City of Clarence-Rockland
Transit Feasibility Study
Final Report
October 2014
Final Report : Clarence-Rockland Transit Feasibility Study
City of Clarence-Rockland
Transit Feasibility Study
Final Report
MMM Project Number: 3414021
October 2014
ii
Project Number – 3414021 – October 2014
Clarence-Rockland... a quiet, picturesque city nestled on the shores of the historic
Ottawa River, an important waterway for early explorers, fur traders and
missionaries. With its humble beginnings as a lumber town almost 140 years ago,
Clarence-Rockland has matured into a beautiful city of a little over 20,000 people.
Situated just 32 kilometers east of Parliament Hill and about 170 kilometers west of
Montreal, the area offers both the quiet of the countryside and the urban offerings of a
big city. Along with a healthy distribution of nature's splendor there's also plenty of
things to keep urbanites busy. We are a fully bilingual community with a full range of
churches, schools and sports facilities which offer endless choices for those who have
grown accustomed to essential amenities.
(From: http://www.clarence-rockland.com/index.php/en/ - July 7, 2014)
Project Number – 3414021 – October 2014
i
Table of Contents
1
2
3
4
Introduction .................................................................................................................1
1.1
Purpose and objectives ................................................................................1
1.2
Organization of the report ............................................................................2
Community profile ......................................................................................................3
2.1
Geographic context .......................................................................................3
2.2
Policy Context ...............................................................................................5
2.3
Demographic Profile .....................................................................................7
2.4
Employment and Housing Unit Growth Forecasts ...................................10
2.5
Mobility Characteristics ..............................................................................11
2.6
Existing Transportation Services ...............................................................14
2.7
What this all means .....................................................................................17
Peer Review and Best Practices ..............................................................................19
3.1
Peer Review .................................................................................................19
3.2
Other Models and Best Practices ...............................................................26
3.2.1
Société des transports de Rimouski ...................................................................................... 26
3.2.2
Taxi-bus Thetford Mines ......................................................................................................... 27
3.2.3
Taxi-bus Victoriaville ............................................................................................................... 28
3.2.4
Conseil Intermunicipal de Transport du Sud-Ouest (CITSO) ............................................... 28
3.2.5
Town of Peace River, Alberta ................................................................................................. 29
3.2.6
Sou’West Nova Transit Association (SWNT) ......................................................................... 29
3.2.7
Ride Norfolk ............................................................................................................................. 30
3.2.8
Summary of Taxi-bus Characteristics.................................................................................... 30
3.3
Lessons Learned .........................................................................................31
Public Engagement ...................................................................................................33
Project Number – 3414021 – October 2014
iii
Final Report : Clarence-Rockland Transit Feasibility Study
5
6
iv
4.1
Stakeholder and Public Workshop Results ...............................................33
4.1.1
Workshop Outline .................................................................................................................... 33
4.1.2
Data Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 33
4.1.3
Emerging Themes .................................................................................................................... 34
4.2
Survey Results ............................................................................................37
4.3
What this all means .....................................................................................47
Transit Service Analysis ...........................................................................................49
5.1
Fixed Route Identification ...........................................................................49
5.1.1
Red Route ................................................................................................................................. 51
5.1.2
Blue Route ................................................................................................................................ 52
5.1.3
Purple Route ............................................................................................................................ 53
5.1.4
Green Route ............................................................................................................................. 53
5.2
Analysis of Costs, Revenues and Ridership Required .............................55
5.2.1
Revenue Vehicle Hours ........................................................................................................... 55
5.2.2
Estimated Operating Costs and Revenues Required ........................................................... 56
5.2.3
Ridership Required .................................................................................................................. 57
5.3
Comparison of Fixed Route Options .........................................................58
5.4
Characterisation of Transit Demand ..........................................................59
5.4.1
Transit Demand in other Jurisdictions .................................................................................. 60
5.4.2
Community Characteristics and their Influence on Transit Demand .................................. 60
5.4.3
What this all means ................................................................................................................. 61
5.5
Fixed Route vs. On-Demand Service .........................................................61
Recommendations ....................................................................................................63
6.1
On-Demand Pilot Project ............................................................................63
6.2
Long-Term Transit System Development ..................................................64
Project Number – 3414021 – October 2014
Figures
Figure 1: City of Clarence-Rockland ......................................................................................................... 4
Figure 2: Comparison of Population Growth 2001-2031 ......................................................................... 7
Figure 3: Population Growth to 2036 for Key Age Cohorts .................................................................... 9
Figure 4: Mode of Travel for Employed Workforce 1996-2011 ............................................................. 12
Figure 5 : Mode of Transportation Taken to Work (2011 National Household Survey) ..................... 13
Figure 6: Place of Work - 2001 to 2011 (Number) .................................................................................. 13
Figure 7 : CR Transpo Ridership by Month ............................................................................................ 16
Figure 8: Peer Review of Revenue Vehicle Hours (2012) ...................................................................... 24
Figure 9: Transit Travel Routes Identified by the Public ...................................................................... 50
Figure 10: Fixed Route Option 1: Red Route ......................................................................................... 51
Figure 11: Fixed Route Option 2: Blue Route ........................................................................................ 52
Figure 12: Fixed Route Option 3: Purple Route ..................................................................................... 53
Figure 13: Fixed Route Option 4: Green Route ...................................................................................... 54
Tables
Table 1: Population by Settlement Area to 2026 ...................................................................................... 8
Table 2: Household Income for Clarence-Rockland in 2010 (2011 NHS) ............................................ 10
Table 3: Employment Growth by Municipality, 2011 to 2031 ................................................................ 10
Table 4: Projected Increase in Number of Households by Municipality, 2011 to 2031 ...................... 11
Table 5: Distribution of Housing Unit Growth by Community in Clarence-Rockland........................ 11
Table 6: Commuting Duration in 2011 .................................................................................................... 14
Table 7: Time Leaving for Work in 2011 ................................................................................................. 14
Table 8: Peer Review - Fixed Route and Curb-to-Curb / On-Demand Service .................................... 21
Table 9 : Peer Review - Paratransit ......................................................................................................... 25
Table 10: Fare System in Rimouski ......................................................................................................... 27
Table 11: Route Length and In-Vehicle Travel Times ............................................................................ 55
Table 12: Travel Time and Speed (Including Dwell Time and Terminal Time) .................................... 56
Table 13: Headways, Number of Buses and Revenue Vehicle Hours ................................................. 56
Table 14: Daily Operating Costs - Total .................................................................................................. 57
Table 15 : Costs and Revenue per Trip (based on 50% Revenue-to-Cost Ratio) ............................... 57
Table 16 : Required Daily Passenger Trips (based on fare of $2.50) ................................................... 57
Table 17 : Comparison of Fixed Route Options (Unidirectional Service) ........................................... 58
Table 18 : Estimated Ridership Based on Average Demand in Other Municipalities ........................ 60
Project Number – 3414021 – October 2014
v
1
Introduction
MMM Group Limited was commissioned by the City of Clarence-Rockland to conduct a Transit
Feasibility Study (the Study) for an intra-city transit service. This report presents the results of
the study, including recommendations for the implementation of a Pilot Project. This section
describes the purpose and objectives of the study and provides an overview of the methodology
and organization of the report.
