presented i n T a b l e  5.2.  The  twelve systems r e c e i v e d i f f e r e n t r a n k i n g s i n terms of performance  depending on the measure chosen. The support cities  (ranged from $2.12  wide range of a l l o c a t i o n of P r o v i n c i a l  to $18.50 per c a p i t a )  f o r t r a n s i t among d i f f e r e n t  s i g n a l requirements f o r improved f u n d i n g c r i t e r i a . The  Provincial  Agency might argue t h a t t r a n s i t f u n d i n g i s p a r t l y determined by of c o n t r i b u t i o n from the l o c a l l e v e l . But remaining 70%  of the s m a l l c i t y p o p u l a t i o n  t r a n s i t ) have l e s s d e s i r e f o r t r a n s i t  is i t valid (who  most e f f e c t i v e and  than those l i v i n g  the major c o n c e r n . I f t r a n s i t  were governed by  l o c a l d e s i r e s i t would be f a i r  d e n s i t y and  and  capita d e f i c i t  l e v e l of s e r v i c e  (17.2  contract  To  sum 1)  deficit  per  m i l e s per  up,  differences  constraints. i n these  contract  cities,  r a t e s . The to the  the h i g h h o u r l y  s e r v i c e . A d i s c u s s i o n on  r a t e s i s presented i n the next s e c t i o n  number of -  the  i s l a r g e l y due  c a p i t a ) and  the  c a p i t a were the amount  the d i f f e r e n c e s i n h o u r l y  bus  who  'requirements'  that  geographic  experienced i n Kitimat  $22.0 f o r the c o n t r a c t e d  to say  geographic c o n s t r a i n t s  of the major reasons f o r the h i g h  of s e r v i c e s p r o v i d e d  no;  the P r o v i n c i a l s e r v i c e  'needs' and  i n performance are r e s u l t s of l o c a l s o c i a l and  h i g h per  by  in cities  e q u i t a b l e manner, b e n e f i t t i n g the g r e a t e s t  A s i d e from p o p u l a t i o n  the  to a l l o c a t e P r o v i n c i a l support i n  people should be  two  to assume t h a t  are a t p r e s e n t w i t h  r e c e i v e more than the l e v e l of s e r v i c e p r o v i d e d standards? I f the A c t s were s e t up  the amount  high  rate  the d i s c r e p a n c i e s  (Section  -  of  in  5.5).  the agency l a c k s : an  i n c e n t i v e and  d i r e c t i o n to measure performance which can  used to enhance proper a l l o c a t i o n of  resources;  be  TABLE 5.2 PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS FOR B.C. CITIES' SYSTEMS (1977)  COST RECOVERY  DEFICIT PER RIDE $  DEFICIT PER CAPITA $  RIDES PER CAPITA  Nelson  0.31  ( 6)  0.42  ( 4)  11.97  ( 9)  28.3  ( 2)  Nanaimo  0.26  ( 9)  0.69  ( 8)  13.98  (10)  20.4  ( 5)  Powell River  0.24  (10)  0.99  (10)  11.52  ( 7)  11.6  ( 9)  Kitimat  0.32  ( 5)  0.55  ( 7)  18.50  (12)  33.5  ( 1)  P r i n c e George  0.41  ( 2)  0.29  ( 1)  4.29  ( 2)  14.9  ( 8)  Port A l b e r n i  0.39  ( 3)  0.32  ( 2)  5.37  ( 3)  16.6  ( 7)  Kamloops  0.33  ( 4)  0.47  ( 5)  ( 8)  25.0  ( 3)  Kelowna  0.30  ( 7)  0.69  ( 8)  6.39  ( 4)  9.3  (10)  Penticton  0.28  (8)  0.80  ( 9)  7.38  ( 6)  9.3  (10)  P r i n c e Rupert  0.44  ( 1)  0.40  ( 3)  6.71  ( 5)  16.9  (6)  Trail  0.28  ( 8)  0.54  ( 6)  (11)  22.5  ( 4)  Maple Ridge  0.18  (11)  1.08  (11)  ALL  0.31  SYSTEMS  NUMBER OF SYSTEMS WITH LESS THAN AVERAGE :. PERFORMANCE  NOTE:  (  )  Ranking  0.48  6  . 7  11.75  12.15 2.12  ( 1)  2.0  (11)  16.4  7.80  6  5  163.  2)  a u n i f o r m r e p o r t i n g system;  3)  t h e proper c r i t e r i a f o r a l l o c a t i n g funds; and  4)  a c l e a r o b j e c t i v e of what t r a n s i t  P o s s i b l e explanations  i s expected t o a c c o m p l i s h .  f o r t h i s are that there  i s a reluctance  on the p a r t  of the P r o v i n c i a l Government through i t s T r a n s i t Agency t o develop performance measures and t o e v a l u a t e  transit  f o r the purpose of a l l o c a t e  i n g support funds i n g e n e r a l . T h i s might be due t o the f o l l o w i n g r e a s o n s : (i)  A l a c k of a r e a l i n t e r e s t i n t r a n s i t by the P r o v i n c i a l Government.  (ii)  The P r o v i n c i a l Government might not want t o know the e f f i c i e n c y or i n e f f i c i e n c y of t h e p u b l i c mode which might be used  easily  f o r comparison w i t h the p r i v a t e mode, (iii)  The i n d i c a t i o n o f the e f f i c i e n c y  (particularly inefficiency)  might embarrass the d i f f e r e n t p a r t i c i p a n t s i n v o l v e d a l l o c a t i o n of funds (e.g. a d m i n i s t r a t o r s (iv)  The r e l u c t a n c e  i n the  and l e g i s l a t o r s ) .  on the p a r t of decision-makers t o be pinned  down on s p e c i f i c o b j e c t i v e s t h a t can be measured. ( F o r example, i f the 50% c o s t - r e c o v e r y  i s enforced  e i t h e r the u s e r s  or the l o c a l governments would have t o pay f o r the d i f f e r e n c e between the a c t u a l d e f i c i t  In g e n e r a l ,  there  and the a l l o w a b l e  i s a l a c k of commitment and d i r e c t i o n on the p a r t of  d e c i s i o n makers as t o what they expect or want t r a n s i t general welfare should  deficits.)  of the c i t i z e n s i n t h e P r o v i n c e .  t o a c h i e v e f o r the  The f o l l o w i n g  questions  be r a i s e d .  " 1)  Should economic c r i t e r i a be used t o s e t s e r v i c e standards and  guidelines?  164.  2)  Can performance measures be used t o i n f l u e n c e o p e r a t o r s or l o c a l governments  to improve the economic e f f i c i e n c y and  e f f e c t i v e n e s s of t r a n s i t 3)  operations?  Should economic e f f i c i e n c y be one of the c r i t e r i a to judge the success of the program?  The d e c i s i o n s on the supply of s e r v i c e s and the p r i o r i t i e s and of t r a n s i t  allocation  funds have been a s s i g n e d to the T r a n s i t Agency but the r e a l  c o n t r o l has always been i n the hands of the P r o v i n c i a l Government.  Even  though the Agency i s i n t e r e s t e d i n the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the f u n d i n g arrangement, the p o l i t i c a l p r o c e s s h a s s t a k e n t i l l of the economic c r i t e r i a which was  1979 to approve one  recommended. The f u n d i n g  arrangement  d i s c u s s e d thus f a r a p p l i e d o n l y t o the s m a l l c i t y program. A new A c t (the Urban T r a n s i t A u t h o r i t y A c t ) was  proposed and passed i n 1979 to  f a c i l i t a t e the i n c l u s i o n of the two l a r g e r urban a r e a s i n B r i t i s h Columbia - the G r e a t e r Vancouver and G r e a t e r V i c t o r i a Region - under the T r a n s i t Program. Both the c a p i t a l and o p e r a t i n g f u n d i n g arrangements have been changed. The 100% f i n a n c i n g f o r c a p i t a l has been revamped.  Instead,  a l l c a p i t a l c o s t s , c a l c u l a t e d on the b a s i s of an annual ' l e a s e f e e ' arrangement, are c o n s i d e r e d as p a r t of o p e r a t i n g expenses. The formula f o r s h a r i n g the o p e r a t i n g d e f i c i t s changed from a 50-50 s p l i t the P r o v i n c e and the m u n i c i p a l i t y t o 75-25 i n the f i r s t to 60-40 a f t e r f i v e y e a r s .  (The s p l i t  between  year ( i . e .  1979)  i s 75-25 f o r the second y e a r , 70-30  f o r the t h i r d and 65-35 f o r the--fourth y e a r . ) There i s a l s o a revenues t a r g e t of 30% of o p e r a t i n g c o s t s . For s m a l l c i t i e s , remains v i r t u a l l y unchanged.  the f i n a n c i a l burden  The h i g h e r P r o v i n c i a l share of o p e r a t i n g  d e f i c i t s more or l e s s compensate  f o r the h a l f - s h a r e of the l e a s e f e e  charges on equipment which the m u n i c i p a l i t i e s d i d not have to pay f o r b e f o r e .  165.  5.4.2  Recommendations  There a r e a few recommendations t h a t can be made c o n c e r n i n g the d e f i c i e n c i e s of the f u n d i n g arrangement. These recommendations a r e p r e s e n t e d as follows: 1)  I t i s recommedned t h a t the P r o v i n c e adopt a s e t of d e f i n a b l e and  measureable o b j e c t i v e s .  For example, the o b j e c t i v e c o u l d be t o p r o v i d e adequate of s e r v i c e t o a l l c i t i z e n s i n t h e s m a l l c i t i e s w i t h i n f i v e years.  level  t h e next  'Adequate' l e v e l of s e r v i c e would be the P r o v i n c i a l  s e r v i c e g u i d e l i n e s which a r e governed by the economic  criteria  such as the f o l l o w i n g . 2)  The Agency should develop s e t of c r i t e r i a f o r r e s o u r c e  allocation  such t h a t the above o b j e c t i v e can be a c h i e v e d i n an o p t i m a l fashion. For  example, the economic c r i t e r i a suggested f o r the above  o b j e c t i v e c o u l d be: - minimum 40% c o s t  recovery;  - maximum $10 P r o v i n c i a l s u b s i d y per c a p i t a ; supplemented w i t h the f o l l o w i n g s e r v i c e  guidelines:  - 20 v e h i c l e m i l e s per c a p i t a or h a l f - h o u r l y s e r v i c e whichever i s greater  f o r b u i l t - u p urban a r e a s ; f o r s e m i - r u r a l  r u r a l areas, at l e a s t 3 round-trips - a t l e a s t 80% of t h e p o p u l a t i o n distance  of a quarter  areas or  a day t o the c l o s e s t c c e n t r e ;  a r e served w i t h maximum w a l k i n g  m i l e t o a bus stop o r a maximum w a l k i n g  time of 10 minutes. 3)  I n order t o perform e f f i c i e n t l y , a uniform-and simple  reporting  166.  system should be developed such t h a t t h e data r e q u i r e d f o r t h e e v a l u a t i o n i s obtained - annual passengers - population  a u t o m a t i c a l l y . The data needed a r e :  carried;  served;  - number of bus hours and number o f bus m i l e s - t o t a l o p e r a t i n g c o s t s and t o t a l o p e r a t i n g  per year;  revenues;  - average f a r e ; - number o f revenue m i l e s and revenue hours p e r year; - number o f s t a f f ; - direct - route  operating miles.  costs;  167.  5.5  The  THE  EFFECTIVENESS OF THE  Rapid T r a n s i t Subsidy Act  i n i t s tenets  PUBLIC MARKETING AGENCY  passed i n 1972  explicit  provisions  f o r a p u b l i c marketing agency or an agency of any  r o l e of the agency brought i n t o e x i s t e n c e administer  made no  the funding  at t h a t time was  program by a s s u r i n g  to q u a l i f i e d m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . No the Agency at t h a t time. The  explicit  kind.  simply  to  t h a t s u b s i d i e s were p a i d  T r a n s i t S e r v i c e s Act was  operating  passed i n 1974  and  marketing f u n c t i o n s  for  which  the  from  the  f u n c t i o n . T h i s s e c t i o n of the study i s an e v a l u a t i o n of  the  e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the  the p l a n n i n g  out  reasons or g o a l s were set out  l a i d down the groundwork f o r the i n t e r - g o v e r n m e n t a l approach and p r i n c i p l e of s e p a r a t i n g  The  'p.m.a.' approach.  When an o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e i n the p r i v a t e s e c t o r i s b e i n g  evaluated,  there are s p e c i f i c i n d i c a t o r s of e f f e c t i v e n e s s such as e a r n i n g s per  share  or r a t e s of r e t u r n on investment e t c . t h a t can be used to measure e f f e c t i v e ness. There are c l e a r d e f i n i t i o n s of output measures to show i f the i s doing the r i g h t t h i n g . For  evaluating  the  ' p u b l i c marketing agency',  c r i t e r i a that can be used to judge i t s performance are not v e r y The  performance of t r a n s i t  than the way  planned, marketed and  c o n s t r a i n e d by l o c a l s i t u a t i o n s , s o c i a l o b j e c t i v e s and provided. the  Due  other  produced. I t i s a l s o the l e v e l s of  service  to the l a c k of a s i n g l e i n d i c a t o r to be used f o r measuring  'p.m.a.'s'' e f f e c t i v e n e s s , the e v a l u a t i o n has  to whether the Agency has reasons f o r a d o p t i n g the i)  the  concrete.  i s i n f l u e n c e d by many e x t e r n a l f a c t o r s  s e r v i c e s are being  company  achieved  what i t was  to p r o v i d e  set up  to a c c o m p l i s h .  'p.m.a.' approach are b e l i e v e d  to p r o v i d e means of e f f i c i e n t l y  evidence  to be  administering  funded s e r v i c e s , m o n i t o r i n g performances and  the  as The  following:  government-  measuring b e n e f i t s ;  168.  11) iii)  to a c h i e v e c o - o r d i n a t i o n  of t r a n s p o r t modes and c a r r i e r s , and  to enable the c l o s e r i n t e g r a t i o n of p u b l i c t r a n s p o r t a t i o n and l o c a l land use p l a n n i n g .  In order  to a c h i e v e t h e above, the government would have t o have some say  i n t h e s e r v i c e s which i t s u b s i d i z e d . The government would want t o see t h a t s o c i a l l y d e s i r a b l e s e r v i c e s a r e not abandoned due to economic r e a s o n s . The be  r o l e of t h e 'p.m.a.' i s t o ensure t h a t government-funding f o r t r a n s i t spent i n the most e f f i c i e n t  and e f f e c t i v e manner. I n order  t h i s r o l e , t h e B. C. T r a n s i t Agency took on the f o l l o w i n g 1)  providing planning  2)  p r o v i d i n g e x p e r t i s e i n t r a n s i t management  ensuring  functions:  and marketing s e r v i c e s t o a l l s m a l l  not be a t t a i n a b l e i f each c i t y 3)  to achieve  i s operating  cities;  t h a t would o t h e r w i s e i t s own system;  t h a t l o c a l s c h o o l bus s e r v i c e s can be i n t e g r a t e d  into  the o v e r a l l network; 4)  making sure that p u b l i c t r a n s i t  i s integrated with  local  l a n d use p l a n n i n g ; 5)  providing p o l i c y advice i n planning,  t o l o c a l governments c o n c e r n i n g  f i n a n c i n g and other  operations  matters  a s p e c t s of t h e  business.  The  e v a l u a t i o n of t h e T r a n s i t Agency ( i . e . t h e 'p.m.a.') would  require  answering e n q u i r i e s r e l a t i n g to the f o l l o w i n g broad o b j e c t i v e s . i)  achieving  c o n t r o l of t h e s e r v i c e s which t h e government i s  paying f o r ; ii) iii)  co-ordinating enabling  t r a n s p o r t modes and c a r r i e r s ;  c l o s e r i n t e g r a t i o n of p u b l i c t r a n s i t and land use  169.  planning. The  evaluation i n this  the  above broad  section deals with  objectives.  answering  questions  concerning  170.  5.5.1  The  The C o n t r o l  Objective  common g o a l of a l l p u b l i c marketing a g e n c i e s i s t o maximize s o c i a l  b e n e f i t s . Without d i r e c t involvement i n s u b s i d y programs, governments can o n l y r e a c t , not i n i t i a t e , and hence they have l i t t l e power to see t h a t programs a r e a d m i n i s t e r e d are  supplied  e f f i c i e n t l y and s o c i a l l y d e s i r a b l e  services  and consumed i n t h e most e f f e c t i v e manner. There a r e t h r e e  a l t e r n a t i v e s which can be adopted t o a c h i e v e e f f i c i e n c y , e f f e c t i v e n e s s , and  a t t a i n c o n t r o l over  'what', 'where' and 'when'services should be  p r o v i d e d . These a l t e r n a t i v e s a r e as f o l l o w s . 1)  Government can a c q u i r e (Most t r a n s i t  t h e o p e r a t o r and s e r v i c e  outright.  s u b s i d y programs i n t h e 1960's were a d m i n i s t e r e d  t h i s way so that s o c i a l l y d e s i r a b l e s e r v i c e s were not abandoned t o t a l l y by p r i v a t e companies. There were numerous c o n v e r s i o n s during  t h i s period  from p r i v a t e to p u b l i c ownership of t r a n s i t  services.) 2)  Government can s e t requirements by law or m i n i s t e r i a l d i r e c t i v e s and  3)  perform a u d i t s on  operators.  Government can adopt t h e p u b l i c marketing agency approach by d i r e c t l y getting involved  The  high  i n the p l a n n i n g  c a p i t a l spending f o r t h e f i r s t  and marketing  functions.  approach and the l a c k of p l a n n i n g  input w i t h t h e second approach and t h e need t o d e a l w i t h each i n d i v i d u a l - c i t y w i t h unique requirements a r e the most apparent shortcomings which prompted the a d o p t i o n of the ' p u b l i c marketing agency' concept. The 'p.m.a.' approach can a c h i e v e s i m i l a r c o n t r o l s by c o n t r a c t i n g  out the o p e r a t i n g  functions  No major c a p i t a l  and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s t o p r i v a t e o p e r a t o r s .  171.  committment i s r e q u i r e d under t h i s arrangement except i n some cases where c a p i t a l s u b s i d i e s a r e p r o v i d e d f o r u p g r a d i n g . r o l l i n g s t o c k and i n c r e a s i n g f l e e t s i z e s due t o s e r v i c e improvement needs. I t i s n o t t h e i n t e n t i o n of t h i s e v a l u a t i o n o r t h e i n t e n t i o n of t h i s study ;to show t h e 'p.m.a.' as the o n l y means t o a c h i e v e these c o n t r o l s . T h i s e v a l u a t i o n i s i n t e n d e d t o document whether t h i s approach  can a c h i e v e these ends and how e f f e c t i v e  it is.  