1.1
Purpose and objectives
As of 2014, there are no local transit services operating within the City of Clarence-Rockland.
Residents have access to a transit service that connects the City of Clarence-Rockland to the
City of Ottawa; this service is mainly used by residents working or studying in Ottawa.
The purpose of the Study is to determine the demand for intra-city bus service within the City,
and to identify the associated operational, financial and implementation requirements.
The following specific objectives define the Clarence-Rockland Transit Feasibility Study:





To identify the need/demand and options for local transit service and/or for special transit
service within the City of Clarence-Rockland;
To determine the conditions, financial and otherwise, under which it may be feasible to
initiate any transit service for the City of Clarence-Rockland;
To provide an analysis of the costs of the transit systems being investigated;
To identify the economic, environmental, social and other benefits to the City by
implementing the above noted transit services; and
To identify potential connectivity between a local transit service and OC Transpo.
The potential intra-city transit service would help to achieve one of the core directions of the
Clarence-Rockland municipal council: to support compact, transit-oriented development in
regional community growth nodes and to connect these places with an integrated, customer
focused regional transit system.
Project Number – 3414021 – October 2014
1
Final Report : Clarence-Rockland Transit Feasibility Study
1.2
Organization of the report
The Study addresses a number of elements, which are organized as follows;
2

Community profile development (section 2). The community profile includes an
analysis of geography, policy, demographics, and growth forecasts. It also includes an
analysis of the travel patterns of Clarence-Rockland residents and describes the existing
transportation services in Clarence-Rockland. The community profile provides an
understanding of the local market and context for an intra-city transit service.

Peer review and best practice analysis (section 3). The Study included a review of 11
transit systems in comparable municipalities, and a comparison of key operating
statistics (e.g. revenue-to-cost ratio, revenue-hours per capita, rides per capita, cost per
vehicle hour, etc.) It also included a review of the key features of on-demand/taxi-bus
systems in seven municipalities. The peer review informed the travel demand analysis,
the cost and revenue analysis, and the options considered for Clarence-Rockland.

Public engagement (section 4). Two main activities were used to solicit input from the
residents and stakeholders of Clarence-Rockland. First, two workshops enabled
residents and stakeholders to provide input into the design of a potential intra-city transit
system. Second, online surveys in both French and English provided additional
information on likely uses and potential characteristics of the intra-city transit system.
The public engagement provided an understanding of the community’s vision and the
key characteristics of a transit system that would work for Clarence-Rockland.

Transit service analysis (section 5). The transit service analysis began with an
assessment of fixed route service options for Clarence-Rockland. The study identified
potential fixed routes and evaluated the demand that would be required for these fixed
routes. The study compared these fixed route options based on feasibility and service
quality. It then assessed whether Clarence-Rockland would be likely to generate the
demand required for these fixed routes. Finally, fixed route options are compared to ondemand options considering the likely demand for transit in Clarence-Rockland.

Formulation of recommendations (section 6). Recommendations for ClarenceRockland were developed based on the work carried out to date. This section presents
short-term recommendations for Clarence-Rockland, including a suggested on-demand
pilot project for the recommended transit model. It also includes a discussion of the
longer-term options for Clarence-Rockland’s transit system, building on the results of the
pilot project.
Project Number – 3414021 – October 2014
2
Community profile
The community profile provides an understanding of the local market and context for transit in
Clarence-Rockland. This section contains a description of the geographic context; the policies
relevant to the provision of public transportation services; a demographic profile; and housing
and employment growth projections. It also provides an overview of the mobility characteristics
of Clarence-Rockland residents and describes the existing transportation services in the
municipality. This information will inform the analysis of transit demand and transit options.
2.1
Geographic context
The City of Clarence-Rockland is a bilingual community located in the northwestern portion of
the United Counties of Prescott and Russell. The Ottawa River forms the northern boundary of
the city, which extends from the City of Ottawa to the west, the Nation Municipality to the south,
and the Township of Alfred and Plantagenet to the east (see: Figure 1). The City is
predominantly a rural area, with over 10,000 hectares of land designated for agricultural
activities (34.4% of the total land area). The urban core is located in Rockland and historic
villages are located throughout the rural area.
The municipality is quite large geographically, with an area of 298 square kilometres, which
includes the urban area of Rockland, a number of historic settlement areas and a substantial
rural area with over 10,000 hectares of land designated for agricultural activities (34.4% of the
total land area).. The overall density is 78 people per square kilometre (based on the 2011
population of 23,220), which is very low. Rockland is home to about 40% of the total population
and includes the urban core. The other 60% of the population lives in historic villages and
throughout the rural area.
With a mix of rural and urban development, the city has a unique feel. The urban area of
Rockland is expanding and is the focal point for much activity in the City. As the main
commercial centre, Rockland is the primary destination for shopping, medical and social
services, community services and employment.
The City has a road network typical of many Ontario municipalities. The major collector roads
form a grid pattern established when the original lot and concessions were developed during the
surveying of what is now Ontario. Blocks were created and land was divided and used primarily
for agricultural purposes, a use that is still predominant in the City. Villages have grown up
around these concession roads, which form the main arteries within each village. Within the
blocks, local roads serve the local populations. With the existing grid pattern, vehicular travel is
relatively easy and direct, particularly through the rural areas.