In order t o determine whether the 'p.m.a.' has i n f a c t gained over t h e p r o v i s i o n of t r a n s i t  s e r v i c e s responses a r e developed  control f o r the  following questions. (i)  How w e l l has t h e 'p.m.a.' c o n t r o l l e d  'what','where' and  'when' s e r v i c e s a r e provided? (ii)  How w e l l has t h e 'p.m.a.' monitored services  (iii)  t h e performance  of t h e  provided?  How e f f e c t i v e i s the marketing  component o f t h e 'p.m.a.' concept?  Is i t necessary? (iv)  Does the 'p.m.a.' have any c o n t r o l over t h e c o s t s of s e r v i c e s ?  172.  1)  How w e l l has t h e 'p.m.a.' c o n t r o l l e d  'what', 'where' and 'when'  s e r v i c e s a r e provided?  By a d o p t i n g t h e 'p.m.a.' concept approach,  i n conjunction with the inter-governmental  t h e p o i n t o f view o f t h e o p e r a t o r s , the u s e r s and the two l e v e l s  of governments (both P r o v i n c i a l and m u n i c i p a l ) a r e taken i n t o c o n s i d e r a t ion.  (Refer t o Chapter  during the f i r s t  Three.) The u s e r s ' p o i n t of view i s u s u a l l y s t a t e d  referendum f o r a l o c a l t r a n s i t  system. T h i s p u b l i c  referendum g i v e s t h e c i t i z e n s t h e f i r s t v o i c e i n d e t e r m i n i n g whether they want t r a n s i t  i n t h e i r communities and whether they a r e w i l l i n g  t o share  h a l f o f t h e t r a n s i t d e f i c i t s w i t h t h e P r o v i n c i a l government. F u r t h e r involvement  from t h e u s e r s i s through  the conceptual planning  stages  when p u b l i c i n p u t s a r e s o l i c i t e d . The p u b l i c i s a l s o i n v o l v e d i n approving the f i n a l s e r v i c e p l a n . The i n t e r - g o v e r n m e n t a l approach a l s o  assures  t h a t i n p u t s from the two l e v e l s of government a r e f e d i n t o t h e s e r v i c e p l a n s and s p e c i f i c a t i o n s so t h a t both l o c a l and P r o v i n c i a l o b j e c t i v e s are r e a l i z e d . I f c o n f l i c t s a r i s e between t h e two l e v e l s of governments, the P r o v i n c i a l o b j e c t i v e s would c a r r y t h e most weight.  T h i s approach  a l l o w s t h e u s e r s , the governments ( u s u a l l y a l s o r e p r e s e n t t h e i n t e r e s t of s o c i e t y a t l a r g e ) t o have t h e power t o c o n t r o l  'what', 'where' and  'when' s e r v i c e s should be p r o v i d e d . The o p e r a t o r s a r e l e f t themselves  t o concern  w i t h o n l y t h e day-to-day o p e r a t i o n s of s e r v i c e s . They a r e  r e s p o n s i b l e f o r running t h e s e r v i c e s a c c o r d i n g t o t h e s p e c i f i c a t i o n s set out by the 'p.m.a.'. The 'purchase  of s e r v i c e ' c o n t r a c t p r o v i d e s  these p r i v a t e o p e r a t o r s a f i x e d r e t u r n on t h e q u a n t i t y of s e r v i c e s u p p l i e d . T h i s arrangement a l l e v i a t e s t h e d i f f i c u l t y o f t e n e x p e r i e n c e d by p r i v a t e t r a n s i t companies i n s u p p l y i n g good q u a l i t y v e h i c l e s and s e r v i c e s . The o p e r a t o r s can a l s o be f a i r l y r e s p o n s i v e t o s e r v i c e changes. T h i s means  173.  t h a t s e r v i c e can be added and d e l e t e d  anytime becuase c o n t r a c t o r s  p a i d on the b a s i s of t h e i r v a r i a b l e c o s t . S i n c e the p r i v a t e  companies  do not have t o cover a l a r g e investment i n : c a p i t a l equipment, w i t h the Agency can be of s h o r t e r p e r i o d s  are  contracts  of time (that i s , one or two  year c o n t r a c t s ) .  In summary, t h i s arrangement a l l o w s governments t o c o n t r a c t  private  o p e r a t o r s to ensure t h a t s o c i a l l y d e s i r a b l e s e r v i c e s a r e p r o v i d e d e f f e c t i v e manner. The  'purchase of s e r v i c e ' c o n t r a c t  i n an  arrangement i s a l s o  f l e x i b l e i n a sense t h a t government programs f o r t r a n s i t can be a l t e r e d according  to changes i n government p o l i c i e s and f u n d i n g arrangements.  174.  2)  How w e l l has the 'p.m.a.' monitored  the performance  of the s e r v i c e s  p r o v i d e d and measured b e n e f i t s ?  The performance  o f t h e s e r v i c e s p r o v i d e d a r e monitored  ted from p e r i o d i c on-board  passenger  and b e n e f i t s documen-  surveys and passenger  counts. The  u t i l i z a t i o n r a t e s and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of usage a r e the i n f o r m a t i o n sought. T h i s data i s used t o review s e r v i c e s which can be c u t back i f u t i l i z a t i o n r a t e s a r e low and t h e r e i s no s o c i a l j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r t h e s e r v i c e . These types of changes d e a l mainly w i t h r o u t e l a y o u t s and s c h e d u l e s . I n terms of o v e r a l l system performance,  t h e p i t f a l l s of the  T r a n s i t Program have been documented i n S e c t i o n 5.4. The l a c k of measureable  o b j e c t i v e s and s p e c i f i c c r i t e r i a f o r r e s o u r c e a l l o c a t i o n were  p r o v i d e d as the major p i t f a l l s of t h e B. C. T r a n s i t Program and they should not be c o n s i d e r e d as c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the 'p.m.a.'.  3)  How e f f e c t i v e i s the marketing component of the 'p.m.a.' concept? I s i t necessary?  The marketing  f u n c t i o n of the Agency encompasses more than j u s t  I t i s more of a consumer-oriented marketing-mix  approach designed on the b a s i s o f the  p r i n c i p l e which i n c l u d e s market r e s e a r c h , product d e s i g n  and packaging, i n f o r m i n g and p e r s u a d i n g the market about  Due  t o t h e l i m i t e d extent of the marketing e f f o r t  difficult  advertising.  the s e r v i c e .  i n small c i t i e s ,  t o g e n e r a l i z e t h e v a l u e and t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s of t h i s  approach. One t h i n g  i t is  marketing  which i s c e r t a i n i s that people do need knowledge of  the s e r v i c e b e f o r e they can use i t .  T h e r e f o r e i t i s important to have an  i n f o r m a t i o n campaign t o promote the use of t r a n s i t . Packaging has a l s o found t o be an important a s p e c t of p r o d u c t i o n . P r o p e r l y designed and  175.  easy t o read t i m e t a b l e s a r e n e c e s s a r y .  I n order t o design the s e r v i c e that  meets t h e needs and r e q u i r e m e n t s o f t h e u s e r s , market r e s e a r c h would d e f i n i t e l y be n e c e s s a r y .  4) The  Does t h e 'p.m.a.' have any c o n t r o l over t h e c o s t s o f s e r v i c e s ? c o s t s o f s e r v i c e s under t h e 'purchase o f s e r v i c e ' c o n t r a c t s a r e  governed by t h e c o n t r a c t r a t e s . These r a t e s a r e determined by t h e b i d d e r s on t h e b a s i s o f t o t a l c o s t s o f p r o v i d i n g t h e s e r v i c e w i t h some p r o f i t . W i t h t h i s c o n t r a c t arrangement, t h e lowest b i d i s u s u a l l y chosen b u t n o t always. L o c a l o p e r a t o r s a r e n o r m a l l y g i v e n p r i o r i t y t o t a k e on t h e o p e r a t i o n o f transit  s e r v i c e s i n t h e i r home towns because o f h i s l o c a l c o n t a c t s and ready  s e t up f o r c a r r y i n g 'out - " o p e r a t i o n s . These p r i v a t e o p e r a t o r s , under c o n t r a c t t o t h e 'p.m.a.' and t h e m u n i c i p a l government, do n o t have t o provide audited f i n a n c i a l  s t a t e m e n t s t o j u s t i f y t h e r a t e s charged. S i n c e  the b i d d i n g environment f o r c o n t r a c t s i s n o t a t t r a c t i v e  to outsiders  ( t h a t i s , o p e r a t o r s from o t h e r c i t i e s ) t h e l o c a l o p e r a t o r who b i d s f o r the s e r v i c e u s u a l l y gets t h e a s k i n g r a t e . No economies o f s c a l e were r e a l i z e d even though t r a n s i t  shares t h e same overhead w i t h t h e c o n t r a c t o r ' s  o t h e r o p e r a t i o n s . (Most c o n t r a c t o r s own and o p e r a t e o t h e r t r a n s p o r t s e r v i c e s such as a i r p o r t e r s , c h a r t e r s e r v i c e s and/or s c h o o l s e r v i c e s . ) T h e o r e t i c a l l y , overhead expenses should be shared  among t h e o p e r a t o r s ' o t h e r f u n c t i o n s ,  y e t overhead c o s t s were a l l o c a t e d t o t a l l y t o t r a n s i t the l e v e l o f h o u r l y r a t e s r e q u e s t e d .  i n order to j u s t i f y  Since a u d i t s of operators'  statements were n o t r e q u i r e d , t h e r e a l c o s t f o r t r a n s i t be  financial  cannot v e r y  easily  isolated.  I n summary, governments have v e r y l i t t l e c o n t r o l over t h e c o s t s o f s e r v i c e . Economies o f s c a l e w h i c h might come about because o p e r a t o r s own and o p e r a t e  176.  o t h e r bus s e r v i c e s out of the same f a c i l i t i e s o p e r a t o r . The l a c k of c o m p e t i t i o n  tend  t o be r e t a i n e d by the  f o r c o n t r a c t s i n most cases has r e s u l t e d  i n r e l a t i v e l y h i g h c o n t r a c t r a t e s . As a r e s u l t , the r a t e s f o r bus hours and bus m i l e s v a r y among d i f f e r e n t systems i n the P r o v i n c e .  I n the case  of one community, the i n i t i a l b i d f o r s e r v i c e was submitted  by o n l y one  o p e r a t o r who a l s o r a n the a i r p o r t e r and some s c h o o l bus o p e r a t i o n s i n the community. Rates were s e t a r b i t r a r i l y and as a r e s u l t , t h i s had  system  one of the h i g h e s t u n i t c o s t per bus hour among a l l systems i n the  P r o v i n c e . The f i n a n c i a l statements showed t h a t the r e t u r n s on investment to  the o p e r a t o r  f o r the f i r s t  two years were q u i t e s u b s t a n t i a l , r a n g i n g  from t h i r t y t o f o r t y p e r c e n t . Normally, the way t o combat t h e above problems i s through f i n a n c i a l a u d i t . T h i s p r o v i d e s  the i n f o r m a t i o n on  the r e a l c o s t f o r s e r v i c e but i t does not reduce the r a t e the c o n t r a c t o r would l i k e to charge. T h i s problem can o n l y be s o l v e d i f the 'p.m.a.' has  an a l t e r n a t i v e way o f p r o v i d i n g the s e r v i c e such as i s the case i n  Kamloops or power t o l i m i t  the subsidy  paid.  Recommendat ions  1)  The Agency should  seek ways t o f i n d out the r e a l c o s t of p r o v i d i n g  s e r v i c e so t h a t t h e d e f i c i t s can be accounted f o r . F o r example, a u d i t i n g procedures may be a b l e t o serve t h i s purpose. T h i s  inform-  a t i o n would a l s o h e l p t o i d e n t i f y the performance of the s e r v i c e s . 2)  The Agency ought t o c o n s t a n t l y look f o r means of p r o v i d i n g s e r v i c e in  t h e most e f f i c i e n t and e f f e c t i v e way - r e g a r d l e s s of who  the s e r v i c e ( p u b l i c or p r i v a t e ) . F o r example, i f c o n v e r s i o n p r i v a t e t o p u b l i c ownership proves t o be both e c o n o m i c a l l y and  a t the same time d e l i v e r the s e r v i c e s as r e q u i r e d , t h i s  should not be o v e r l o o k e d .  provides from efficient option  F o r the case i n Kamloops, t h e r e were  177.  I n d i c a t i o n s t h a t t h i s Crown owned company was of  more e f f i c i e n t  i n terms  c o s t and more e f f e c t i v e i n terms of implementing the s e r v i c e as  T h i s case i s presented  here to show how  The  case of Kamloops  The  Crown owned o p e r a t i n g company has  Since t h e r e i s o n l y l i m i t e d evidence e f f i c i e n t way  the Crown company approach works.  found  to be a p r o m i s i n g  to judge whether i t was  f o r p r o v i d i n g s e r v i c e and  approach. the most  c o n t r o l l i n g c o s t s , no  recommendation  or c o n c l u s i o n can be made at t h i s time. However, the m e r i t s and comings experienced  The  T r a n s i t S e r v i c e s Act p r o v i d e s f o r the o c c a s i o n when a s u i t a b l e p r i v a t e by e n a b l i n g the P r o v i n c e to e s t a b l i s h a Crown  o p e r a t i n g company. Two  low-cost  i n s t a n c e s of t h i s o c c u r r e d when no  c o n t r a c t o r s were found  I s l a n d and Ltd.,  short-  w i t h t h i s approach i s d i s c u s s e d .  o p e r a t o r cannot be found bus  planned.  the l o c a l bus  to operate  the i n t e r c i t y  s e r v i c e i n Kamloops. The  a Crown company, operates  competent  s e r v i c e s on  the  Thompson Okanagan T r a n s i t  the s e r v i c e s i n Kamloops. As  t h e r e i s no  s e r v i c e c o n t r a c t agreement, the P r o v i n c e c a r r i e s a l l the c o s t s i n c u r r e d i n running  the company and  s e r v i c e s . The manager f o r the company i s p r o v i d e d  by the T r a n s i t Agency and  i s g i v e n the r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of the  overall  o p e r a t i o n and a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of the company. A l l r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s  and  f u n c t i o n s t h a t belonged to an o p e r a t i n g company apply to t h i s Crown company as w e l l . A l l f a c i l i t i e s ,  buses, equipment and  garage f a c i l i t i e s  are owned  by the P r o v i n c e . A l l these c a p i t a l c o s t s were charged back to the system as d e p r e c i a t i o n expense except a l e a s e f e e of one  d o l l a r per  f o r buses which the P r o v i n c e charged  only  bus.  I t might appear t h a t t h i s type of P r o v i n c i a l involvement  i n operations  178.  c o n t r a d i c t s the  'p.m.a.' concept of s e p a r a t i n g  f u n c t i o n s from o p e r a t i o n s .  But  i n theory  the p l a n n i n g  and  marketing  the concept of c o n t r o l and  the  assurance of a c h i e v i n g e f f i c i e n c y i n government funded s e r v i c e s i s the same or even g r e a t e r . U s u a l l y the P r o v i n c e o n l y i f the m u n i c i p a l i t i e s do not  becomes i n v o l v e d i n  operations  f e e l t h a t they would want to take  on  such r o l e . L o c a l governments d i d not want to get i n v o l v e d i n t r a n s i t operations  because they l a c k e d  to c a r r y out  the  Penticton  (40 m i l e s  going  to be  s e t up  from Kamloops) and  to run s e r v i c e s i n Kelowna  to c r e a t e a  'regional operating  company'. A management team, c e n t r a l garage f o r maintenance and f a c i l i t i e s c o u l d be shared by the t h r e e systems. The arrangement i s f o r the management s t a f f Agency and  typical  maintenance  staffing  to be employees of the T r a n s i t  o t h e r employees to be under the p a y r o l l of the Crown company.  The management s t a f f can a l s o be c o n t r a c t e d employed by  required  tasks.  T h i s Crown owned company was and  the s p e c i a l i z e d management s k i l l s  the Crown o p e r a t i n g  r u n c u t t i n g and  from the T r a n s i t Agency and/or  company. The  task of day-to-day  operations,  d r i v e r assignments e t c . (those belong to the OPERATING  COMPANY as?'discussed  i n Chapter Three) are handled by  people (one manager and  the management  p o s s i b l y t h r e e s u p e r v i s o r s , one  f o r each c i t y ) .  terms of major f i n a n c i a l commitments such as the proposed new t i e s i n Kamloops, d e c i s i o n s are made by  garage  facili-  the M i n i s t r y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r  transit.  The  c o s t comparisons between Kamloop's system and  systems are shown below to p r o v i d e mentioned above. I f the company was Kelowna and  P e n t i c t o n , t h e r e may  other  similar sized  some e v i d e n c e f o r the c o s t advantages to operate the s e r v i c e s i n both  be h i g h e r  cost  savings.  In  TABLE  5.3  COST COMPARISONS BETWEEN DIFFERENT TYPES OF SYSTEMS  (a)  COST PER MILE  Kamloops  Nanaimo  $1.44  $1.70  (12%  (1977) 1  1 Nelson  $1.72  1 Powell River  2 Prince George  2 Port Alberni  Kitimat  $1.77  $1.63  $1.52  $1.57  $23.39  $23.00  $19.60  $21.98  lower  than average) (b)  COST PER HOUR (1977)  $18.03  Note:  $27.28  $21.55  1  M u n i c i p a l owned and operated  2  private contractors  180.  As T a b l e 5.3 percent  shows, the h o u r l y  r a t e f o r the Kamloops system was  lower than the average r a t e or 23 percent  r a t e i n c u r r e d by other owned and  systems i n the P r o v i n c e .  