The local road networks in the residential neighbourhoods of Rockland and Bourget have a
more curvilinear street pattern. The road network in the villages is limited, with Hammond
having a few streets in a grid pattern. The rural subdivisions south of Rockland have limited
roads, but do provide a connection between concession roads. Figure 1 on the next page
illustrates this geographic context.
Project Number – 3414021 – October 2014
3
Final Report : Clarence-Rockland Transit Feasibility Study
Figure 1: City of Clarence-Rockland
Clarence Point
Clarence Point
Rockland
Rockland
Forest
HillsHills
Forest
Clarence Creek
Clarence Creek
Saint-Pierre-Baylon
Saint-Pascal-Baylon
Hammond
Hammond
Bourget
Cheney
Bourget
Cheney
4
Project Number – 3414021 – October 2014
The main north-south concession roads are:
 County Road 21 (St. Jean Street / Baseline Road / Joanissee Road / Lacroix / Gendron
Road)
 County Road 8 (Landry Street / Labonte Street / Champlain Road / Clarence Cambridge
Road).
The key east-west roads are:
 CR 17
 Laurier Street
 Baseline Road
 Labonte / Duquette Road
 CR 1 (Du Golf Road)
 La Croix Road
 CR 2 (Russell Road / Laval Road)
Key village centres are situated at the following road crossings:
 Hammond (Rte 21 - La Croix at Gendron)
 Bourget (CR 2 at CR 8 Laval at Champlain)
 Cheney (CR2 at Drouin Road).
 Pascal-Baylon (CR 1 at Du Lac)
 Clarence Creek (CR 8 - Landry at Labonte)
2.2
Policy Context
The City of Clarence-Rockland has two official plans, each one representing a different area of
the municipality. One is for the Urban Area (predominantly Rockland) and the other is for the
village of Bourget.
The Urban Area Official Plan supports the principles of sustainable growth, preservation of the
quality of life and the management of future growth in Rockland. The urban area includes
employment areas, elementary and high schools, commercial uses and large areas of
residential uses. The Plan also supports the implementation of a public transit system within
Clarence-Rockland and promotes the use of bicycles as a means of transportation.
c.
The City of Clarence-Rockland has developed goals, objectives and
actions that relate to the provision of public transportation within the urban
area and beyond:
1. A goal of the Plan is to encourage access to sustainable and
active forms of transportation infrastructure through pedestrian
links, bicycle paths and open spaces.
2. Through the Official Plan, the City will:
a. Develop a compact pedestrian-oriented Commercial Core Area;
b. Support initiatives to implement a public transit system within the
City of Clarence-Rockland; and
Promote the use of bicycles as a means of
transportation.
Project Number – 3414021 – October 2014
5
Final Report : Clarence-Rockland Transit Feasibility Study
Bourget is a village within the City that has unique characteristics and a vibrant nature. The
vision established in the Official Plan describes a village that is self-sufficient, sustainable and
inclusive.
Vision:
Bourget is and will continue to be a vibrant multigenerational village
that is clean, safe and supportive of pedestrian and cycling
connectivity. The village will experience moderate growth in the short
term and will expand significantly over the longer term when
municipal waste water infrastructure services are implemented. The
village will be self-sufficient and sustainable, with small businesses
that serve both residents and the surrounding rural area.
Objectives from the Official Plan include encouraging intensification within the village core
through infill and redevelopment of under-utilized buildings and sites; promoting a mix and
range of uses; and working towards an active, pedestrian-oriented streetscape.
As with all lower-tier municipalities in Ontario, Clarence-Rockland is subject to the policies of the
upper-tier municipality, the United Counties of Prescott and Russell. The official plan(s) of lowertier municipalities must be in agreement with those of the upper-tier and, rather than recreate
the policies for the rural areas, can refer to those in the county Official Plan. This is the direction
that Clarence-Rockland has taken.
The United Counties of Prescott and Russell are looking towards developing complete
communities in which the impact upon the environment is minimized:
Complete communities are envisioned that will utilize existing
services and infrastructure efficiently and minimize impact on the
environment. These complete communities are envisioned to be
vibrant, healthy, safe and able to sustain mixed-use development
that reduce the reliance on the private automobile and encourage
active modes of transportation and increased walkability. This is
achieved by locating the majority of homes, job, shops, institutions
and services in proximity to each other.
The county also has a policy that allows them to acquire land to widen rights-of-way as shown in
Schedule D of the Official Plan and includes providing for transit and rapid transit infrastructure,
pedestrian facilities and cycling lanes. The county also states that proximity and access to
transit services is part of the scope for the planning impact analysis and a built form principle
under neighbourhood character.
6
Project Number – 3414021 – October 2014
This provides the policy framework
within which to pursue a public
transportation system to serve the
needs of the residents of the
community for a variety of
purposes. The development of a
public transportation service can
reduce the reliance upon the private
automobiles and give those who do
not have access to a vehicle,
independence and access to services, social opportunities and employment within the City.
2.3
Demographic Profile
Clarence-Rockland is a growing municipality, and comprises over 25% of the total population for
the United Counties of Prescott and Russell (UCPR) in 2011 (see Figure 2). Growth is projected
to increase to 2031 and beyond. As a result, there will continue to be pressure within the City to
provide services that will meet the varying needs of the community and expand their offering of
services.
Figure 2: Comparison of Population Growth 2001-2031
City of Clarence-Rockland
United Counties of Prescott and Russell
111,490
99,020
76,446
19,512
2001
85,381
80,184
20,790
23,185
2006
2011
27,520
2021*
31,470
2031*
Year
Source: Statistics Canada: Census Data and * December 2012, Growth Forecast and Land Needs Analysis, United Counties of
Prescott and Russell, Hemson Consulting Limited
Project Number – 3414021 – October 2014
7
Final Report : Clarence-Rockland Transit Feasibility Study
The population of Clarence-Rockland is projected to increase by over 9,000 over the 25-year
period between 2011 and 20361 (see Table 1). This growth is significant in that the overall
population for the municipality will increase by 39% over this time. The urban area (Rockland)
which currently constitutes about 40% of the population will also continue to be the focus of
growth until 2036.
Table 1: Population by Settlement Area to 2026
Settlement Area
2011 Population*
2036 Projection
Rockland
11,100
17,440
Clarence Point
1,010
1,250
Cheney
210
250
Bourget
1,010
1,380
Hammond
420
570
St. Pascal
200
240
Clarence Creek
550
850
Rural
8,220
9,810
Total
23,220
32,310 (+39%)
Age Cohorts
The segment of the population over age 65 is one of two major cohorts that experience
indicates can be well served by public transit in small towns and rural municipalities. This age
group represents retirees and seniors who still have travel needs but may not wish or are
unable to drive themselves. The other population cohort represents young people aged 15 to
24 who are developing independent travel needs and may not yet have a driver’s license, or
access to a vehicle.
From 2011 to 2036, there will be a significant increase in the number of people over the age of
65 in Clarence-Rockland and a decrease in the number of youth between 15 and 24 before
reaching 2011 levels in 2036 (see Figure 3). The chart below illustrates how the population will
change, in particular the dramatic growth in the population over the age of 65.
1
8
(As set out in Hemson Consulting Ltd, December 2012: Growth Forecast and Land Needs Analysis: United Counties of Prescott
and Russell).
Project Number – 3414021 – October 2014
Figure 3: Population Growth to 2036 for Key Age Cohorts
7,630
6,980
5,690
4,500
3,290
2,790
2011
3,210 3,550
2016
2,510
2,500
2021
2026
15-24
2,870
2031
3,300
2036
>65
Source: Hemson Consulting Ltd, December 2012: Growth Forecast and Land Needs Analysis: United Counties of Prescott and
Russell
Any public transportation service will need to be designed to meet the needs of these two
cohorts and be flexible to meet the changing demographics. The number of youth (aged 15 to
24) will decrease until 2026 at which time the percentage of the youth will increase and be at
2011 levels by 2036. However, during this same time period, the previously slow-growing over
65 demographic will increase significantly as a percentage of the total population by 2036 (at
which time this group will comprise almost 25% of the total population).
Current information indicates that as the population ages, access to travel decreases. As well,
current trends indicate a decrease in the number of youth obtaining their driver’s licenses and
not considering car-ownership as a requirement for independence and mobility. Therefore any
transit service that is developed will need to take into consideration not only the needs of an
aging population and provide them with access to shopping, medical and dental appointments,
social activities and community facilities, but will also need to consider the needs of young
adults who will want to access social and entertainment destinations, part-time jobs and extracurricular activities.
Households and Income Levels
The income levels in the City are higher than those of the province of Ontario, as shown below
in Table 2. As a result, evidence indicates that there will be a lower demand than other places
with lower overall incomes for public transit. It can be assumed, however, that there will be a
number of youth looking for publicly provided transportation services to meet their needs. .
Project Number – 3414021 – October 2014
9
Final Report : Clarence-Rockland Transit Feasibility Study
Table 2: Household Income for Clarence-Rockland in 2010 (2011 NHS)
Total Households
No. Households Income
<$30,000
No. Households Income
>$60,000
No. Households Income
>$100,000
(included in >$60,000)
Median Income
Average Income
2.4
Ontario
Clarence-Rockland
4,886,655
2,674,780
(55%)
8,640
995
(12%)
5,715
(66%)
1,441,270
(29%)
3,250
(38%)
$66,358
$82,898
$85,772
$90,394
962,035 (20%)
Employment and Housing Unit Growth Forecasts
The City of Clarence-Rockland has had stable employment growth over the last several years,
as shown below in Table 3 that shows both historic and projected employment growth (to
2031). As can been seen, employment forecasts between 2011 to 2031 indicate that there will
be an additional 580 jobs created, a growth rate of 10.6%, which is 2.0% more than for the
United Counties of Prescott and Russell. As a result commuter traffic will be predominantly out
of Clarence-Rockland, despite the growth in the number of households during the same time
period.
Table 3: Employment Growth by Municipality, 2011 to 2031
Municipality
2011
2031
Increase
%
City of Clarence-Rockland
5,470
6,050
580
10.6
United Counties of Prescott and Russell
29,680
32,240
2,560
8.6
Source: Hemson Consulting Ltd, December 2012: Growth Forecast and Land Needs Analysis: United Counties of Prescott and
Russell
In comparison, residential growth will increase substantially more during this time period, as
previously mentioned. The growth rate for households in Clarence-Rockland will be 33.7%
between 2011 and 2031 (as shown in Table 4). The demands on the road network and
transportation services will be heavily biased toward commuter trips; however, the growth in
households will also result in an increased demand for sustainable transportation options within
the municipality, particularly with some major arterials being considerably congested. Data is
available providing a breakdown of the number of units and land required in the settlement
areas of Clarence-Rockland, with the majority of the growth to be within the Rockland Urban
Area (see Table 4 below).
10
Project Number – 3414021 – October 2014
Table 4: Projected Increase in Number of Households by Municipality, 2011 to 2031
Municipality
2011
2031
Increase
%
City of Clarence-Rockland
8,640
11,550
2,910
33.7
United Counties of Prescott and Russell
33,120
41,780
8,660
26.1
Source: Hemson Consulting Ltd, December 2012: Growth Forecast and Land Needs Analysis: United Counties of Prescott and
Russell
Table 5: Distribution of Housing Unit Growth by Community in Clarence-Rockland
Gross ha Req’d
Based on Density
Range UPGH
Settlement
Area
Rockland
Urban Area
Clarence
Point
Cheney
Permits
Share
Permits
Share
Forecast
Units
7
9
12
812
86%
86%
2438
348
271
203
18
2%
2%
54
8
6
Gross ha
supply
Gross ha Surplus or
(short) at Density
Range UPGH
7
9
12
215
(133)
(56)
12
5
218
210
212
213
5
1%
1%
15
2
2
1
169
167
167
168
Bourget
50
5%
5%
142
20
16
12
215
195
200
203
Hammond
St.-PascalBaylon
Clarence
Creek
19
2%
2%
57
8
6
5
294
286
287
289
5
1%
1%
15
2
2
1
231
228
229
229
34
4%
4%
113
16
13
9
139
123
127
130
Total
943
100%
100%
2834
405
315
236
4181
1076
1166
1244
Source: Hemson Consulting Ltd, December 2012: Growth Forecast and Land Needs Analysis: United Counties of Prescott and
Russell
2.5
Mobility Characteristics
With its proximity to the cities of Ottawa and Gatineau, there is a large percentage of commuters
who travel to employment areas outside of the City and towards Ottawa and Gatineau. As
shown below, a majority of these trips are made by private automobile, with approximately, 8.6
percent of residents using public transit for the commute to Ottawa.2 During a 15 year period,
commuters from Clarence-Rockland have continued to choose driving as their preferred mode
(see Figure 4); however, there was a slight decrease in driving about the same time that the
commuter bus service (Clarence-Rockland Transpo) was introduced. The number of
commuters taking public transit to work increased significantly in 2006 over previous years.