operated systems c o n s t a n t l y  owned systems are warranted i n o r d e r  the R e g i o n a l D i s t r i c t and  contributed  One  to the h i g h  c o s t of  The  municipal  hourly  or  regional  r a t e s than those  i n v e s t i g a t i o n s i n t o these p u b l i c l y -  to e x p l a i n the d i s c r e p a n c i e s  c o s t of s e r v i c e s . In the case of Nanaimo, i t was charged by  i n the  the f i v e percent  the h i g h a d m i n i s t r a t i v e  overhead  costs  that  operation.  of the o t h e r advantages of t h i s arrangement i s t h a t s u b s i d i z e d  are not p r o v i d e d This i s obviously  22  lower than the median  show h i g h e r  operated by p r i v a t e c o n t r a c t o r s . F u r t h e r  about  services  as p r o f i t a b l e b u s i n e s s v e n t u r e s to p r i v a t e e n t r e p r e n e u r s . a p o l i t i c a l d e c i s i o n . As  experienced i n  C,  the  two  P r o v i n c i a l . p a r t i e s h o l d d i f f e r e n t views i n t h i s a r e a . T h i s p r o v i s i o n of p u r c h a s i n g power and government and  c o n s o l i d a t i n g s e r v i c e s was  i n i t i a t e d by  the  (1972-1975) i n the T r a n s i t S e r v i c e s A c t . However, the  r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of the Urban T r a n s i t A u t h o r i t y which was  the e x i s t i n g government p r e c l u d e  the advancement of the  previous functions  set up  by  'regional  operating  company' concept. N o n e t h e l e s s , the advantages of t h i s arrangement  should  documented.  be  There are a l s o disadvantages a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h i s approach b e i n g i)  that:  government owned companies u s u a l l y have l e s s room to maneuver d u r i n g u n i o n c o n t r a c t n e g o t i a t i o n s because of the d i r e c t r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s they have o v e r s e e i n g discontinued owned and  f o r any  that s e r v i c e s are  p e r i o d of time. As  not  a r e s u l t , many p u b l i c  operated systems l e a d the i n d u s t r y i n terms of wage  r a t e s f o r d r i v e r s . (For example, B. C. Hydro and  the Nanaimo  181.  wage s c a l e s a r e the h i g h e s t i n the P r o v i n c e , t h a t i s , about ten to twenty percent over ii)  the average h o u r l y wage f o r d r i v e r s . )  Sometimes, management l a c k s the p r o f i t  i n c e n t i v e ( j u s t l i k e any  other p u b l i c s e r v i c e ) . As long as s e r v i c e s a r e operated w i t h i n the allowed budget, v e r y l i t t l e  attempt i s made t o maximize  ridership. iii)  High c a p i t a l o u t l a y s f o r garage f a c i l i t i e s and a d d i t i o n a l involvement  from the T r a n s i t Agency i s u s u a l l y r e q u i r e d t o over-  l o o k the proper  o p e r a t i o n s of the s e r v i c e s .  182.  5.5.2  The ' C o - o r d i n a t i o n '  Objective  One o f the reasons f o r the e s t a b l i s h m e n t  of the 'p.m.a.' i s t o c o - o r d i n a t e  t r a n s p o r t modes and s e r v i c e s so t h a t the user views a l l p u b l i c t r a n s p o r t modes ( r a i l ,  a i r , bus, i n t e r c i t y coach) as one p u b l i c t r a n s p o r t  system.  At the same time, s e r v i c e s ( s c h o o l , r u r a l , s e m i - r u r a l and urban) can a l s o be c o - o r d i n a t e d  so that a l l p u b l i c l y - f u n d e d  s e r v i c e s are provided i n  the o p t i m a l way. T h i s modal c o - o r d i n a t i o n i s more a p p r o p r i a t e  f o r larger  urban areas where d i f f e r e n t modes and s e r v i c e s e x i s t . I n s m a l l where t h e r e i s an o c c a s i o n progressed  cities  f o r c o - o r d i n a t i o n , the T r a n s i t Agency has  towards t h i s o b j e c t i v e w h i l e  c o n s i d e r i n g the i n t e r e s t s of  a l l p a r t i e s i n v o l v e d , i n c l u d i n g the u s e r s . The f o l l o w i n g a r e examples of such i n s t a n c e s where c o - o r d i n a t i o n o f s e r v i c e s were p r o v i d e d  School  and Urban S e r v i c e  for.  Co-ordination  During s c h o o l hours, t h e r e i s u s u a l l y ample c a p a c i t y i n the c i t y bus systems t o serve  the s c h o o l l o a d s t h a t would o t h e r w i s e be c a r r i e d by  s c h o o l buses. With t h i s c o - o r d i n a t i o n o b j e c t i v e i n mind, the P r o v i n c i a l Agency u s u a l l y informs the School  Boards and t h e c i t i e s who a r e j o i n t l y  r e s p o n s i b l e f o r s c h o o l s e r v i c e s , of the p o t e n t i a l b e n e f i t s i n c o - o r d i n a t i n g the urban and s c h o o l s e r v i c e . T h i s has been achieved  with  the K i t i m a t  System.  In K i t i m a t , the School  D i s t r i c t used to c o n t r a c t s c h o o l bus o p e r a t o r s t o  run the s c h o o l s e r v i c e s . S i n c e  t h e r e was spare c a p a c i t y i n the urban  system, i t was suggested by the T r a n s i t Agency t o the l o c a l government t h a t t h i s spare c a p a c i t y c o u l d be u t i l i z e d by t r a n s p o r t i n g s t d u e n t s at the same time both the l o c a l government and the School b e n e f i t from not having  t o go out f o r a separate  Board  while  could  s c h o o l bus c o n t r a c t .  183.  The  School Board p a i d the P r o v i n c i a l Agency a f i x e d f e e f o r u s i n g  P r o v i n c i a l f l e e t . L a t e r , a c o s t - s h a r i n g agreement was  made between the  t h r e e p a r t i e s i n v o l v e d f o r s e r v i c e s that were u t i l i z e d operations.  The  areas  co-ordination.  Co-ordination  above approach can a l s o be  areas.  s o l e l y f o r school  In t h i s case, a l l p a r t i e s b e n e f i t t e d from the  R u r a l and Urban S e r v i c e  the  implemented i n s u p p l y i n g s e r v i c e s to  In Maple Ridge, the m a j o r i t y of the r o u t e m i l e s  serve  rural  semi-rural  ten to f i f t e e n m i l e s from the town c e n t r e .  During  peak hour p e r i o d s a l l t r a n s i t v e h i c l e s are u t i l i z e d  urban areas. However, i n the o f f - p e a k provide  i n the  the excess v e h i c l e s are used to  s e r v i c e to the s e m i - r u r a l areas.  T h i s makes i t p o s s i b l e to  p r o v i d e t r a n s i t s e r v i c e s to s e m i - r u r a l r e s i d e n t s . 'Work' t r i p s  are  not  served but  trips  are  served.  o t h e r s e r v i c e s such as  'medical'  and  'shopping'  184.  5.5.3.  The ' I n t e g r a t i o n '  Objective  L o c a l o f f i c i a l s a r e encouraged by the T r a n s i t Agency t o view the l o c a t i o n , d e n s i t y and l a y o u t of new r e s i d e n t i a l s u b d i v i s i o n s and t h e l o c a t i o n o f s e r v i c e a r e a s as important elements i n the a b i l i t y o f t r a n s i t  t o serve  the requirements of l o c a l r e s i d e n t s . S i m i l i a r l y the r e l a t i o n s h i p between auto and t r a n s i t modes were i l l u s t r a t e d . Again i n f o r m a t i o n  was made  a v a i l a b l e showing t h a t p o l i c i e s designed to enhance t h e q u a l i t y o f automobile t r a v e l would l i k e l y be d e t r i m e n t a l  t o t h e performance of t r a n s i t  services.  As  documented i n S e c t i o n 5.,3>only a l i m i t e d degree of i n t e g r a t i o n has been  a c h i e v e d . Land use and development d e c i s i o n s have been made and w i l l c o n t i n u e t o be made on the b a s i s o f maximizing s a l e s and p r o f i t s f o r developers.  I t i s a f a c t t h a t l a n d use p l a n n e r s and d e v e l o p e r s c o n t r o l  the f a t e o f t r a n s i t .  In o r d e r  systems, t r a n s i t p l a n n i n g  to increase  the performance o f t r a n s i t  must be i n t e g r a t e d i n t o the o v e r a l l p l a n n i n g  p r o c e s s and should n o t be t r e a t e d as an a f t e r - t h o u g h t .  There a r e simple  improvements that can be adopted such as the f o l l o w i n g ^ :  1)  C l u s t e r i n g of a c t i v i t i e s When r e c r e a t i o n , m e d i c a l f a c i l i t i e s a r e l o c a t e d adjacent m a l l , the t r a n s i t r o u t e s  t h a t serve  p e o p l e t o t r a v e l t o the o t h e r the community p a t t e r n  t o a shopping  the shopping m a l l a l s o  a c t i v i t y centres.  allow  T h i s would change  from a "many-to-many" scheme to one of a  "many-to-few" n a t u r e . 2)  Neighborhood Direct  design  r o u t i n g through t h e c e n t r e o f a neighborhood p l a c e s  transit  185.  s e r v i c e c l o s e r t o area r e s i d e n t s and a v o i d s t h e n e c e s s i t y f o r t r a n s i t d i v e r s i o n s from r o u t e s t h a t f o l l o w p e r i p h e r a l s t r e e t s . In o r d e r t o permit d i r e c t  t r a n s i t s e r v i c e s to o p e r a t e w i t h i n a few hundred f e e t  of a l l r e s i d e n t s , simple c o n n e c t i o n s through  o f the c e n t r a l c o l l e c t o r  street  the e n t i r e neighborhood can be p r o v i d e d . These short s e c t i o n s  of the s t r e e t c o u l d be designed  f o r "BUS ONLY" o p e r a t i o n i f s a f e t y  of r e s i d e n t s i s t o be p r e s e r v e d . to a r t e r i a l s c o u l d be reduced  In some l o c a t i o n s , walking  distances  by p r o v i d i n g walkways.  A c t i v i t y c e n t r e design In t r a n s i t p l a n n i n g , the requirement c o n f l i c t s w i t h the requirement  for direct  routing frequently  t h a t the stops be c l o s e t o where t h e  a c t i o n i s . To serve a l a r g e shopping  c e n t r e , f o r example, a bus  may have t o make a two t o f i v e minute detour from a d i r e c t detriment shopping  o f through  service.  route to the  ( U s u a l l y t r a f f i c around o r through  c e n t r e s i s q u i t e congested.) When c o n f r o n t e d w i t h l a n d use  patterns that present  such c o n f l i c t , both  the a c t i v i t y and the through  passenger cannot be served w e l l . Based on e x p e r i e n c e  i n Penticton  and o t h e r s m a l l c i t y environments, p r o v i s i o n s can be made d u r i n g the base p e r i o d s t o p r o v i d e d i r e c t access t o major shopping  centres.  However, d u r i n g the peak p e r i o d s when t h e r e a r e g r e a t e r p o r t i o n s o f through  r i d e r s , d i r e c t routing i s provided.  I t has been suggested  by many t h a t s i t e p l a n n i n g g u i d e l i n e s t h a t  c r e a t e l a r g e setbacks  from s t r e e t f r o n t a g e e i t h e r f o r p a r k i n g o r  l a n d s c a p i n g purposes should be r e v i s e d t o c r e a t e a b e t t e r a c c e s s f o r transit  users.  I n c r e a s i n g d e n s i t y on a r t e r i a l s T o t a l number of people w i t h i n a r e a s o n a b l e walking  d i s t a n c e w i l l be  186.  increased  s i n c e buses n o r m a l l y run on a r t e r i a l  streets.  A l l the above recommendations f o r improvements a r e made on the b a s i s  that  g 1) people do n o t walk f a r t o t h e i r bus s t o p s (not bus r o u t e s ) ; 2) p e o p l e compare a t r i p by t r a n s i t w i t h the b e s t a l t e r n a t i v e , the same t r i p by automobile.  In o t h e r words, a person i s u n l i k e l y t o use t r a n s i t i f the stops a r e too far  away from h i s o r i g i n o r d e s t i n a t i o n  o r i f the r o u t i n g  i s circuitous  as t o be markedly l o n g e r and more time consuming than a d i r e c t t r i p by automobile. These a r e a few of the major a t t r i b u t e s o f t r a n s i t use t h a t can  be improved through b e t t e r  i n t e g r a t i o n o f l a n d use and t r a n s i t  p l a n n i n g . I f the s e r v i c e s a r e w e l l  integrated  t h e range o f a l t e r n a t i v e s  open t o u s e r s i s g r e a t l y expanded. The demand-responsive systems cannot generally  be j u s t i f i e d  as a t r a n s i t s t r a t e g y  on e i t h e r p r o d u c t i v i t y o r  - 9 f u e l e f f i c i e n c y grounds ( P i p e r , 197 6)  • I t i s appropriate  i n trans-  p o r t i n g handicapped persons and can be used t o improve the p r o d u c t i v i t y of s h a r e d - r i d e t a x i s . In g e n e r a l ,  e f f o r t s should be made t o develop urban  forms which make p o s s i b l e a good p u b l i c t r a n s p o r t  s e r v i c e at an a c c e p t a b l e  c o s t . P e r i p h e r a l b u i l t - u p a r e a s should be o r g a n i z e d around urban c e n t r e s and  low d e n s i t y  developments should be l i m i t e d .  187.  FOOTNOTES 1.  Weiss's framework f o r e v a l u a t i o n of g o a l achievement programs can be summarized by t h e f o l l o w i n g s t e p s : - i d e n t i f y g o a l s and o b j e c t i v e s ; - e s t a b l i s h c l e a r and s p e c i f i c c r i t e r i a f o r s u c c e s s ; - c o l l e c t evidence s y s t e m a t i c a l l y and t r a n s l a t e t h e evidence i n t o q u a n t i t a t i v e terms i f p o s s i b l e ; - compare evidence w i t h c r i t e r i a t h a t were s e t ; - draws c o n c l u s i o n s about e f f e c t i v e n e s s , t h e m e r i t s , the s u c c e s s , of t h e program.  2.  P o l i c y statement o f A p r i l 1973 by Honourable James L o r i m e r , M i n i s t e r of M u n i c i p a l A f f a i r s 1972-1975, t h e M i n i s t e r r e s p o n s i b l e f o r transit.  3.  McCrossen, Dennis F., "Choosing Performance I n d i c a t o r s f o r Small T r a n s i t Systems", T r a n s p o r t a t i o n E n g i n e e r i n g , V o l . 48, No. 3, March 1978, pp. 26-30.  4.  Tomazinis s t r e s s e d t h e e v a l u a t i o n of t r a n s i t supply t o be made on the b a s i s of s a t i s f y i n g f o u r p a r t i c i p a n t s ' p o i n t s of view. The o p e r a t o r ' s p o i n t of view i s not i n c l u d e d i n t h i s study because the e v a l u a t i o n d e a l s m a i n l y w i t h t h e program and the i n s t i t u t i o n a l arrangement r a t h e r than each i n d i v i d u a l system's o p e r a t i o n s and how w e l l t h e systems a r e p e r f o r m i n g . The a c t u a l s e r v i c e p r o d u c t i v i t i e s r e f l e c t t h e e f f i c i e n c y o f t h e 'p.m.a. more so than t h e o p e r a t o r s i n c e the agency i s t h e one r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the d e s i g n and t h e packaging of t h e p r o d u c t . 1  5.  P i p e r , Robert R., "Energy E f f i c i e n c y o f D i a l - A - R i d e C l a r a , C a l i f o r n i a , 1976.  System", Santa  6.  Personal Planning  7.  S u l l i v a n , B r i a n E., T r a n s i t P l a n n i n g and Community D e s i g n : Innovati o n s i n approach t o the Problems of Urban T r a n s p o r t , T r a n s i t S e r v i c e s D i v i s i o n , B r i t i s h Columbia Government, February 1976, V i c t o r i a - V a n c o u v e r , B r i t i s h Columbia.  8.  P i p e r , Robert R., E. K-Y. Chan and R. S. G l o v e r , "Walking D i s t a n c e s t o Bus Stops", P r o c e e d i n g s , seventeenth annual meeting, T r a n s p o r t a t i o n Research Forum 17, 1:307-312, 1976.  9.  Piper,  c o n v e r s a t i o n w i t h Mr. Bob David ( D i r e c t o r o f P l a n n i n g ) , Department, C i t y of Edmonton, 1977.  ibid.  188.  CHAPTER SIX SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND  6.0  RECOMMENDATION  CONCLUSIONS  The purpose  of t h i s paper was  s e r v i c e s to s m a l l c i t i e s  to examine and  i n the P r o v i n c e of B r i t i s h Columbia.  P r o v i n c i a l government involvement s u f f e r i n g from the f o l l o w i n g i) ii) iii) iv) v)  increasing  i n transit  Prior  transit to  supply the i n d u s t r y was  problems:  costs;  decreasing r i d e r s h i p ; reduced  or s t a g n a n t service l e v e l s i n growing  cities;  s e r v i c e l e v e l s which d i d not meet minimum n a t i o n a l s t a n d a r d s ; a shortage of m a n a g e r i a l p e r s o n n e l f a m i l i a r w i t h p l a n n i n g , managing and o p e r a t i n g t r a n s i t  vi)  e v a l u a t e the supply of  low p r o d u c t i v i t i e s of the  systems;  systems.  S t a t i s t i c s from Census Canada showed t h a t a p p r o x i m a t e l y B. C. do not have a c c e s s to automobile and a d u l t member of the household  i n 50%' of the f a m i l i e s  i s without a c c e s s to an  The g e n e r a l s t a t e of d e c l i n e of the t r a n s i t  20% of f a m i l i e s i n  automobile.  i n d u s t r y and  the d e s i r e to  p r o v i d e a b a s i c l e v e l of m o b i l i t y f o r B r i t i s h Columbians without means of t r a n s p o r t a t i o n became the prime r e a s o n f o r P r o v i n c i a l i n the s m a l l c i t y t r a n s i t  i n d u s t r y . Two  one  secondary reasons f o r  other  involvement involvement  were: - to p r o v i d e an a l t e r n a t i v e to e x p e n d i t u r e s on p r i v a t e thereby c o n s e r v i n g l a n d and  liveability;  transportation  189.  - to d e c r e a s e the dependence on the p r i v a t e automobile.  In order was  to implement the t r a n s i t  created.  supply  program a p u b l i c marketing agency  I t embodies the concept of s e p a r a t i o n  responsibilities.  M a r k e t i n g and  planning  of f u n c t i o n s  and  d e c i s i o n s a r e assigned  to  the  Agency w h i l e a c t u a l o p e r a t i o n s  of the s e r v i c e i s executed by a p r i v a t e l y  or p u b l i c l y owned c a r r i e r . The  p u b l i c marketing agency approach to  menting the t r a n s i t provide  supply  program was  s e l e c t e d because i t was  thought  a g r e a t e r degree of c o n t r o l over program implementation.  underlying i)  reasons f o r a d o p t i o n of the  p r o v i d e means of e f f i c i e n t l y a d m i n i s t e r i n g  iii)  to a c h i e v e c o - o r d i n a t i o n  l o c a l land use  T h i s paper evaluated  how  government funded  of t r a n s p o r t modes and  carriers;  and  transportation  planning.  w e l l the t r a n s i t  marketing agency a t t a i n e d the g o a l s g o a l s and  The  measuring b e n e f i t s ;  to enable the choser i n t e g r a t i o n of p u b l i c and  to  'p.m.a.' were t o :  s e r v i c e s , m o n i t o r i n g performances and ii)  imple-_  supply  set out.  program and  I t should  the  public  be noted t h a t  the  o b j e c t i v e s s t a t e d above were not n e c e s s a r i l y e x p l i c i t l y s t a t e d .  Some were i n f e r r e d from statements of government o f f i c i a l s . Due  to  vague n a t u r e of the g o a l s and  definable  the complete l a c k of measureable,  c r i t e r i a by which to measure.success or f a i l u r e i n a t t a i n i n g the an e v a l u a t i o n of the supply  program and  the  'p.m.a.' was  the  goals,  difficult.  190.  6.1  THE  TRANSIT SUPPLY PROGRAM  The M o b i l i t y O b j e c t i v e  T r a n s i t usage i n s m a l l c i t i e s from 1972,  increased s i x - f o l d during  the p e r i o d  when the government involvement began, to 1977.  on board passenger surveys population  Household  showed that the young, the o l d and  (the e a r l e s s ) were the l a r g e s t p r o p o r t i o n of  and  the female  users.  S e r v i c e l e v e l s p r i o r to government involvement were below n a t i o n a l l y accepted national  standards;  by 1977  s e r v i c e l e v e l s were improved to b e t t e r  than  standards.  From the p o i n t of view of the u s e r s  the l e v e l s of s e r v i c e was  adequate  i n terms of coverage of r e s i d e n t i a l o r i g i n s but d i d not p r o v i d e good s e r v i c e f o r work d e s t i n a t i o n s . T h i s was  not  transit  intended  i n s m a l l c i t i e s was  Easy cheap p a r k i n g and  not  seen as a s e r i o u s problem because to serve the commuter market.  a l a c k of c o n g e s t i o n  preclude  the c a p t u r e  of  this  market.  T r a n s i t was  found to be g e n e r a l l y accepted  a few were c o m p l e t e l y  against using  without  the t r a n s i t  access  supply  and  only  t r a n s i t . The m a j o r i t y c o n s i d e r e d  s i t as an a l t e r n a t i v e i f they were without  In g e n e r a l ,  i n small c i t i e s ,  the use of t h e i r  car.  program d i d improve the m o b i l i t y of  to a c a r . Both u s e r s and  tranr  non-users a l i k e h e l d a  those  favorable  o p i n i o n of t r a n s i t . T h i s means t h a t the l o c a l r e s i d e n t s were s a t i s f i e d w i t h what they voted  to have f o r t h e i r  community.  191.  'Conserving  l a n d and l i v a b i l i t y '  Objective  In o r d e r t o achieve t h i s o b j e c t i v e energy s a v i n g s , r e d u c t i o n i n t r a f f i c c o n g e s t i o n and p a r k i n g requirements and  and i n t e g r a t i o n of l a n d use p l a n n i n g  t r a n s p o r t p l a n n i n g were seen as g o a l s t o a c h i e v e .  Survey f i n d i n g s i n d i c a t e d t h a t o n l y 5 t o 18% o f t r a n s i t r i d e r s were former auto u s e r s . S i n c e t r a n s i t accounts  f o r no more than 8% o f a l l t r i p s i n  the community, t h e impact of t r a n s i t on energy consumption i s s m a l l . Due to  the low usage by commuters, both t h e s u b s t i t u t i o n e f f e c t of t r a n s i t  to  investment  (it  i n t h e p r i v a t e mode and t h e r e d u c t i o n o f t r a f f i c  congestion  i s not too bad t o b e g i n with) have not m a t e r i a l i z e d i n t h e s m a l l  Land use d e c i s i o n s i n s m a l l c i t i e s than s o c i a l b e n e f i t s . U n l e s s  a r e made on the b a s i s of p r o f i t s r a t h e r  land developers  become more c o n s c i o u s of  s o c i a l i s s u e s , i t i s d o u b t f u l whether t r a n s i t w i l l  ever become p a r t of  the o v e r a l l community p l a n n i n g p r o c e s s . E s s e n t i a l l y t r a n s i t  is still  viewed as a s e r v i c e secondary t o road, water and sewer. At p r e s e n t , fair  t o conclude  planning  cities.  i t is  that t h e r e i s no i n t e g r a t i o n o f l a n d use and t r a n s p o r t  i n s m a l l B. C. c i t i e s .  'Reduced Dependence on Auto' O b j e c t i v e  T h i s o b j e c t i v e was e v a l u a t e d by examining t h e extent o f s w i t c h and c h o i c e r i d i n g , whether people of  t h e i r automobiles and t h e impact  t r a n s i t on auto ownership.  T r a n s i t has reduced to  can do without  dependence on t h e auto because i t was found  t h a t 35%  50% of a l l t r a n s i t u s e r s would have t o depend cn'.the automobile e i t h e r  as a passenger o r d r i v e r i f t r a n s i t was not a v a i l a b l e . A l s o 85% of those  surveyed  i n d i c a t e d they  c o u l d do without  use of  their car i f  192. n e c e s s a r y . T h i s suggests a reduced dependence on the auto due Auto ownership was that  t r a n s i t had  In g e n e r a l  s l i g h t l y a f f e c t e d as 5%  said  t h a t the  t r a n s i t supply  ing l i v a b i l i t y  i n terms of reduced c o n g e s t i o n ,  and  land use and  Economic E f f i c i e n c y and  Neither  transit  s u c c e s s f u l at  reduced f u e l  performance and  provide  no b a s i s f o r  performance of the t r a n s i t  supply  f o u r performance measures  ' r i d e s per  program was  of the performance of s m a l l B. C.  The  deficit  per  c i t i e s was  large c i t i e s .  four  large c i t y  i n B. C. w i t h  times g r e a t e r  a l s o four  times  the d i f f e r e n t requirements of t r a n s i t  That i s , that s m a l l c i t y t r a n s i t  c a p t i v e market w i t h l i t t l e  comparing large  undertaken.  i n s m a l l c i t i e s , however, the r i d e s per c a p i t a was  and  by  i n Western Canada. A l s o a comparison  c a p i t a i n l a r g e urban a r e a s was  These d i f f e r e n c e s r e f l e c t  ratio',  capita'.  evaluated  the aggregate performance measures of the s m a l l c i t i e s with small c i t i e s  have  evaluating  they were: 'cost r e c o v e r y  ' d e f i c i t per c a p i t a ' , ' d e f i c i t per r i d e ' and  c i t i e s , and  consumption  the T r a n s i t S e r v i c e s A c t  subsidies. Therefore,  were s e l e c t e d f o r the e v a l u a t i o n and  B. C.  increas-  E f f e c t i v e n e s s of the Program  the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of t r a n s i t  The  their  planning.  the Rapid T r a n s i t Subsidy A c t nor  any mention of t r a n s i t  been s u c c e s s f u l  reducing  not been v e r y  indicated  household.  program has  at i n c r e a s i n g the m o b i l i t y of s m a l l c i t y r e s i d e n t s and dependence on the auto. However, i t has  transit.  of r e s i d e n t s surveyed  a f f e c t e d the l e v e l of c a r ownership i n t h e i r  i t can be  integrated  to  than greater.  i n small  c a t e r s l a r g e l y to  the  emphasis on s e r v i n g the commuter market w h i l e  t r a n s i t c a t e r s t o both the c a p t i v e and  c h o i c e markets w i t h more  193.  emphasis on s e r v i n g the commuter market.  In g e n e r a l , B. C. c i t i e s were found to have a lower market than p r a i r i e c i t i e s .  I t was  penetration  thought t h a t t h i s c o u l d be e x p l a i n e d by  f a c t t h a t p r a i r i e c i t y systems have been i n o p e r a t i o n f o r a l o n g e r  the period  of time a l l o w i n g the development of r i d i n g h a b i t s which have not been developed i n the new  The  B. C.  systems.  performance of the twelve B. C. systems v a r i e d w i d e l y . V a r i a t i o n s  in population density, geographical a l l o c a t i o n of P r o v i n c i a l support  c o n s t r a i n t s , and  (from $2.12  to $18.50 per c a p i t a d e f i c i t )  were the cause of performance v a r i a t i o n s . The support  and  important  difference i n Provincial  hence l e v e l of s e r v i c e s u p p l i e d was  found to be the most  f a c t o r i n c a u s i n g v a r i a t i o n s i n per c a p i t a r i d e r s h i p .  l e v e l s were found to be h i g h l y c o r r e l a t e d w i t h i s dependent on funding  from the  i n the most e f f e c t i v e and appropriateness small c i t i e s  the l e v e l of s e r v i c e , which  to a l l o c a t e P r o v i n c i a l  e q u i t a b l e manner q u e s t i o n s  support  a r i s e as to  i n the P r o v i n c e .  C u r r e n t l y the P r o v i n c e  simply  the  r e s u l t e d i n only within  wide v a r i a t i o n s of support ; e x i s t .  p o s t u l a t e d t h a t t h i s s i t u a t i o n was  l a c k of commitment and  not planned but was  due  d i r e c t i o n on the p a r t of d e c i s i o n makers as  what they expect or want t r a n s i t lacks:  to  matches  of the s m a l l c i t y p o p u l a t i o n r e c e i v i n g t r a n s i t f u n d i n g and,  I t was  the  of the c u r r e n t method of a l l o c a t i o n of r e s o u r c e s  c o n t r i b u t i o n s from the l o c a l l e v e l . T h i s approach has  t h a t 30%,  Ridership  Province.  Given t h a t the T r a n s i t A c t s were s e t up  30%  the wide range of  to a c h i e v e .  to a to  Because of t h i s the Agency  194.  i) ii) iii)  a c l e a r o b j e c t i v e of what t r a n s i t  i s expected t o accomplish;  the proper c r i t e r i a f o r a l l o c a t i n g funds; a program to measure the performance of the c i t i e s  supported  which can be used t o enhance proper a l l o c a t i o n of r e s o u r c e s ; and iv)  a uniform r e p o r t i n g  system.  Although i t can be s a i d t h a t the t r a n s i t  supply  program has been s u c c e s s f u l  i n i n c r e a s i n g the m o b i l i t y of the e a r l e s s , the r a i s o n d ' e t r e the approach t o d i s t r i b u t i o n of r e s o u r c e s  among c i t i e s  i s not e q u i t a b l e .  There a r e a few recommendations t h a t can be made concerning of the funding 1)  of the Program,  the d e f i c i e n c i e s  arrangement.  I t i s recommended t h a t the P r o v i n c e  adopt a s e t of d e f i n a b l e and  measurable g o a l s and o b j e c t i v e s . 2)  The Agency should  develop a s e t of c r i t e r i a f o r r e s o u r c e  i o n such t h a t „' i n an o p t i m a l 3)  I n order  fashion.  be developed such t h a t the d a t a r e q u i r e d  e v a l u a t i o n i s obtained  The  achieved  t o perform e f f i c i e n t l y , a u n i f o r m and simple r e p o r t i n g  system should  6. 2  g o a l s and o b j e c t i v e s can be  allocat-  f o r the  automatically.  THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PUBLIC MARKETING AGENCY  e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f the 'p.m.a.' was e v a l u a t e d  i n l i g h t of attainment of  the f o l l o w i n g o b j e c t i v e s . i) ii) iii)  C o n t r o l of the s e r v i c e s which government i s paying f o r . Co-ordination  of t r a n s p o r t modes and c a r r i e r s ,  I n t e g r a t i o n of p u b l i c t r a n s i t and land use p l a n n i n g .  In g e n e r a l ,  c o n t r o l was gained over the p r o v i s i o n of s e r v i c e , that i s , the  195.  'p.m.a.' i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h  l o c a l municipal  what, where and when s e r v i c e s should t h a t the  'p.m.a.' had  e t i t i o n on the b e h a l f the  little  input could u s u a l l y s p e c i f y  be p r o v i d e d .  However, i t was  found  c o n t r o l over c o s t s because of l a c k of comp-  of p r i v a t e o p e r a t o r s  'p.m.a.' to a u d i t o p e r a t o r s .  The  and  due  to the  unwillingness  of  f o l l o w i n g recommendations were made  r e g a r d i n g means of g a i n i n g more c o n t r o l over c o s t s : 1)  The  Agency should  seek ways to determine the c o s t s of p r o v i d i n g  s e r v i c e so t h a t d e f i c i t s can be accounted f o r . A u d i t i n g p r i v a t e operators 2)  The  may  be a b l e to serve  of who  provides  Another o b j e c t i v e of the is bus  t h i s purpose.  Agency ought to c o n s t a n t l y look f o r means of  s e r v i c e i n the most e f f i c i e n t  and  of  e f f e c t i v e way  providing -  regardless  the s e r v i c e ( p u b l i c or p r i v a t e ) .  'p.m.a.' i s the c o - o r d i n a t i o n of s e r v i c e s . , T h i s  g e n e r a l l y more a p p l i c a b l e i n l a r g e urban areas where the r a i l , a i r , and  i n t e r - c i t y coach systems can be l i n k e d t o g e t h e r .  In s m a l l  cities  the p o t e n t i a l e x i s t s f o r i n t e g r a t i o n of s c h o o l , r u r a l , s e m i - r u r a l and  urban  services.  In K i t i m a t the s p a r e c a p a c i t y of the urban system was students  to and  shopping and m e d i c a l  Another o b j e c t i v e of the and  transport  from s c h o o l . In Maple Ridge f r e e buses i n the  p e r i o d were used to p r o v i d e for  used t o  off-peak  s e r v i c e from r u r a l areas to the town c e n t r e  trips.  'p.m.a.' was  development d e c i s i o n s and  to a c h i e v e  t r a n s i t planning.  i n t e g r a t i o n of laHd  use  Although an e f f o r t was  made  to demonstrate to l o c a l o f f i c i a l s the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between the l o c a t i o n , d e n s i t y and was  achieved  the l a y o u t of r e s i d e n t i a l s u b d i v i s i o n s and i n the way  of i n t e g r a t i o n of l a n d use  t r a n s i t usage,  planning  and  little  transit  planning.  196.  The main purpose of t h e study i s t o document t h e supply  program - most  important t h e p u b l i c marketing agency and t o r e l a t e e f f i c i e n c y and e f f e c t i v e n e s s of t h e program t o the g o a l s and o b j e c t i v e s . C r i t e r i a of e v a l u a t i o n were e s t a b l i s h e d because none was a v a i l a b l e . J u s t i f i c a t i o n for t r a n s i t  s u b s i d i e s were d i s c u s s e d  and i t was found t h a t b e t t e r  funding  c r i t e r i a f o r t r a n s i t on t h e b a s i s o f need and performance a r e needed.  There a r e s e v e r a l p o t e n t i a l e f f e c t s of t h e f i n d i n g s of t h i s which c o u l d  research  i n f l u e n c e how a 'p.m.a.' arrangement can be developed and  implemented t o s u p p l y i n g  public transport  s e r v i c e s elsewhere (not l i m i t e d  to s m a l l c i t i e s ) . T h i s r e s e a r c h can: (i)  provide  a conceptual  framework f o r t h e development and  assessment o f ' p u b l i c marketing ( i i ) provide (iii)  agencies';  a p r a c t i c a l framework t o a n a l y s e government programs;  f l a g problem areas w i t h t h e 'p.m.a.' arrangement.  T h i s r e p o r t can a l s o be used f o r t h e f o l l o w i n g purposes: (i)  As a guide f o r p l a n n i n g  services i n small c i t i e s  (through  b e t t e r u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e needs and requirements i n s m a l l cities). (ii)  As r e f e r e n c e  f o r implementing t h e 'p.m.a.' concept and knowing  the p i t f a l l s t o a v o i d , (iii)  As a r e f e r e n c e and  (iv)  f o r p o l i c y makers t o s e t measureable o b j e c t i v e s  c l e a r and s p e c i f i c c r i t e r i a f o r program  Providing  an e v a l u a t i o n framework t o e v a l u a t e  program which has no d e f i n e a b l e t h e r e f o r e no c r i t e r i a f o r (v)  evaluation,  goals  a government  and measureable o b j e c t i v e s  evaluation,  Can be used t o judge t h e f i n a n c i a l requirements f o r t r a n s i t  197.  i n small (vi)  cities.  As a guide f o r s e t t i n g c r i t e r i a  f o r a l l o c a t i o n of f u n d i n g f o r  transit.  