2
Statistics Canada. 2013. Clarence-Rockland, CY, Ontario (Code 3502036) (table). National Household Survey (NHS) Profile. 2011
National Household Survey. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 99-004-XWE. Ottawa.
Project Number – 3414021 – October 2014
11
Final Report : Clarence-Rockland Transit Feasibility Study
Percentage using Mode
Figure 4: Mode of Travel for Employed Workforce 1996-2011
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
% working at
home
Travel to work: % Travel to work: % Travel to work: % Travel to work: %
by car; truck or van by car; truck or van using public transit walking or biking
as driver
as passenger
Mode of Travel
1996
2001
2006
2011
The use of public transit for commuting purposes rose considerably upon the initiation of the
commuter service, CR Transpo. This is indicative of a latent demand for a transit service
originating within City limits and providing direct service to Ottawa and Gatineau. Transit
ridership apparently grew at the expense of carpooling and walking or cycling to work. The
number of those driving to work remained steady, It is believed that a major factor contributing
to the success of the CR Transpo service is that it offers a shorter trip than driving and
eliminates having to pay for parking in downtown Ottawa. Users save time and money by
choosing this mode.
The chart below (Figure 5) shows the differences in travel mode by gender. As indicated below,
there are more male commuters driving to work while there are more female commuters using
transit.
12
Project Number – 3414021 – October 2014
Figure 5 : Mode of Transportation Taken to Work (2011 National Household Survey)
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
Male
2,000
Female
1,000
0
Total
Car, truck Car, truck
employed or van - as aor van - as a
population
driver
passenger
aged 15
years
Public
transit
Walked
Bicycle
Other
methods
Within Clarence-Rockland, 81.4% of the employed labour force aged 15 years and over worked
at their usual place, 4.8% worked at home and 13.7% had no fixed workplace address, as
shown in the graph below (Figure 6).
Figure 6: Place of Work - 2001 to 2011 (Number)
10680
8740
815
755
635
Worked at home
1150 1395
25
20
9170
1795
20
Worked outside Canada
2001
No fixed workplace
address
2006
Worked at usual place
2011
Source: http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/as-sa/fogsspg/Pages/FOG.cfm?lang=E&level=4&GeoCode=3502036
Project Number – 3414021 – October 2014
13
Final Report : Clarence-Rockland Transit Feasibility Study
The 2011 Census Data and National Household Survey did not contain data on the specific
location that residents of Clarence-Rockland work. However, based on the data below, it can
be assumed that many residents are traveling outside of the City for employment given the
average time they are traveling and the time period that they are leaving for work. Both tables
indicate how Clarence-Rockland compares to the United Counties of Prescott and Russell and
Ontario (Table 6). The table shows that the commute for residents of Clarence-Rockland takes
more time than the average commute for the UCPR and Ontario. On average, residents in
Clarence-Rockland are more likely to leave between 5 and 7 am than those in the UCPR (see
Table 7).
Table 6: Commuting Duration in 2011
Commuting Duration (minutes)
Clarence-Rockland
UCPR
Ontario
Average
33.2
30.2
27.6
Table 7: Time Leaving for Work in 2011
Clarence-Rockland
UCPR
Time leaving for work
Commuters
%
Commuters
%
Total
12,465
100.0
41,855
100.0
5 to 6:59 am
5,575
44.7
16,715
39.9
7 to 9:00 am
4,855
38.9
19,140
45.7
After 9:00 am
2,035
16.3
5,995
14.3
2.6
Existing Transportation Services
The City of Clarence-Rockland offers several transportation options. These include taxi
services, bus services and VIA Rail.
Public Transportation
The City of Clarence-Rockland introduced a commuter transit service for its residents in 2003
with one route and then expanded to a second route. The CR Transpo service is partially
subsidized by the City and is run by a private bus company, Leduc Bus Lines. The residents
who commute into Ottawa-Gatineau for work are able to take advantage of a total of 16 runs on
two routes, each weekday, throughout most of the year (during the summer months, service is
decreased slightly).
14
Project Number – 3414021 – October 2014
One route, Route 535, serves the villages of St-Pascal-Baylon, Hammond, Cheney and Bourget
and runs 2 to 3 times per day depending upon the time of year (there is reduced service during
the summer months). The second route, Route 530, serves Clarence Creek, Clarence Point
and Rockland which runs between 8 and 11 times per day, depending on the time of year.
Route 530 also has a scheduled run into Ottawa and Gatineau starting in Clarence Point at 2
pm. Average monthly ridership in 2013 was 12570 with the total for the year reaching 151,918.
The monthly ridership pattern is outlined in Figure 7.
Since there is an established commuter service, the focus of the transit feasibility study is not on
commute trips. Rather this report is concerned about the needs of residents undertaking daily
activities within the City of Clarence-Rockland. However, the CR Transpo ridership (Figure 9)
does provide some indication of appetite for public transit among Clarence-Rockland residents.
Project Number – 3414021 – October 2014
15
Final Report : Clarence-Rockland Transit Feasibility Study
Figure 7 : CR Transpo Ridership by Month
16000
14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
April
May
June
July
AM
Februar
March
y
7623 6860 6740
7355
7175
6180
5347
Septem
Novem Decem
October
ber
ber
ber
4745 6818 7509 7001 5267
PM
7198
6967
6746
5775
4935
4307
6367
Total 14821 13388 13083 14322 13921 11955 10282
9052
13185 14294 13439 10176
January
6528
6343
August
6785
6438
4909
Taxi
Allo Taxi is head quartered on Laurier Street in Rockland, providing the urban area and
surrounding communities on a 24 / 7 basis. The company also provides transportation services
to Montreal and Ottawa3
Capital Taxi also serves the entire city of Clarence-Rockland, and is headquartered on Hannah
Street in Ottawa
Intercity Travel
VIA Rail does not stop in Clarence-Rockland but does stop in Casselman and is thus of
practical value for residents in the southern part of the city. A vehicular trip from downtown
Rockland to Casselman is about 40 to 45 minutes. According to the schedules on the VIA
website, there are four scheduled services that stop at the station in Casselman.
3
. Source: Allo Taxi’s Facebook page
16
Project Number – 3414021 – October 2014
School and Charter Bus Services
There are several school bus companies operating in the Clarence-Rockland area serving the
11 schools (and 4 school boards) within the municipality. Most of the companies also provide a
charter bus service.
2.7
What this all means
Clarence Rockland has a population of about 23,000 people, and a low population density of 78
people per square kilometre. About 40% of the population lives within the urban Rockland area
and the rest of the population lives within the five smaller villages or rural areas of the city. The
low population density and dispersed population will pose a challenge as the municipality seeks
to develop a transit system that serves all residents.
The urban population is growing much faster than the rural areas. The demand for public transit
in Rockland is therefore likely to increase alongside this growth. Clarence-Rockland is also
expecting significant growth in the population aged 65. Public transit will therefore become
increasingly important to independence and quality of life, as older residents may no longer
want to or be able to drive.
Communities are connected by a concession road grid that provides generally straight linkages
from place to place, supporting direct transit connections. Despite the automobile dominated
travel patterns, residents have demonstrated an interest in using transit for commuting
purposes, especially where it offers advantages in travel time and cost savings. However, it is
not clear whether this will transfer to local, intra-community transit services. Finally, the City’s
transportation policies support local transit.
Project Number – 3414021 – October 2014
17
Final Report : Clarence-Rockland Transit Feasibility Study
18
Project Number – 3414021 – October 2014
3
Peer Review and Best Practices
3.1
Peer Review
A review of transit systems in similarly sized communities is a valuable means of obtaining a
high-level look at operating conditions in situations that may be similar to those in ClarenceRockland. This section presents a review of 11 transit systems in Canada that offer joint fixedroute and point-to-point (para-transit) services in communities roughly comparable in size to
Clarence-Rockland.4 The selected communities are:
Airdrie AB
Brandon MB
Timmins ON
Grand Prairie AB
Cornwall ON
Welland ON
Leduc AB
Stratford ON
Yellowknife NT
Whitehorse YK
North Bay ON
Two methods were used to conduct the peer review. One was an online survey that was
provided to selected communities. There were 7 responses to the survey. The other was a
review of data from the CUTA Factbook. Both data sets provide valuable information on each
service. All of the transit systems reviews are small in scale and serve less than 55,000
individuals.
A direct comparison between municipalities is not intended by this review, nor is it advisable,
since every municipality is possessed of its own characteristics and circumstances which affect
the functioning of its particular transit system. Therefore, the objective of this peer review is to
derive an understanding what is offered in other municipalities, learn about their operating
characteristics, and gain insights from their experience. This can provide as a basis for
understanding what might be possible in Clarence-Rockland and what the likely ridership and
costs might be. 5 The peer review is presented in two sections: general characteristics
(population served, type of operation, hours of service, fares and ridership – Table 9) and
performance indicators (ridership and costs per vehicle hours and per capita – Table 10). The
table presents the findings of the peer review and the next section provides a summary of the
findings.
4
The average population in the peer review was 41,015. Though this is somewhat higher than Clarence Rockland, it was deemed
acceptable due to the rapidly growing population nature of the city: if Clarence Rockland continues its current (2006-2011) rate of
growth of 12 percent, it will reach about 40,000 people by 2036.
5
The findings are derived from CUTA’s Canadian Transit fact Book (2012) which contains data about most transit operations in
Canada except for British Columbia and Quebec, for which data at the municipal level are not available. Data for paratransit were
supplemented by an online survey, of which seven operators responded.
Project Number – 3414021 – October 2014
19
Final Report : Clarence-Rockland Transit Feasibility Study
General Characteristics
The following is a summary of the peer municipal system characteristics.










20
Population –Municipal populations in the peer group ranged from 19,888 (Leduc AB) to
55,000 in Grand Prairie AB. Generally speaking, the actual population is the same as the
population served.
Population served – the population served by the transit service will vary depending on
the size of the community. Where the area served by transit is less than the population,
it typically indicates that there is a rural population that is not served. Seven of the 11
peer-reviewed communities serve 100 percent of the population. Overall, the average
population served is 97 percent.
Method of operation – six of the peer-reviewed municipalities offer transit services as a
line department, while the remainder contract their transit systems to a private operator.
In this sample, the size of the community does not seem to affect the decision to
contract out. For example, in Whitehorse (19,888 people) the service is operated by the
municipality, while in Grand Prairie (55,000) it is contracted out.
Fleet Size and Peak Vehicles – fleet size ranges from 3 to 22 vehicles (Leduc and
Brandon respectively), and the number of vehicles operated in the peak service period
ranges from 3 (Leduc) to 115 (Welland and Brandon). Most of the municipalities have
one or more vehicles as a spare. Leduc does not have its own fleet, as the service is
contracted out to Edmonton Transit.
Number of Routes – the average number of routes is 8, with Welland, Ontario offering
as many as 14 routes and Leduc offering as few as one. Leduc’s system is closer to the
commuter service currently operating between Clarence-Rockland and Ottawa, though
fare prices are somewhat lower.
Span of Service – weekday hours of operation are typically 14 to 16 hours per day,
from around 6:00AM to 10:00PM with shorter hours on Saturday. Only four systems
offer Sunday service.
Ridership – ridership ranges from 41,603 in Leduc to 1133962 in Brandon. Four of the
systems have ridership under 500,000 (average about 190,000) while six have ridership
between 500,000 and 1,000,000 annually. Only Brandon serves more than a million
passengers per year; the average annual ridership of all ten peer municipalities was a
little under 575,000.