Further  Research  The e v a l u a t i o n p r e s e n t e d attempting  i n t h i s r e p o r t i s an e x p e r i m e n t a l  t o t i e the concept  of g o a l achievement and  measures to the e v a l u a t i o n of a government t r a n s i t Through the course of t h i s r e s e a r c h i t was  found  work on the e v a l u a t i o n of the r e l a t i o n s h i p s and  approach  transit  performance  supply program.  t h a t t h e r e was  limited  the a p p l i c a t i o n s of  t r a n s i t performance measures to a s s e s s i n g the success of government transit  supply programs. I t i s recommended t h a t more r e s e a r c h should  devoted  to t h a t a r e a . I t was  a l s o found  t h a t g r e a t e r i n f o r m a t i o n on  performance of the wide v a r i e t y of e x i s t i n g p u b l i c marketing  be the  agencies  i s needed.  The p o t e n t i a l u t i l i t y support. P o l i t i c a l  of t r a n s i t can o n l y be r e a l i z e d w i t h government  c o n s i d e r a t i o n s i n t r a n s i t d e c i s i o n making a r e  u n a v o i d a b l e . T h i s , however, does not p r e c l u d e the need f o r the  develop-  ment and use of economic c r i t e r i a . A v a i l a b i l i t y and knowledge of economic c r i t e r i a w i l l h e l p r a t i o n a l i z e the d e c i s i o n making p r o c e s s because d e c i s i o n makers w i l l different  then be aware of the r e l e v a n c e and weights  i n p u t s and outputs i n the p r o c e s s .  of  198.  BIBLIOGRAPHY A l l e n , W. G. and D i C a s a r e , F., " T r a n s i t S e r v i c e E v a l u a t i o n : An I n t r o d u c t i o n and P r e l i m i n a r y I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of V a r i a b l e s C h a r a c t e r i z i n g L e v e l of S e r v i c e " , T r a n s p o r t a t i o n Research Record 606, T r a n s p o r t a t i o n Research Board, Washington, D. C , 1976. A l t e r , C. H., " E v a l u a t i o n of P u b l i c T r a n s i t S e r v i c e : L e v e l of S e r v i c e Concept", T r a n s p o r t a t i o n Research Record 606, T r a n s p o r t a t i o n Research Board, Washington, D. C. , 1976. American P u b l i c T r a n s i t A s s o c i a t i o n , " I n d i c a t o r s : Measuring P r o d u c t i v i t y " , Passenger T r a n s p o r t 35, no. 44 (November 1977) : p. 3. Baudi, F., et a l , "Length of Walking D i s t a n c e s and D i s t a n c e T h e i r I n f l u e n c e on the A t t r a c t i v e n e s s of P u b l i c T r a n s p o r t " , V o l . 23-3, 1974.  Between Stops: UITP REVIEW,  Bennett, R., " I n c r e a s i n g the A t t r a c t i v e n e s s of P u b l i c T r a n s p o r t " , I n t e r n a t i o n a l Congress, UITP, 1971, Rome.  39th  Bennett, J . C. ,et a l , "Performance A u d i t i n g : A New Development f o r C a l i f o r n i a ' s P u b l i c T r a n s i t Systems", Bus R i d e , September, 1978. Botzow, H., " L e v e l - o f - S e r v i c e Concept f o r E v a l u a t i n g P u b l i c T r a n s p o r t " , T r a n s p o r t a t i o n Research Record 519, T r a n s p o r t a t i o n Research Board, Washington, D. C. 1974. B r i t i s h Columbia, Government of , The Impact of New S e r v i c e s i n The Coquitlam A r e a , Bureau of T r a n s i t S e r v i c e s , 1975, Victoria-Vancouver, B r i t i s h Columbia. Burkes, A. C. , et a l , T r a n s i t System P r o d u c t i v i t y , An I n f o r m a t i o n B u l l e t i n of the T r a n s p o r t a t i o n Task F o r c e of the Urban Consortium, U. S. Dept. of T r a n s p o r t a t i o n , March 1977. Canada, Government o f , Estimated P o p u l a t i o n of Canada by 1971, Cat. 91-201, S t a t i s t i c s Canada, 1971.  Province,  Canada, Government o f , "Housing - Household F a c i l i t i e s " , 1971 of Canada, Cat. 93 - 737, V o l . I I , P a r t 4, 1973, Ottawa. Costantino, A p r i l 1975,  Don pp.  P., " A t t i t u d e s of T r a n s i t Demand", T r a f f i c 243-257.  Census  Quarterly,  Cudahy, B. J . , "What';s A l l T h i s Hoopla About Performance Measurements?", Passenger T r a n s p o r t , APTA, V o l . 37, no. 15, A p r i l 1979. Dodge, S. A., " F i n d i n g a S u i t a b l e Framework f o r Performance I n d i c a t o r s " , Passenger T r a n s p o r t , APTA, V o l . 37, no. 20, May 1979. Dorfman, Robert, e d i t o r , Measuring B e n e f i t s of Government Investments, papers p r e s e n t e d at a c o n f e r e n c e of e x p e r t s h e l d November T963, S t u d i e s of Government F i n a n c e , The Brookings I n s t i t u t i o n , Washington, D.C..  1  199.  Drosdat, H. A., T r a n s i t Performance Measures: T h e i r S i g n i f i c a n c e i n L o c a l Funding A l l o c a t i o n , Ph.D. D i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of Washington, 1977. E l l e n , E. R., "Ways of H e l p i n g Buses i n Urban A r e a s " , UITP 4/1969, London T r a n s p o r t , London, England. F i e l d i n g , Gordon J . and Roy E. G l a u t h i e r , D i s t r i b u t i o n and A l l o c a t i o n of T r a n s i t S u b s i d i e s i n C a l i f o r n i a , U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a , B e r k e l e y and I r v i n e , I n s t i t u t e f o r T r a n s p o r t a t i o n S t u d i e s , September 1976. F i e l d i n g , G. J . , G l a u t h i e r R.E. and Lave C. A., Performance I n d i c a t o r s f o r T r a n s i t Management, I n s t i t u t e of T r a n s p o r t a t i o n S t u d i e s and School of S o c i a l S c i e n c e s , U n i t e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a , I r v i n e , C a l i f o r n i a , January 1978. Frankena, Mark W., Urban T r a n s p o r t a t i o n Economics and Canadian P u b l i c P o l i c y , Department of Economics, U n i v e r s i t y of Western O n t a r i o , 1977, London, O n t a r i o . F u l l e r E., Performances Measures f o r P u b l i c T r a n s i t S e r v i c e , C a l i f o r n i a Department of T r a n s p o r t a t i o n , Sacramento, C a l i f o r n i a , December 1978. Hayes, T.W., >et a l , F i n a n c i n g and E v a l u a t i n g P u b l i c T r a n s i t Systems i n C a l i f o r n i a , Report to the C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e L e g i s l a t u r e , O f f i c e of the A u d i t o r G e n e r a l , Report 295, January 1977. Hoel, L e s t e r A., et a l , L a t e n t Demand f o r Urban T r a n s p o r t a t i o n , T r a n s p o r t a t i o n Research I n s t i t u t e , C a r n e g i e - M e l l o n U n i v e r s i t y , 1968, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Hutchinson, B. G.,"Some Urban T r a n s p o r t a t i o n Investment Myths", presented at the Annual Convention of the Roads and T r a n s p o r t a t i o n A s s o c i a t i o n of Canada, October 1972, Winnipeg, Manitoba. Indiana, I n s t i t u t e f o r Urban T r a n s p o r t a t i o n , Mass T r a n s i t Management: A Handbook f o r Small c i t i e s , February 1971. Jones, David W. J r . , The P o l i t i c s of M e t r o p o l i t a n T r a n s p o r t a t i o n P l a n n i n g and Programming . I m p l i c a t i o n s F o r T r a n s p o r t a t i o n System Management, A t e c h n i c a l study component of P r o j e c t No. DOT-OS-50237, "Management f o r the F u t u r e , E v a l u a t i o n of the Urban T r a n s p o r t a t i o n Systems", I n s t i t u t e of T r a n s p o r t a t i o n S t u d i e s , U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a at B e r k e l e y , November 1976. K a i n , J . K. and John R. Meyer, " T r a n s p o r t a t i o n and I n t e r e s t , 20(Winter 1970) : 78. Kates,  Poverty",  The  Peat Marwick, T r a n s p o r t a t i o n S e r v i c e Measures, February  K i t i m a t , D i s t r i c t o f , K i t i m a t Townsite Report, March 1969, B r i t i s h Columbia.  Public  1973.  Kitimat,  200.  Krech, David, R i c h a r d S. C r u t c h f i e l d , and Egerton L. B a l l a c h e y , I n d i v i d u a l i n S o c i e t y , McGraw H i l l Book Company, N. Y. 1962, Chapter 5; and D a n i e l K a t z , "The F u n c t i o n a l Approach t o the Study o f A t t i t u d e s " , P u b l i c O p i n i o n Q u a r t e r l y , Summer 1960, pp.163-204. Lea.NN. D. and A s s o c i a t e s L t d . , T r a n s i t S e r v i c e O p t i o n f o r Small C i t i e s , A working paper prepared f o r t h e Urban T r a n s p o r t a t i o n Research Branch, Canadian S u r f a c e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , M o n t r e a l , Quebec, August 1978. Lovelock, C h r i s t o p h e r H., A p p l i c a t i o n s of D i f f u s i o n Theory t o M a r k e t i n g Urban Mass T r a n s i t w i t h s p e c i a l r e f e r e n c e to the Bay A r e a Rapid T r a n s i t D i s t r i c t , 1970. Lovelock, C h r i s t o p h e r H., Consumer O r i e n t e d Approaches t o M a r k e t i n g Urban T r a n s i t , DOT/UMTA Research Report No. 3, S t a n f o r d U n i v e r s i t y , March 1973, S t a n f o r d , C a l i f o r n i a . McCrosson, Dennis F., "Choosing Performance I n d i c a t o r s f o r Small T r a n s i t Systems", T r a n s p o r t a t i o n E n g i n e e r i n g , V o l . 48,. No. 3, March 1978, pp. 26-30.' Meyer, John R., e t a l , The Urban T r a n s p o r t a t i o n Problem, 1965. Mundy, Ray A., " P u b l i c T r a n s p o r t a t i o n Management - A Challenge t o T r a n s i t " , T r a n s p o r t a t i o n Centre, The U n i v e r s i t y o f Tennessee, presented at t h e Short Course on P u b l i c T r a n s i t May 29, 1978, Edmonton, A l b e r t a . N a t i o n a l Academy o f S c i e n c e s , Urban T r a n s p o r t a t i o n Economics, S p e c i a l Report 181, Proceedings o f F i v e Workshops i n P r i c i n g A l t e r n a t i v e s , Labour I s s u e s , M a r k e t i n g and Government F i n a n c i n g R e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , T r a n s p o r t a t i o n Research Board, Commission on S o c i o t e c h n i c a l Systems, 1978, Washington, D. C . Navin, F. P. D. and Horn, K., Urban T r a n s i t O p e r t i o n s Management, Dept. of C i v i l E n g i n e e r i n g , The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver, B. C., J u l y , 1977. Nelson, Gordon K., A l a n M. Voorhees and A s s o c i a t e s Inc. and W i l l i a m K. Fowler, " R e l a t i o n Between T r a n s i t R i d e r s h i p and Walking D i s t a n c e s i n a Low-Density F l o r i d a Retirement A r e a " , Highway Research Board, Record #403, 1971. Owen, W i l f r e d , The A c c e s s i b l e C i t y , Brookings I n s t i t u t i o n , 1972. Owen, W i l f r e d , The M e t r o p o l i t a n T r a n s p o r t a t i o n Problems, 1966, Brookings, Washington, D. C . P e n n s y l v a n i a , Commonwealth o f , O p e r a t i n g G u i d e l i n e s and Standards f o r Mass T r a n s p o r t a t i o n A s s i s t a n c e Program, Department o f T r a n s p o r t a t i o n , January, 1973.  201.  P e r e r a , Maximus H., The T r a n s i t System of Small C i t i e s i n O n t a r i o , Research Report No. 39, U n i v e r s i t y of Toronto, York U n i v e r s i t y J o i n t Program i n T r a n s p o r t a t i o n , A p r i l , 1977. P i p e r , Robert R., " T r a n s i t S t r a t e g i e s f o r Suburban Communities", J o u r n a l of the American I n s t i t u t e of P l a n n e r s , October, 1977. P i p e r , Robert R., E. K-Y. Chan and R. S. G l o v e r , "Walking D i s t a n c e s to Bus Stops", P r o c e e d i n g s , seventeenth annual meeting, T r a n s p o r t a t i o n Research Forum 17, 1:307-312, 1976. P i p e r , Robert R., "Energy E f f i c i e n c y of D i a l - A - R i d e C l a r a , C a l i f o r n i a , 1976.  System", Santa  P o l i c y Statement of A p r i l 1973 by Honourable James L o r i m e r , M i n i s t e r of M u n i c i p a l A f f a i r s , 1972-1975. Procedure Manual 8A, Recommended Standards, Warrants, and O b j e c t i v e s f o r T r a n s i t S e r v i c e and F a c i l i t i e s , N a t i o n a l Committee on Urban T r a n s p o r t a t i o n , P u b l i c A d m i n i s t r a t i o n S e r v i c e , Chicago, I l l i n o i s , 1958. Rapid T r a n s i t Subsidy A c t , 1972,  Province  of B r i t i s h  Columbia.  R i c e , R. G., The Development of L e v e l of S e r v i c e Design Standards f o r P u b l i c T r a n s i t System, P r e s e n t e d at the Annual Conference of the Roads and T r a n s p o r t a t i o n A s s o c i a t i o n of Canada, H a l i f a x , Nova S c o t i a , October, 1973. S e r v i c e P o l i c y f o r S u r f a c e P u b l i c T r a n s p o r t a t i o n , Massachusetts T r a n s p o r t a t i o n A u t h o r i t y , December, 1975. Smerk, George M., " S u b s i d i e s Economics, February 1965.  f o r Urban Mass T r a n s p o r t a t i o n " ,  Bay  Land  Snoble, R. P., SDTC Performance I n d i c a t o r s , APTA Western Conference, Calgary, A l b e r t a , A p r i l 1978. Solomon, Kathleen M., R i c h a r d J . Solomon, and Joseph S. S i l i e n , Passenger P s y c h o l o g i c a l Dynamics, Sources of i n f o r m a t i o n on Urban T r a n s p o r t a t i o n , Report number 3, June, 1968. Stanton, W i l l i a m J . , Fundamentals of M a r k e t i n g , T h i r d E d i t i o n , McGraw H i l l .  1971,  Stokes, B. R., "The Need For and Use of Performance I n d i c a t o r s i n Urban T r a n s i t " , T r a n s i t J o u r n a l , V o l . 5, no. 1, Winter 1979. S u l l i v a n , B r i a n E., " D i s c u s s i o n Paper on Corporate O b j e c t i v e s f o r B r i t i s h Columbia Urban T r a n s i t A u t h o r i t y " , unpublished paper, 1978. S u l l i v a n , B r i a n E., P u b l i c T r a n s p o r t M a r k e t i n g and P l a n n i n g , An Overview, Bureau of T r a n s i t S e r v i c e s , B r i t i s h Columbia Government, March 1973, V i c t o r i a - V a n c o u v e r , B r i t i s h Columbia.  202.  S u l l i v a n , B r i a n E., Standards G u i d i n g the Design o f T r a n s i t S e r v i c e s , Bureau o f T r a n s i t S e r v i c e s , B r i t i s h Columbia Government, February 1976, V i c t o r i a - V a n c o u v e r , B r i t i s h Columbia. S u l l i v a n , B r i a n E., T r a n s i t P l a n n i n g and Community Design: Innovations i n Approach t o the Problems o f Urban T r a n s p o r t , Bureau o f T r a n s i t S e r v i c e s , B r i t i s h Columbia Government, 1974, V i c t o r i a - V a n c o u v e r , B r i t i s h Columbia. S u l l i v a n , B r i a n E., An A n a l y s i s o f Demand f o r and Supply o f R u r a l P u b l i c T r a n s p o r t a t i o n : The Case o f A l b e r t a , unpublished Ph.D. D i s s e r t a t i o n , S t a n f o r d U n i v e r s i t y , June 1974, S t a n f o r d , C a l i f o r n i a . S u l l i v a n , B r i a n E;, "New Methods o f P u b l i c T r a n s p o r t A d m i n i s t r a t i o n : The P u b l i c M a r k e t i n g Agency", Canadian T r a n s p o r t Commission Research P u b l i c a t i o n , Report 46, October, 1972. S u l l i v a n , B r i a n E., Timed-Transfer F o c a l P o i n t Concept, Bureau o f T r a n s i t S e r v i c e s , B r i t i s h Columbia Government, 1974, V i c t o r i a - V a n c o u v e r , B r i t i s h Columbia. Thompson, Gregory L., A Macro A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a b l e s I n f l u e n c i n g T r a n s i t Usage, Bureau o f T r a n s i t S e r v i c e s , B r i t i s h Columbia Government, A p r i l 1973, V i c t o r i a - V a n c o u v e r , B r i t i s h Columbia. Thompson, Gregory L., P l a n n i n g C o n s i d e r a t i o n s F o r I n c r e a s i n g Area T r a n s i t Impact, unpublished paper, January 1976.  Metropolitan  T o m a z i n i s , A. R., P r o d u c t i v i t y , E f f i c i e n c y , and Q u a l i t y i n Urban T r a n s p o r t a t i o n Systems, D. C. Heath and Company, L e x i n g t o n , Mass., 1975": Toronto T r a n s i t Commission, P o l i c i e s f o r D i s c u s s i o n - Standards f o r E v a l u a t i n g E x i s t i n g and Proposed Routes, January, 1977. Toronto T r a n s i t Commission, T r a n s i t Revenue P o l i c y Study, A p r i l 1977. Toronto T r a n s i t Commission, S e r v i c e Standards: R e s u l t s o f the A n a l y s i s Undertaken f o r t h e Year 1978, Report no. 5, A p r i l , 1978. Toronto P l a n n i n g B o a r d , . C i t y o f , Review o f the T.T.C.'s Report: P o l i c i e s f o r D i s c u s s i o n , Standards f o r E v a l u a t i n g E x i s t i n g and Proposed Routes, October, 1977. T r a n s i t S e r v i c e P o l i c y , Memorandum t o the SCAG T r a n s p o r a t i o n and U t i l i t i e s Committee, Southern C a l i f o r n i a A s s o c i a t i o n o f Governments, March 17, 1976 ( u n p u b l i s h e d ) . T r a n s p o r t Canada, S t r a t e g i c S t u d i e s Branch o f , I n d i r e c t Energy i n T r a n s p o r t a t i o n , A r e p o r t prepared by the IBI Group, March, 1978.  203.  Urban Mass T r a n s p o r t a t i o n I n d u s t r y Uniform System o f Accounts and Records and R e p o r t i n g System, Department o f T r a n s p o r t a t i o n , Urban Mass T r a n s p o r t a t i o n A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , O f f i c e o f T r a n s i t Management, V o l . 