Revenue Vehicle Hours –the total number of hours of transit service provided annually
ranges from 3,078 in Leduc to 61,361 in North Bay. The average (10 services reporting)
is 33,384 hours per year.
Total Operating Expense – Leduc and Yellowknife had the lowest operating expenses,
at about $600,000 and $860,000 respectively while the highest was North Bay at just
over $5.9 million. The average was about $3 million.
Passenger Revenue – varied from $140,666 in Leduc to just over $3 million in North
Bay. The average was about $1 million.
Project Number – 3414021 – October 2014
Fixed route
No. routes
Fleet (fixed route)
Peak vehicles
Span of service
Weekday
Saturday
Sunday/holiday
Weekday hours of service
Operating data
Revenue vehicle kilometres
Revenue vehicle hours
Boardings/ridership
Direct Operating Expense
Total Operating Expense
Passenger Revenue
Total Revenue
Net Operating Cost
Municipal Operating contribution
Indicators
Revenue hours per capita
Rides per capita
Total Vehicle hours
Rides per revenue vehicle hour
Cost per revenue vehicle hour
Cost per passenger
Net cost per passenger
Net cost per capita
Average fare
Average speed
Revenue-to-cost ratio
Passenger fares
Regular service
Adult (cash)
Adult (ticket)
Adult (monthly)
Grand Prairie AB
Whitehorse YK
Brandon MB
Cornwall ON
Leduc AB
North Bay ON
Stratford ON
Timmins ON
Welland ON
Yellowknife
Summary (averages)
General
Year of service commencement
Population (as reported)
Population served
Percent served (calc)
Area served (km2)
Description of Service Area
Method of operation
Airdrie AB
Table 8:
Peer
Review municipalities
- Fixed Routeoffering
and Curb-to-Curb
/ On-Demand
Service / demand transit service (2012)
Peer Review - Comparably
sized
Canadian
both fixed route
and curb-to-curb
1980
45,711
45,711
100%
33.1
1981
55,000
55,000
100%
72
1976
27,232
22,156
81%
46
1957
53,000
53,000
100%
84
1974
46,000
46,000
100%
61.5
2010
25,842
25,842
100%
37
1972
53,000
49,000
92%
314.9
1952
32,000
32,000
100%
25.3
1975
43,165
38,662
90%
24
1973
50,331
48,000
95%
86
1990
19,888
19,888
100%
105
1976
41,015
39,569
96%
81
Contract
Contract
Line Dept
Line Dept
Line Dept
Contract
Airdrie Transit
6
13
10
GP Transit
Whitehose
Transit
Brandon
Transit
Cornwall
Transit
C-Line
0600-2100
0900-2100
15
7
20
12
$
$
$
Project Number – 3414021 – October 2014
2.00
1.75
60.00
Contract
Stratford
Transit
Timmins
Transit
Welland
transit
Yellowknife
Transit
0.77
11.15
42,177
14.56
56.73
3.90
2.81
31.39
1.08
28%
$
$
$
2.00
1.70
54.00
$
$
$
685,557
21,765
421,342
2,723,890
3,139,838
834,896
889,893
2,249,855
2,249,855
1,454,000
60,751
1,133,962
5,220,500
5,220,000
996,000
1,127,000
4,093,500
4,093,500
755,539
38,871
851,914
3,537,831
3,537,831
1,060,516
1,117,877
2,235,156
2,029,109
142,939
3,078
41,603
599,441
599,441
140,666
142,510
456,931
456,931
1,316,491
61,361
2,132,065
5,882,641
5,882,641
3,099,295
3,171,404
2,709,913
2,199,913
0.80
19.02
26,851
19.36
144.26
6.46
5.34
101.55
1.98
31.5
28%
1.15
21.40
0.85
18.52
45,333
21.92
91.01
4.15
2.62
48.59
1.42
19.44
32%
0.12
1.61
4,121
13.52
194.75
14.41
10.98
17.68
2.82
46.44
24%
1.16
43.51
61,361
34.75
95.87
2.76
1.27
55.30
1.62
21.45
54%
2.50
2.30
62.00
18.67
85.92
4.60
3.61
77.24
0.88
22%
$
$
$
1.15
1.00
66.00
$
$
$
2.75
2.10
61.00
$
$
$
5.00
4.50
75.00
$
$
$
21
2.50
2.25
80.00
10
15
10
7
20
13
581,357
2,429,116
2,429,116
885,081
907,195
1,521,921
1,521,921
18.17
24,936
4.18
2.62
47.56
1.52
37%
$
$
$
2.75
2.50
57.00
$
$
$
14
21
15
4 contract/7 line
11
16
0.41
2.75
21,994
6.72
84.13
12.53
7.83
21.51
4.37
23.97
37%
1
3
3
Line Dept
0550-2215
0630-2230
0600-2400
0600-2345
0530-1900
0615-0015
0600-2200
0600-2300
0700-2300
0640-1940
1830-2215
0700-2000
0600-2400
0630-2345
0630-0015
0600-2000
0600-2300
0700-1900
0800-1900
0900-1615
0800-2000
0830-1815
0800-1830
16.45
16
18
17.45
13.45
18
14
17
16
13
42,127
613,502
2,389,732
2,389,732
663,295
663,295
1,726,437
1,726,437
6
16
10
Line Dept
8
15
11
-
12
22
15
City Transit
11
22
16
Line Dept
5
8
6
448,172
18,695
125,553
1,572,818
1,572,818
548,583
589,770
983,048
983,048
8
10
7
Line Dept
1,033,729
43,981
977,322
4,793,165
4,793,165
1,495,939
1,529,509
3,216,894
3,216,894
806,276
34,080
806,276
3,305,497
3,305,497
1,072,180
1,111,800
1,949,107
1,949,107
186,998
9,132
172,460
860,004
860,004
274,951
304,391
555,613
555,613
758,856
33,384
714,305
3,028,603
3,066,371
1,006,491
1,050,422
1,972,580
1,907,484
1.02
25.28
43,981
22.22
108.98
4.90
3.29
83.21
1.53
23.5
32%
0.68
16.80
40,483
23.66
96.99
4.10
2.42
40.61
1.33
23.93
34%
0.46
8.67
91,132
18.89
94.17
4.99
3.22
27.94
1.59
20.48
35%
0.74
17
40,237
19
105
6
4
50
2
26
33%
2.50
2.50
68.00
$
$
$
2.50
1.91
69.00
$
$
$
2.50
2.27
62.00
$
$
$
2.56
2.25
64.91


Fares – typical adult cash fares average $2.50 and $2.25 for tickets. Fares are typically
lower yet for students and seniors. Monthly passes average about $65, with some
systems offering a discounted monthly pass to seniors and students.