1 , January 1977. Wachs, M a r t i n , "Consumer A t t i t u d e Towards T r a n s i t S e r v i c e : An I n t e r p r e t i v e Review", J o u r n a l of the American I n s t i t u t e of P l a n n e r s , V o l . 42, No. 1, 1976, pp.96-104. Weiss, C a r o l H . , E v a l u a t i o n Research Methods of A s s e s s i n g E f f e c t i v e n e s s , P r e n t i c e H a l l , 1972.  Program  APPENDIX A l  THE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE  205.  Transit Survey INFORMATION ABOUT YOURSELF a)  How long have you lived at your present address?  b)  How long have you lived in this community? |  |0-2 years  3-5 years \  Years  (Please check one)  \6-10 years  [  |over 10 years  c)  In what other major cities or urban areas have you lived, for periods of two or more years?  d)  What i s your sex?  e)  Your marital status?  f)  Please check your age group.  Male Single  \  \ Female Married  other  20 or less 21-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65 and over g)  Have you attended university or post-secondary institutions?  Yes  No  If yes, please check the highest level of post^secondary education achieved so far. ^ Post-secondary education Obtained Bachelor's degree Graduate work YOUR USAGE OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION a)  Please check the one sentence below which best describes your experience with bus services. I don't use the bus and I never have in the past. I don't use the bus at the present time, although I have used it in the past. I occasionally use the bus, but only when I have to. I occasionally use the bus by choice. I am a regular bus user by choice. I am a regular bus user because I have no alternatives.  b)  Do you have any particular reasons for not using the bus service regularly?  206.  c)  Have you encountered any problems in trying to use the bus?  TRANSIT ADVERTISING AND PUBLICATIONS a)  Can you recollect having seen or heard any advertising specifically for bus services in your corrrnunity? (Please check one) No  Yes  Unsure  If yes, when? Where did you hear about the bus service? Newspaper  |  | radio  T.V.  b)  Do you have a bus timetable in your home?  c)  If you are a bus user, do you make use of the timetable?  Yes  No  frequently occasionally once ov twice never, Why not? INFORMATION ON TRANSIT AND YOUR COMMUNITY  d Imagine that someone wants to know a few things about public transportation in your carrnunity. Below, please indicate quickly and briefly the answer that you would be able to give to each question based upon your current knowledge and without checking up on the matter or asking any other household members for advice. (If you know the answer, please write i t in. If you don't know i t or are not sure, please check the box marked 'unsure'.) Part A Question: Answer:  "Is there a local bus service Yes  around this  community?"  I Unsure  No  If you answer 'no' or 'unsure', please skip to Part B. If 'yes', please continue below. Question;  "How frequently  do the buses run on local  Answer: during the day during Or  Unsure  the evening  routes?"  207.  Question:  "What is the fare for a one-way  Answer: Question:  Or  trip?"  Unsure  "Where is the nearest bus stop?"  Answer:  Or  Unsure  Part B How would you try to obtain further information about the public transit service in your area? Answer:  DRIVING AND VEHICLE OWNERSHIP IN YOUR HOUSEHOLD a) Do you have a current drivers license?  Yes  No  b) Roughly, how many miles do you say you drive per year? Do not drive 5,000 miles or less 5,001-10,000 miles 10,001-15,000 miles 15,001-20,000 miles Over 20,000 miles c) How many persons, including yourself, are residing full-time in your household? (Please exclude anyone living away from home while at school or college.) Persons aged 16 and over Persons aged 10 - 15' Persons aged 9 and under d) How many of those aged 16 and over are regular drivers? (Drive car three times a week of more)  e) How many of each of the following types of vehicles, i n working order, are operated by resident members of your household (including yourself)? Autos (including Motorcycles Bicycles  campers, trucks)  208.  f) To what extent do you normally have personal use of a car available to you (Please  check one)  AIways Most of the time Part of the time Occasionally I Never  g) Has the availability of bus service affected the number of automobiles in your household? No Yes,  to what  extent?  h) Do you expect to reduce the number of automobiles i n your household within the next year, due to the present bus service? Probably Possibly Don't know Probably not  209.  TRAVEL AND YOUR JOB a)  What i s your occupation?  (Only those who have regular jobs or who are students answer the next few questions, others please skip to the next section.) b)  How many days a week do you normally go to work?  days  Where is your regular place of work or study located?  Do people who commute there by car normally have to pay parking fees? (Please check one) i 1 .-, Always Sometimes Never Parking provided free of charge c)  What mode(s) of transportation do you use, and how frequently, for corrmuting to and from your place of work or study? (Please check as many boxes below as are appropriate) Frequency of use for commute trips 5 or more \days/week  Drxve auto alone Drive with  family  Carpool (or ride friends )  with  Bus Taxi Motorcycle Bicycle Walk Other (please specify A  3-4 days/week  1-2 days/week  Occasionally  210. d)  If you ever use the bus for corrmuting, how do you reach the bus stop from your home? Walk Drive and park car Obtain a ride Other  6  Approximate Time  And how do you reach your workplace from the bus stop at the other end? Walk Obtain a ride Other e)  Approximate Time  If necessary, could you get from your house to your regular place of work or study by bus? (Please check one) Yes,fairly easily Yes, but it is inconvenient Possible, but its very inconvenient No, it is impossible ^_ Unsure [ Not applicable, work at home or within  f)  walking  distance  What are your usual hours of work? to  NON-CXM1UTE T R A V E L a)  For journeys in your cxximunity other than going to work, how much do you use each of the following modes of transportation? Frequency of use for non-commute trips  Your own or household auto Motorcycle Bicycle Taxi Bus Walk Other (please  specify)  At least once Never, or 1-3 3 or more days/week days/week days per in past year not lately month  211. OPINION OF BUS TRAVEL IN YOUR AREA Please indicate your general opinion of BUS travel in your area based on what you know or have heard about travel by bus within your community. extremely ~~ moderately  neither , slightly  slightly  Characteristies  extremely moderately  •6  3  dangerous form of travel  safety  safe form of traveI  comfort  oomfortable  convenience  convenient  1 2  3  4  5  6  7  inconvenient  enjoyment  enjoyable  1 2  3  4  5  6  7  unenjoyable  reliability  reliable  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  unreliable  punctuality  on-time arrival  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  late  speed on commute trips  fast  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  slow  speed on noncommute trips  fast  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  slow  cost of traveI  inexpensive  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  expensive  uncomfortable  arrival  212.  8  YOUR OPINION ON TRANSPORTATION AND PERSONAL TRAVEL Please circle the letter which best describes your feeling about each of the statements, according to the following codes: A a o d D  means means means means means  strongly agree slightly agree neither agree nor disagree slightly disagree strongly disagree  1)  The idea of ear-pooling  2)  I would never travel regularly by any form of public ation, no matter how much they improved the service.  3)  Travelling  4)  I might use the bus service more often if information routes and schedules were easier to obtain.  5)  I hate to be tied to fixed  6)  I don't enjoy driving  7)  I have bad memories of public  8)  It is important to me that my home should be close  9)  I have never bothered to find out details of what public portation services are available around here.  10)  I would use public  11)  I could manage without a car for a few months if I had to.  12)  I really  13)  I don't think  14)  I have sometimes not tried the exact fare handy.  15)  The buses are clean.  16)  The bus drivers  A  a  o d, D  A  a  o  d  D  A  a  o  d  D  A  a  o  d  D  A  a  o  d  D  A  a  o  d  D  A  a  o  d  D  to bus routes. A  a  o d  D  :A  a  o  d  D  a lot more if fares were lower. A  a  o  d  D  A  a  o  d  D  A  a  o d  D  A  a  o  d  D  o d  D  appeals to me.  by bus is so much more relaxing  schedules for  than  transport-  driving. about  travelling.  very much. transportation  transportation  can't see much of a future there's a parking  elsewhere.  for public  trans-  transportation.  problem in our community.  to use the bus because I did not have • A a  here are friendly  and courteous.  A  a  o  d  D  A  a  o  d  D  APPENDIX  A2  BACKGROUND INFORMATION OF THE THREE CITIES SELECTED FOR THE SURVEY AND THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THEIR BUS SERVICE  214.  The  C i t y of P e n t i c t o n  P e n t i c t o n i s a compact c i t y of 21,000 s i t u a t e d at the Okanagan V a l l e y i n Southern i n t e r i o r  of B r i t i s h  Columbia. The  c i t y i s surrounded by  Okanagan Lake to the n o r t h , the Skaha Lake to the south R i v e r to the west. The  c o n s i d e r a b l y day  and  and  the Okanagan  sunny c l i m a t e i n the  Okanagan Region has made P e n t i c t o n , and Kelowna f o r t h a t m a t t e r , of the most a t t r a c t i v e summer r e s o r t areas  tourist  The  and  vary  range from the base of 21,000 to 28,000 at the peak of  the  season.  c i t y of P e n t i c t o n a t t r a c t s not o n l y the t o u r i s t s i n the summer, but  a l s o the r e t i r e d c i t i z e n s from o t h e r areas. The the c i t y i s very, they  two  i n the West. Tourism i s  P e n t i c t o n ' s major economic source. As a r e s u l t , a r e a p o p u l a t i o n widely  the  senior population i n  h i g h as compared to o t h e r p a r t s of the P r o v i n c e  account f o r 17% of the c i t y p o p u l a t i o n . The  and  young p o p u l a t i o n  account f o r a s u b s t a n t i a l p o r t i o n of the c i t y p o p u l a t i o n as w e l l  (30%).  The n a t u r a l topography of the c i t y has  c o n s t r a i n e d most of the urban  development, r e s u l t i n g i n a r e l a t i v e l y  compact p a t t e r n of development  between Lake Okanagan and Lake Skaha. However, the community s e r v i c e s and  activities  are d i s p e r s e d . The  h o s p i t a l , shopping c e n t r e s  r e c r e a t i o n f a c i l i t i e s a l l l o c a t e d at d i f f e r e n t p a r t s of the R e s i d e n t i a l developments a l s o are s c a t t e r e d around the  of the c i t y  two  centre.  city.  community.  Downtown P e n t i c t o n i s the l a r g e s t s i n g l e c o n c e n t r a t i o n of i n the c i t y w i t h  and  activities  o t h e r major shopping c e n t r e l o c a t e d to the  south  215.  H i s t o r i c a l Development Of T r a n s i t S e r v i c e In P e n t i c t o n Arid I t ' s Operating  H i s t o r i c a l Development Of  The  Performance  Service  P e n t i c t o n T r a n s i t System was  I t was joint  s u b s i d i z e d by the l o c a l government.  In 1974,  routes.  the c i t y went i n t o a  venture w i t h the P r o v i n c i a l Government under the terms of the  T r a n s i t L e g i s l a t i o n s (the Rapid Act). and  a one-bus o p e r a t i o n , s e r v i n g two  The  the  deficits  T r a n s i t Subsidy Act and  two  the T r a n s i t S e r v i c e s  from the one-bus system were shared between the  city  province.  On January, 1977,  a new  system was  c o n t r a c t ' arrangement. P e n t i c t o n was  The  i n t r o d u c e d under the  'purchase of  contract, for operating t r a n s i t  awarded to B e r r y and  s t a r t e d w i t h t h r e e bus-routes  Smith T r u c k i n g L t d .  using three v e h i c l e s .  The  The  services i n new  system  t h r e e new  35 f o o t  d i e s e l buses were l e a s e d to the c i t y from the P r o v i n c i a l F l e e t a t a nominal fee  of one  dollar.  Monday to Saturday 10:30  p.m.  r u r a l and provided  S e r v i c e was and  operated  every h a l f - h o u r d u r i n g the day  g e n e r a l l y once an hour d u r i n g the evening  Timed t r a n s f e r c o n n e c t i o n s f r i n g e d s e r v i c e operated  until  were a l s o p r o v i d e d w i t h the  by Naramata Bus  Service.  The  from  semi-  new  system  t r a n s f e r p r i v i l e g e s which a p p l i e d to a l l p a r t s of the c i t y i n c l u d i n g  those c i t y r e s i d e n t s who t r a n s f e r connections  were served by the Naramata Bus  were p r o v i d e d  Service.  Timed  f o r the three r o u t e s at Downtown P e n t i c t o n .  216.  Regular a d u l t f a r e was students and  The  first  children.  f o u r days of s e r v i c e were f a r e - f r e e days to encourage people  to t r y out the new a l s o appeared were used  35c w i t h c o n c e s s i o n s g i v e n to s e n i o r c i t i z e n s ,  bus  service.  d u r i n g the week.  Radio  s p o t s and newspaper  Additional public service  to announce the f a r e - f r e e day.  the system  advertisements advertisements  In a d d i t i o n to the p r i n t i n g of  t i m e t a b l e i n the l o c a l newspaper, 7,000 system  t i m e t a b l e s were  d i s t r i b u t e d through shopping c e n t r e s , s t o r e s , p u b l i c a g e n c i e s , r e t i r e m e n t homes, the l i b r a r y , s c h o o l s e t c . was  The  transit  i n f o r m a t i o n telephone number  g i v e n wide p u b l i c i t y i n newspaper and r a d i o a d v e r t i s e m e n t s and  i n the  timetable.  The  system was  designed j o i n t l y by the c i t y and  c r i t e r i a of meeting  A)  the p r o v i n c e based  the f o l l o w i n g l o c a l and p r o v i n c i a l  on  the  guidelines:  Local Guidelines  1)  Bus r o u t e s would have a minimum h a l f - h o u r frequency d u r i n g the  2)  Schedules  should be c a r e f u l l y designed t o c o i n c i d e w i t h the b e g i n n i n g  of work s h i f t s ,  3)  Bus  s c h o o l c l a s s times and s t o r e hours.  s e r v i c e should be extended  s e r v i c e was  4)  day.  i n t o the evening, but l a t e n i g h t  not n e c e s s a r y a t the time.  Service r e l i a b i l i t y  should be guaranteed.  Delay caused by  downs, t r a f f i c c o n g e s t i o n or l a c k of s u p e r v i s i o n should be  breakminimized.  217.  B)  Provincial Guidelines  1)  The t r a n s i t network's f o c a l p o i n t s s h a l l c o i n c i d e w i t h the f o c a l p o i n t s or a c t i v i t y c e n t r e s i n the community.  2)  A minimum w a l k i n g d i s t a n c e i n f u l l y b u i l t - u p areas of a q u a r t e r m i l e s h o u l d be implemented  3)  where f e a s i b l e .  L o c a l buses should o p e r a t e w i t h m u l t i p l e stops to s e r v e the r e s i d e n t i a l areas and a c t i v i t y  Operating  centres.  Performance  T a b l e - A . 1 p r o v i d e s a summary of the o p e r a t i n g performance of the P e n t i c t o n Bus S e r v i c e f o r 1977 and 1978.  new  The 1976 d a t a a r e p r o v i d e d f o r  comparison purpose.  As the t a b l e shows, t h e r e was of the system when i t was system.  a d r a s t i c decrease of the f i n a n c i a l  performance  improved from a one-bus system to a three-bus  Cost r e c o v e r y dropped from 0.51  to 0.28.  T h i s i s l a r g e l y due to  the i n c r e a s e of the c o s t f o r s e r v i c e from $12.44 per bus hour i n 1976 $16.32 i n 1977  and the lower t r a n s i t u t i l i z a t i o n r a t e f o r the new  (19 passengers per bus hour f o r the o l d system v e r s u s 15 f o r the system i n 1977).  The i n c r e a s e i n the l e v e l o f s e r v i c e p r o v i d e d  of bus m i l e s ) and the i n c r e a s e i n the u n i t c o s t f o r s e r v i c e had i n a t e n times i n c r e a s e i n d e f i c i t s per c a p i t a . passenger w i t h the new from the o l d system.  system was  to  service new  ( i n terms resulted  The c o s t f o r c a r r y i n g a  $0.79, a one and o n e - h a l f times i n c r e a s e  218.  TABLE A . l  OPERATING PERFORMANCE 1976/1977/1978  - PENTICTON  SUMMARY SHEET  1976  1977  1978  20,000  21,000  21,000  2,610  13,039  12,236  0.13  0.61  0.57  33,408  170,625  162,034  1.67  7.80  7.56  48,000  197,900  243,000  Annual Rides Per C a p i t a  2.41  9.28  11.36  Passengers Per Bus Hour  19  15  20  T o t a l Annual E x p e n d i t u r e  $32,473  $'216,041  $221,621,  T o t a l Annual Revenue  $16,417  $ 59,789  $ 73,974  Population  Served  T o t a l Annual Bus Hours Bus Hours Per C a p i t a T o t a l Annual Bus M i l e s Bus M i l e s Per C a p i t a  Total Transit  Operating  Passengers  Ratio  T o t a l Annual  Deficit  0.51  ,, 0.28  0.33  $16,056  $156,251  $147,647  Deficit  Per C a p i t a  $0.80  $7.32  $6.89  Deficit  Per Ride  $0.33  $0.79  $0.61  1  3  3  Number Of V e h i c l e s I n S e r v i c e  219.  The  s l i g h t reduction  i n the evening s e r v i c e i n 1978  the  s l i g h t l y h i g h e r p r o d u c t i v i t y and  was  lower d e f i c i t per  responsible r i d e or per  As a r e s u l t , t r a n s i t u t i l i z a t i o n improved to 20 passengers per bus w i t h a l s o an  T a b l e A.2 costs  and  inflation.  improved c o s t r e c o v e r y of  p r o v i d e s a comparison of passengers c a r r i e d . As  i t shows, the  than i n f l a t i o n , w h i l e the  The  cost  f i g u r e s have been a d j u s t e d  r a t e s have i n c r e a s e d  l e v e l of s e r v i c e p r o v i d e d has  f a s t e r than the number of passengers c a r r i e d . factors i s responsible subsidies  capita. hour  0.33.  the l e v e l of s e r v i c e p r o v i d e d ,  contract  for  The  f o r the n i n e - f o l d i n c r e a s e  for  a lot faster  also  increased  combination of i n share of  f o r t r a n s i t , a common phenomena i n the p u b l i c  operating  these  public  transport  industry.  TABLE A.2  OPERATING PERFORMANCE - PENTICTON (INDEX METHOD)  Cost o f Living  Population Served  Annual Miles  Annual Passengers  Deficit Per Ride  Payment * Rate to Contractor  Deficit Per Capita  1976  100  100  100  100  100  100  100  1977  109  107  511  410  239  131  915  1978  118  107  485  504  185  134  861  * Per Hour B a s i s  221.  The  C i t y Of T r a i l  The  C i t y o f T r a i l i s l o c a t e d i n south c e n t r a l B r i t i s h Columbia.  has  grown up on both s i d e s o f the Columbia R i v e r and i s a p p r o x i m a t e l y  395 m i l e s east o f the C i t y o f Vancouver.  It  The c i t y has a r e l a t i v e l y  s t a b l e p o p u l a t i o n base of about 10,000 p e r s o n s .  The  c i t y i s l o c a t e d i n an area of rugged and mountainous t e r r a i n .  has  constrained  the c i t y ' s growth i n terms of s i z e and form.  areas west of T r a i l where extremely d i f f i c u l t  In some  t e r r a i n has r e s u l t e d i n  a s t r e e t system c h a r a c t e r i z e d by t h i n , c i r c u i t o u s thoroughfares steep  This  and  gradients.  Downtown T r a i l i s the o n l y major c o n c e n t r a t e d Parking  i s scarce i n t h i s c e n t r a l business  Cominco i s the major employer i n the c i t y .  a r e a f o r economic  activities.  district.  Cominco employs almost 2,500  employees i n the c i t y p l a n t and 1,500 i n other p l a n t s i n the r e g i o n .  H i s t o r i c a l Development Of T r a n s i t S e r v i c e s In T r a i l And  I t ' s Operating  Performance  H i s t o r i c a l Development Of S e r v i c e  The  T r a i l bus system s t a r t e d i n l a t e 1976.  had  been without  Before  bus s e r v i c e f o r many y e a r s .  then the C i t y of T r a i l  The implementation of t h i s  222.  new bus s e r v i c e was a j o i n t v e n t u r e between the C i t y and the P r o v i n c e . The new s e r v i c e was i n i t i a t e d f o u r r o u t e s under Phase I .  i n two s t a g e s , w i t h a s i n g l e bus c o v e r i n g  By e a r l y January  which i n v o l v e d t h r e e new buses o p e r a t i n g over i s operated  The  1977, Phase I I was implemented f i v e routes.  The system  by the C i t y as a d i v i s i o n of the P u b l i c Works Department.  system was designed  on the b a s i s o f the f o l l o w i n g g u i d e l i n e s p r o v i d e d  by the C i t y and the P r o v i n c e :  1.  T r a n s i t r o u t e s should focus on a c t i v i t y c e n t r e s i n the community.  2.  Day time s e r v i c e frequency  i n b u i l t - u p urban areas should be a t  l e a s t h o u r l y , but p r e f e r a b l y h a l f - h o u r l y .  3.  A maximum walking  d i s t a n c e t o the bus stops i n a f u l l y b u i l t - u p urban  area should be not more than a q u a r t e r m i l e .  4.  Local transit  s e r v i c e s should be designed  to connect  w i t h other  forms  of p u b l i c t r a n s p o r t s e r v i n g the r e g i o n .  The T r a i l  transit  system i s b a s i c a l l y a r a d i a l network w i t h timed  f o r a l l buses a t downtown.  The p r o v i s i o n o f convenient  transfer  connections with  minimum wait a t the f o c a l p o i n t s i s one of the d e s i g n requirements systems planned  of a l l  by the T r a n s i t Agency.  The b a s i c f a r e f o r an a d u l t r i d e was 25<? u n t i l 1979 when i t was i n c r e a s e d  223.  to 35C-  Seniors,  s t u d e n t s and c h i l d r e n a r e g i v e n c o n c e s s i o n s - a  common p r a c t i c e i n B r i t i s h  Service  Columbia.  o p e r a t e s s i x days a week w i t h no evening  Since the f i r s t  service.  day of s e r v i c e , the system has r e c e i v e d  through a v a r i e t y of media.  public  exposure  Development of both Phase I and Phase I I of  the  system was w e l l covered by the l o c a l newspaper.  and  the l o c a l r a d i o  s t a t i o n were used t o a d v e r t i s e  Both the newspaper the s t a r t - u p  T i m e t a b l e s were a l s o m a i l e d t o a l l households i n the s e r v i c e  of s e r v i c e .  area.  O p e r a t i n g Performance  T a b l e A. 3  p r o v i d e s a summary o f t h e o p e r a t i n g  performance of the new  T r a i l s e r v i c e f o r 1977.  The  c o s t r e c o v e r y f o r T r a i l was s i m i l a r t o that  the  system p r o d u c t i v i t y  tion  i n Penticton.  (measured by r i d e s per c a p i t a ) and t r a n s i t u t i l i z a -  ( r i d e s per bus hour) were h i g h e r i n T r a i l than P e n t i c t o n , the  s l i g h t l y higher u n i t cost  f o r s e r v i c e and the lower a d u l t  T r a i l v e r s u s 35c i n P e n t i c t o n ) were m a i n l y r e s p o n s i b l e recovery. per  Although  The l e v e l of s e r v i c e p r o v i d e d t o T r a i l  of d e f i c i t s per c a p i t a .  (25c i n  f o r t h e low c o s t  (measured by bus hours  c a p i t a ) was a p p r o x i m a t e l y 60% h i g h e r than that  t h i s was a l s o r e s p o n s i b l e  fare  f o r t h e same p r o p o r t i o n a l  i n P e n t i c t o n , and increase  i n the l e v e l  TABLE A.3  OPERATING PERFORMANCE  1977 ~  T R A I L  SUMMARY SHEET  1977 Population  10,000  Served  9,696  T o t a l Annual Bus Hours Bus Hours Per C a p i t a T o t a l Annual Bus M i l e s  0.97 116,352  Bus M i l e s Per C a p i t a  Total Transit  Passengers  .11.63."  225,000  Annual R i d e s Per C a p i t a  22.5  Passengers Per Bus Hour  23  T o t a l Annual E x p e n d i t u r e  $168,947  T o t a l Annual Revenue  $. 47,342  Operating R a t i o (Cost Recovery)  0.28  T o t a l Annual D e f i c i t  $121,605  Deficit  Per C a p i t a  $  12.16  Deficit  Per Ride  $  0.54  Number Of V e h i c l e s In S e r v i c e  3  225.  The  D i s t r i c t Of  The D i s t r i c t Columbia.  Kitimat  of K i t i m a t i s l o c a t e d i n the n o r t h west c o a s t of  I t i s 400  m i l e s n o r t h west of Vancouver and  from P r i n c e Rupert.  rounded by rugged mountains and  This municipality i s sur-  forests.  1.948, the Aluminum Company of Canada L t d . found the Kitimat-Kemano  area  s u i t a b l e f o r the e s t a b l i s h m e n t  of a l a r g e aluminum s w e l t e r .  l e d to a planned town development p r o j e c t which was the e s t a b l i s h m e n t  of a s m a l l community.  as a D i s t r i c t M u n i c i p a l i t y i n 1953 ture.  One  70 m i l e s i n l a n d  I t s i t s a t the head of the Douglas Channel on a  deep f j o r d s t r e t c h i n g i n l a n d f o r 80 m i l e s .  In  British  By 1976,  s t a r t e d i n 1951,  T h i s community was  with  incorporated  by a s p e c i a l enactment i n the  the M u n i c i p a l i t y of K i t i m a t had  This  legisla-  a p o p u l a t i o n of 12,000.  of the d i s t i n c t i v e f e a t u r e s of the K i t i m a t P l a n i s the s e g r e g a t i o n  i n d u s t r y and  residences.  The r e s i d e n t i a l areas have been d i v i d e d i n t o  neighborhoods, each s e l f - s u f f i c i e n t recreation f a c i l i t i e s .  of  i n terms of shopping, e d u c a t i o n ,  Houses w i t h w e l l l a i d  and  out gardens are grouped around  i n t e r n a l parks through which a system of walkways l e a d to neighborhood shopping o u t l e t s . commercial and  The  neighborhoods are l i n k e d w i t h each other and  i n d u s t r i a l s e c t o r s by means of l i m i t e d access  that run around the  periphery.  traffic  with arterials  226.  Parking i s p l e n t i f u l Kitimat's  i n Kitimat.  secondary and  The  tertiary  S e r v i c e Centre where many of  i n d u s t r i e s are l o c a t e d and  primary i n d u s t r i e s - A l c a n ,  Eurocan and  the west of the r e s i d e n t i a l  neighborhoods, on  the  District's  Northern Dock are a l l l o c a t e d the other s i d e of the  to  Kitimat  River.  Alcan  i s the l a r g e s t employer i n the community, employing a p p r o x i m a t e l y  1,500  people.  people as  Initial  Development of T r a n s i t S e r v i c e s  Development of  transit  s e r v i c e was  of M u n i c i p a l to meet and  And  ($1.00) by  planned by  the  on A p r i l  then Bureau of T r a n s i t S e r v i c e s ,  22,  long range p l a n n i n g  V e h i c l e s were l e a s e d  the M u n i c i p a l i t y .  o b j e c t i v e s of  Coastal  d e f i c i t s b e i n g shared Bus  Lines Limited  under an agreement w i t h the M u n i c i p a l i t y and the  i n order the  to the m u n i c i p a l i t y a t a nominal r a t e  the P r o v i n c e w i t h annual o p e r a t i n g  B r i t i s h Columbia, to run  1974.  Ministry  i n c o n s u l t a t i o n w i t h the D i s t r i c t of K i t i m a t  serve l o c a l needs and  the P r o v i n c e and  contracted  Service  s e r v i c e began i n the D i s t r i c t of K i t i m a t  Affairs,  municipality.  by  1,200  System's O p e r a t i n g Performance  Historical  The  Paper Company L t d . employs about  well.  Historical The  Eurocan Pulp and  service.  jointly  was  the P r o v i n c e of  227.  The s e r v i c e d e s i g n c o n s i s t s of a network of bus r o u t e s r a d i a t i n g from the C i t y Centre w i t h schedules arranged f o r convenient t r a n s f e r r i n g . A l l work p l a c e s , neighbourhood c e n t r e s by  the system.  by  transit.  of t r a n s i t were o r i g i n a l l y  the town planner who d i d the i n i t i a l town s i t e p l a n .  whatever i n t e r - c i t y system was d e v i s e d , basic  1.  that  i t should meet the f o l l o w i n g  four  To p r o v i d e common c a r r i e r mass t r a n s p o r t a t i o n  dwelling  s e r v i c e s between  dwelling  such as the neighbourhood  centres,  sub-centres.  To p r o v i d e common c a r r i e r mass t r a n s p o r t a t i o n u n i t s and s c h o o l s  s e r v i c e between  places.  the C i t y Centre and f u t u r e  other than primary s c h o o l s .  t h a t the l a t t e r w i l l be s e r v i c e d by s c h o o l  4.  established They agreed  To p r o v i d e common c a r r i e r mass t r a n s p o r t a t i o n  u n i t s and shopping/amusement c e n t r e s  3.  accessible  requirements:  u n i t s and working  2.  u n i t s a r e served  Schools i n a l l three neighbourhoods a r e a l s o  The l o c a l goals and o b j e c t i v e s by  and d w e l l i n g  s e r v i c e s between  dwelling  The assumption b e i n g  buses.  To p r o v i d e common c a r r i e r mass t r a n s p o r t a t i o n  s e r v i c e s between  neighbourhoods.  These o b j e c t i v e s were f u r t h e r r e f i n e d by the M u n i c i p a l P r o v i n c i a l T r a n s i t Agency to f o l l o w t h e f o l l o w i n g  S t a f f and the  guidelines.  228.  1.  A l l r o u t e s should b e g i n and  terminate a t one c e n t r a l l y l o c a t e d  t e r m i n a l i n order to f a c i l i t a t e  ease i n t r a n s f e r r i n g - e i t h e r to  other i n t e r - c i t y buses or to i n t r a - c i t y  2.  During p e r i o d s of peak demand, the f a s t e s t and most d i r e c t s e r v i c e r o u t e between d w e l l i n g u n i t s and  3.  lines.  During  p l a c e s of work should be  sought.  l e s s a c t i v e or o f f - p e a k demand times, more round about,  c i r c u i t o u s r o u t e s c o u l d be implemented, thereby p r o v i d i n g optimum s e r v i c e between neighbourhoods and  such p l a c e s as the h o s p i t a l ,  City  Centre, e t c .  4.  Bus  stop l o c a t i o n s should be s h e l t e r e d and,  mid-block so t h a t there would be as l i t t l e  i f possible, situated traffic  i n t e r f e r e n c e as  possible.  The K i t i m a t T r a n s i t the C i t y Centre. and  The  at day  S p e c i a l t r i p p e r s are p r o v i d e d to meet the  times at A l c a n d u r i n g the peak p e r i o d s .  a week.  connections  s e r v i c e runs on a 30 minute headway d u r i n g the  60 minute i n the evening.  shift  S e r v i c e operates  seven days  The b a s i c f a r e f o r an a d u l t r i d e i s 25c w i t h c o n c e s s i o n s g i v e n to  senior c i t i z e n s , for  System i s a r a d i a l network w i t h timed  students and c h i l d r e n .  t r i p s to A l c a n and  A premium f a r e of 400  i s chaorged  the I n d u s t r i a l a r e a .  Operating  Performance  Table A.4  p r o v i d e s a summary of the o p e r a t i o n a l performance of the K i t i m a t  s e r v i c e f o r the f i r s t  three years.  (1975  - 1977).  229.  The c o s t r e c o v e r y f o r the f i r s t year was l e v e l of s e r v i c e p r o v i d e d and d e f i c i t per c a p i t a was  low  (0.21) due  the h i g h c o n t r a c t r a t e .  about $25.00 f o r the f i r s t  The  s e r v i c e was  cut,back  by about 20% by 1977.  did  not cause a r e d u c t i o n i n system p r o d u c t i v i t y  Since the D i s t r i c t  T h i s cut back o f s e r v i c e (measured by r i d e s ( r i d e s per  per  bus  i s p r o v i d e d w i t h the h i g h e s t l e v e l of s e r v i c e  among a l l s m a l l c i t i e s i n B.C., tivity.  As a r e s u l t  year of o p e r a t i o n .  c a p i t a ) nor the r a t e which t r a n s i t i s b e i n g u t i l i z e d hour).  to the h i g h  i t a l s o has  the h i g h e s t system produc-  TABLE  A.4  OPERATING PERFORMANCE 1975/1976/1977  - KITIMAT  SUMMARY SHEET  1975  1976  1977  12,500  12,500  12,500  19,165  18,211  15,334  1.53  1.46  1.23  264,283  251,134  214,830  21.14  20.09  17.19  329,200  441,250  418,750  Annual Rides Per C a p i t a  26.3  35.3  33.5  Passengers Per Bus Hour  17  24  27  T o t a l Annual E x p e n d i t u r e  $398,513  $403,159  $337,110  T o t a l Annual Revenue  $ 85,591  $129,081  $105,754  0.21  0.32  0.32  T o t a l Annual D e f i c i t  $312,922  $274,078  $231,356  Deficit  Per C a p i t a  $  25.03  $, .21.92  $  18.51  Deficit  Per Ride  $  0.95  $  $  0.55  Population  Served  T o t a l Annual Bus Hours Bus Hours Per C a p i t a T o t a l Annual Bus M i l e s Bus M i l e s Per C a p i t a  Total Transit  Passengers  Operating Ratio (Cost Recovery)  Number Of V e h i c l e s In S e r v i c e  6  0.62  6  6  APPENDIX A3  PROVINCIAL RAPID TRANSIT SUBSIDY ACT  232.  PROVINCIAL RAPID TRANSIT SUBSIDY  1972  CHAPTER  CHAP. 50  50  Provincial Rapid Transit Subsidy Act [Assented to 30th March, 1972.] Preamble.  W H E R E A S it is deemed highly desirable i n the public interest to encourage the development b y municipalities and regional districts i n the Province o f a system o f p u b l i c b u s , railway, or any other f o r m o f rapid transportation for the purpose o f (a)  providing e c o n o m i c a l and efficient urban transportation t o the people o f the m u n i c i p a l i t y ;  (b)  decreasing the expense to the municipality o f providing c o s t l y roads a n d parking places for an increasing number o f m o t o r vehicles; and  (c)  preventing a n d eliminating traffic congestion i n the m u n i c i p a l i t y and the resultant air p o l l u t i o n :  N o w , therefore, H e r Majesty, b y and w i t h the advice and consent o f the Legislative A s s e m b l y o f the Province o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , enacts as f o l l o w s : — Grant of fifty p e r c e n t o f deficit o f p u b l i c trans> portation system.  1. Where a m u n i c i p a l i t y , o r a group o f municipalities j o i n t l y , o r a regional district (herein called the " p u b l i c transit a u t h o r i t y " ) , constructs o r operates an efficient, non-profit system o f public buses, railways, o r a n y other f o r m o f p u b l i c rapid transportation approved f o r the purpose o f this A c t b y the M i n i s t e r o f F i n a n c e , the Lieutenant-Governor i n C o u n c i l , o n the r e c o m m e n d a t i o n o f the M i n i s t e r o f F i n a n c e , m a y authorize the M i n i s t e r o f F i n a n c e t o p a y o u t o f the Revenue Surplus A p p r o p r i a t i o n A c c o u n t o f the C o n s o l i d a t e d Revenue F u n d , o r f r o m the Consolidated Revenue F u n d , o r partly f r o m the Revenue Surplus A p p r o p r i a t i o n A c c o u n t and partly f r o m the C o n s o l i d a t e d Revenue F u n d , i n such proportions as he m a y consider requisite o r advisable, t o the p u b l i c transit authority i n each year, u p o n certification b y the C o m p t r o l l e r - G e n e r a l that the expenditure comes w i t h i n the purposes o f the A c t , such s u m o f m o n e y as m a y be required t o share equally w i t h the p u b l i c transit a u t h o r i t y t h e j m m i a L c ^ r a t i o g j l e f i c i t , n o t including depreciat i o n , b u t i n c l u d i n g a n y a m o r t i z e d debt charges or sinking f u n d payments i n that  year,  of  the^public  transit authority  that  relates solely  t o the  construction^pr^peratiori o f the p u b l i c rapid transportation system.  Conditions o f grant.  2. T h e M i n i s f e r o f Fiifance m a y require, as a c o n d i t i o n o f his approval o f a p u b l i c rapid transportation system f o r the purpose o f this A c t and o f the annual payment u n d e r section 1, that (a)  the p u b l i c transit accpunts  authority  keep such b o o k s , records, a n d \  o f its operations, i n such form as the M i n i s t e r o f  F i n a n c e m a y prescribe, open to inspection b y the M i n i s t e r o f Finance; (b)  the p u b l i c transit a u t h o r i t y provide such reports and financial statements relating t o its operations as the Minister o f Finance m a y require;  221  233.  CHAP. 50  PROVINCIAL RAPID TRANSIT SUBSIDY  20-21 ELIZ. 2  (c) a municipality or regional district participating in a public rapid transportation system give preference in the control of traffic on the streets of the municipality or regional district to the public transit vehicles of the public transit authority; and (d) the Minister of Finance approve, in advance, of (i) the terms of debt amortization; and (ii) any capital, or extraordinary, expenditure, as defined by the Minister of Finance, of the public transit authority. Regulations.  3. The Lieutenant-Governor in Council may from time to time make such regulations not inconsistent with this Act as he may deem necessary or advisable for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of this Act according to their intent.  Printed by K. M. M A C D O N A L D , Printer to the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty in right of the Province of British Columbia. 1972  i  222  234.  APPENDIX  A4  TRANSIT SERVICES ACT  235.  '974  TRANSIT SERVICES  CHAP. 97  CHAPTER 9 7 Transit Services Act  [A ssented to 30 th May, 1974.]  HER MAJESTY, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of British Columbia, enacts as. follows: Interpretation.  Public passenger transportation systems.  1. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, "company" means the British Columbia Transit Company established under section 11; "minister" means that member of the Executive Council charged by order of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council with the administration of this Act, and includes a person designated in writing by the minister; "motor-vehicle" means a motor-vehicle as defined in the Motor-vehicle Act; "public passenger transportation system" means a municipal, regional, or provincial system or organization of common carriers for the transportation of passengers by any means whatsoever including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, any form of rapid transit, surface, underground, or elevated trains, ferries, motor-vehicles, public buses, motor coaches, and trolleys; "rapid transit" means a public passenger transportation system designated by the minister as a rapid transit system. 2. It is the duty of the minister and he has the authority and power, subject to this Act and the regulations, (a) to investigate, research, design, and plan public passenger transportation systems for the Province or for any municipality or regional district thereof; (b) with the prior approval of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, to purchase or. otherwise acquire, maintain, and operate public passenger transportation systems; (c) to construct, equip, maintain, and operate lines of railway, branches, and spurs as he may consider a necessary adjunct to a public passenger transportation system and for that purpose to exercise all the powers that may be exercised by a railway company under the Railway Act and the regulations under that Act; ' (d) with the prior approval of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, to purchase or otherwise acquire land and buildings and structures thereon that he may consider necessary for the purposes of this Act and to dispose of them when no longer required; (e) to purchase or otherwise acquire motor-vehicles, lines of buses, motor coaches, and ferries, and operate, maintain, controL and  643  236.  CHAP. 97  TRANSIT SERVICES  (f)  (g) (h) (i) (j)  (k)  Agreements respecting transit facilities.  644  22-23 ELIZ. 2  manage such motor-vehicles, buses, motor coaches, and ferries for the purpose of carrying on the business of a public passenger transportation system; to construct and maintain buildings and other structures for the purpose of this Act, including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, buildings and structures for (i) storage, maintenance, and repair of equipment acquired under this section; or (ii) passenger depots, waiting rooms, restaurants, hotels, and other facilities for the comfort and convenience of passengers; to construct and maintain passenger boarding places and other works on or adjacent to public highways for the operation of a public passenger transportation system; with the prior approval of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, to purchase or otherwise acquire land or rights-of-way required for railway lines, branches, spurs, and yards; to construct tunnels, elevated guideways, roadbed, tracks, rails, or any other surface upon which to operate a public passenger transportation system; to manufacture and construct rapid transit vehicles and systems for (i) motive power supply and distribution systems; (ii) transit traffic control, signalling, and safety systems; and (iii) transit communications and surveillance systems, and such other equipment, works, or services required for or in connection with a rapid transit system; and to carry out any other duties or responsibilities related to public passenger transportation services as may be imposed under any other Act or order of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council.  3. Subject to the prior approval of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, the minister may make an agreement with a municipality, regional district, public transit authority, or any corporation (a) for the operation by the municipality, regional district, public transit authority, or corporation of any part of a public passenger transportation system; or (b) for the rental or use by the minister of land, buildings, structures, rail lines, facilities, services, and equipment of a municipality, regional district, public transit authority, or corporation; or (c) for financial contribution by the minister to or for an undertaking or service that is provided by a municipality, regional district, public transit authority, or corporation for the benefit of public passengers and travellers; or  237.  TRANSIT SERVICES  1974  (d)  Incorporation or acquisition of companies.  Fares and tolls.  CHAP. 97  to provide all or part of an experimental or demonstration project related to public passenger transportation, to design, develop, construct, test, and operate all or part of such experimental or demonstration project, and to acquire, hold, exercise, develop, license, sell, lease, or otherwise dispose of any right or title to any part of such experimental or demonstration project.  4. With the prior approval of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, the minister may (a) purchase or otherwise acquire all or part of the issued and outstanding capital stock of any corporation carrying on the - business of a public passenger transportation system; and (b) incorporate a company under the Companies Act or under a private Act for the exercise of all or any of the powers conferred upon the minister, or for the better operation, control, or management of any undertaking or ancillary service authorized under this Act, and every such company has all the powers, rights, remedies, and immunities conferred by law or by this Act upon the minister. 5. Notwithstanding any other Act, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council may make regulations fixing the fares and tolls to be charged for all passenger traffic carried by a public passenger transportation system established under this Act.  Reciprocal running rights.  6. With the prior approval of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, the minister may enter into an agreement with any railway company to provide and secure such reciprocal running rights, traffic arrangements, and other rights over and in respect of the railway of such company and the railway constructed or to be constructed by the minister as will afford to such company and to the minister reasonable and proper facilities for mutually exercising such running rights, fair and reasonable traffic arrangements, and equitable fares and tolls between such company and the minister.  Motive power.  7. (1) The minister may operate any part of the public passenger transportation system by electricity or any other motive power. (2) For the purpose of subsection (1), the minister may (a) construct and maintain rectifier stations, transmission lines, and other electric power distribution systems; and (b) make agreements with British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority, or any other producer of electricity, for the supply of electric mvtive power. (3) For the purpose of subsection (2) (a), the minister may purchase or otherwise acquire the right to lay conduits under or erect transmission lines  645  238.  CHAP. 97  TRANSIT SERVICES  22-23 ELIZ. 2  o n or over such land as he may consider necessary and upon or over public highways and across any water, subject to agreement in respect thereto first being made between the minister and any private owner of the land affected.  Financial arrangements.  8. (1) The minister, or any other person designated by h i m , may hold shares i n any corporation purchased or otherwise acquired, or in any company incorporated under section 4, on behalf o f Her Majesty in right o f the Province, and may exercise all the rights o f shareholders i n respect o f shares so held. (2) The Minister o f Finance, w i t h the prior approval of the LieutenantGovernor i n C o u n c i l , may advance to the minister or to any corporation or company referred t o in subsection (1) such sums as may be required f r o m time to time to enable the minister or the corporations or companies to carry out their powers under this A c t . (3) The Minister o f Finance, w i t h the prior approval o f the LieutenantGovernor i n C o u n c i l , may guarantee the performance o f any or all obligations and undertakings o f any corporation or company referred to in subsection (1), or the repayment o f any advances made b y any other person t o any such corporation or company, or the payment o f any securities issued b y such corporation or company. (4) The Minister o f Finance, w i t h the prior approval o f the LieutenantGovernor i n C o u n c i l , may loan money to any corporation or c o m p a n y referred to i n subsection (1), upon such terms and conditions and u p o n such security as the Lieutenant-Governor in C o u n c i l may prescribe. (5) T h e amount o f all sums advanced, guaranteed, or loaned under this A c t shall not exceed i n total the sum o f fifty m i l l i o n dollars.  Accounts.  9. The accounts o f every corporation or company referred to i n section 4 shall be audited b y the Comptroller-General.  Reports.  -  - - --  10. The minister shall prepare annually a report o f his administration o f this A c t and a financial statement of the operations o f any public passenger transportation system established under this A c t for the preceding fiscal year o f the Government and the report and financial statement shall be laid before the Legislature w i t h i n fifteen days after the opening o f the first session in the following calendar year.  Transit Company  11. (1) The Lieutenant-Governor i n C o u n c i l may, b y order, establish a corporation to be k n o w n as the British C o l u m b i a Transit C o m p a n y consisting . o f not less than five members appointed b y the Lieutenant-Governor i n C o u n c i l to hold office during pleasure. (2) E a c h member o f the company shall be reimbursed for his reasonable travelling and out-of-pocket expenses incurred by him in discharging his duties and i n addition m a y be paid such remuneration for his services as a  646  239  1974  TRANSIT SERVICES  member  of  the  company  as  the  CHAP. 97  Lieutenant-Governor  in  Council  may  prescribe. (3) T h e  Lieutenant-Governor  in  Council  shall  designate  one  of  the  members as chairman and one other m e m b e r as vice-chairman. (4) A majority o f the members constitutes a q u o r u m at any meeting o f the company. (5) A  member  of  the c o m p a n y  w h o , is a member o f the  Legislative  Assembly may, notwithstanding the Constitution Act, accept payments o f his reasonable  travelling  and  out-of-pocket  expenses  made  to  him  under  subsection (2) and is not thereby ineligible as a member o f the Legislative Assembly and is not disqualified to sit and vote as such. (6) A member o f the c o m p a n y w h o is a m e m b e r o f the public service may, notwithstanding the Public Service Act,  accept payments made to him under  subsection (2). (7) T h e Companies Act does not a p p l y to the c o m p a n y .  Powers o f company  12. (1) T h e c o m p a n y is i n all respects an agent o f the C r o w n in right o f the Province, but m a y , as agent, carry out its powers and duties under this A c t in its o w n name.  '  "  (2) T h e Lieutenant-Governor i n C o u n c i l may, b y order, authorize the c o m p a n y to carry out, o n behalf o f the minister, all or any o f the duties o f the minister under this A c t and for that purpose m a y authorize the c o m p a n y to exercise any power or authority conferred u p o n the minister under this A c t , or to p e r f o r m and carry o n any undertaking or operation under this A c t and thereupon the c o m p a n y has all the powers, authority, rights, remedies, and immunities conferred b y law or b y this A c t u p o n the minister.  Crown bound.  Appropriation.  13. (1) T h e C r o w n is b o u n d b y this A c t . (2) T h i s A c t is subject to the Automobile  Insurance Act.  14. (1) T h e Minister  pay, o n the requisition o f the  of  Finance shall  minister, out o f the C o n s o l i d a t e d Revenue F u n d or out o f the Revenue Surplus A p p r o p r i a t i o n A c c o u n t o f the Consolidated Revenue F u n d or partly out o f the Consolidated Revenue F u n d and partly out o f the Revenue Surplus A p p r o p r i a t i o n A c c o u n t o f the C o n s o l i d a t e d Revenue F u n d , such sums as m a y be required for the purposes o f this A c t u n t i l the thirty-first d a y o f M a r c h , 1975, and thereafter such sums shall be paid w i t h moneys authorized b y an A c t o f the Legislature to be so paid and applied. (2)  In addition to the m o n e y s payable under subsection (1), the Minister  o f Finance shall pay, o n the requisition o f the minister, sums required for the purposes o f this A c t o i k o f the Provincial Transit F u n d established under the  Provincial Transit Fund Act. Commencement.  15.  (1) T h i s A c t , excepting this section and the title, comes into force o n  a date to be fixed b y the Lieutenant-Governor b y his Proclamation, and he may fix different dates for the c o m i n g into force of the several provisions. (2) This section and the title come into force o n R o y a l Assent. P r i m e d b y K . M . M A C D O N A L D , P r i n t e r l o the Q u c c r f s M o s t E x c e l l e n t i n l i y l u o f the P t o v i n c c o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a . 1974  M:ijcsiy  647  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0100209/manifest

Comment

Related Items