Net Cost – per passenger costs per trip range from $1.27 in North Bay to $10.98 in
Leduc. The average was $4.
Performance Indicators
These are key indicators for measuring transit performance taking into account the population of
the community, the level of service and fare, and are derived from the foregoing information.





Revenue-hours per capita – This indicator expresses the amount of service provided in
the community on the basis of population. Within the peer group, the values range from
0.12 (Leduc) to 1.15 (Brandon). The average was 0.69 revenue hours per capita.
Rides per capita – this is the number of trips taken on the transit service in a year
divided by the population. This ranges from 1.16 (Leduc) to 25.28 (Timmins). The
average was 14.
Cost per revenue vehicle hour – This indicator is the total cost to provide transit
service divided by the number of revenue hours per year. The value ranges from
$56/hour (Grand Prairie) to $195/hour (Leduc). The average was $105.
Net cost per capita – this is the net cost, or investment, required after revenues on a
per capita basis. This value ranges from $17.68 (Leduc) to $101.55 (Whitehorse), with
an average of $49.73.
Revenue-to-cost ratio – this is the percentage of the operating cost recoverable from
transit fares. It ranges from 22% (Brandon) to 37% (Stratford ON), with an average of
31%. Generally, smaller transit systems have a cost recovery rate of 20% to 30%. This
means that for every 10 dollars expended by the municipality for the transit service, from
2 to 3 dollars will be returned in fares or other revenues such as advertising. The
following graph shows the results for each peer municipality. As “the bottom line” it
shows the least variance among the many variables discussed above, which reinforces
the assertion that each system design will of necessity be tailored to the community in
which it operates.
Project Number – 3414021 – October 2014
23
Final Report : Clarence-Rockland Transit Feasibility Study
Figure 8: Peer Review of Revenue Vehicle Hours (2012)
These criteria will be useful in helping to approximate the potential ridership, service levels and
costs for transit in Clarence-Rockland.
Paratransit / point-to-point
Data regarding paratransit was not available from the CUTA yearbook, so a brief survey was
undertaken of the operators featured above. Seven out of ten operators responded to our
invitation to participate:
 ACCESS Airdrie
 Handibus (Whitehorse)
 Handi-Transit (Brandon)
 Handi-Transit (Cornwall)
 LATS (Leduc)
 Handy Transit (Timmons)
 Well Trans (Welland)
The survey revealed that most operators integrated their paratransit service into the fixed route
system by sharing resources. Drivers, however, tend to be dedicated to the paratransit service.
Only one service (Airdrie) contracted the paratransit service out to an independent operator.
24
Report Number – 3414021 – October 2014
Project Number – 3414021 – October 2014
25
General
Year of service commencement
Population (as reported)
Population served
Percent served (calc)
Area served (km2)
Point-to-point
Point-to-point
Drivers
Admin staff
Maintenance staff
Other
Shared resources
Vans
Dedicated buses
Accessible Buses
Registration required
Registered customers
Ridership (2013)
Rides per customer
Booking
Software
Pre-booking (minimum notice)
Registration
Attendant rides free
Base fares
Whitehorse YK
Handy Bus
1976
27232
22156
81%
46
1957
53000
53000
100%
84
Brandon MB
Peer Review - Paratransit
Cornwall ON
1974
46000
46000
100%
61.5
Leduc AB
2010
25842
25842
100%
37
Timmins ON
1975
43165
38662
90%
24
1973
50331
48000
95%
86
Welland ON
Handi-Transit Handi-Transit LATS
Handy Transit Well Trans
2
2 n/a
6
9 2 + PT
3
1 3 shared
5 shared
3
2 6 shared
1
contracted
2 shared
11 shared
2
1 8 shared
0.5
1 shared
1 dispatcher
0
Yes (per contract) Yes
Yes
Yes
Manager
Yes
Yes
0
0
0
0
0
5
6
2
0
5
0
5
0
0
8
13
17
8
3
19
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
250
455
600
1500
625 n/a
1200
6692
8370
30849
39514
28272 n/a
15738
27
18
51
26
45 n/a
13
Telephone
Telephone
Telephone
Telephone
Telephone
n/a
Telephone
Manual
Trapeze Novus Trapeze Novus Transview
Trapeze
n/a
Enghouse
1 day
1 day
Same day
1 day
Same day
Same day
1 day
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
$2.00
$2.50
$4.00
$2.75
$4.00
$2.50
$2.75
ACCESS Airdrie
1980
45711
45711
100%
33.1
Airdrie AB
Table 9 : Peer Review - Paratransit
21
30
1977
39817
38626
97%
57
Summary
(averages)
Final Report : Clarence-Rockland Transit Feasibility Study
Service was provided using either vans or buses but not both. All operations require users to be
pre-registered and pre-booking of individual trips is required, usually no more than a day. The
average number of trips by registered users was 30 per year. Fares average $3. Attendants, if
required, ride for free. Most of the operators use specialized trip management software. There
are a number of vendors for such software including Trapeze, Novus and Enghouse. Finally, we
asked respondents to provide advice for communities considering the start of a new paratransit
transit service. Following are some of the comments received:



3.2
Understand the needs of your customers. Public users will be less accepting of large
variations in trip duration as they tend to be "choice" users. Depending on the geography
of the community a flexible route option may meet the needs of the public. This type of
service requires more administrative support and more public education.
Start slowly and make sure you have council support. As part of the para-transit service
[we] created a fixed route scheduled service for clients only. When this service started it
operated 3 days a week for 5 hours per day. They are now operating this service 5 days
a week for 7 hours per day.
[Consider working] with a non-profit and taxi's to help provide service.
Other Models and Best Practices
Many communities across Canada have implemented taxi-bus systems. Their flexibility has
established them as a viable option for communities that desire a transportation system but lack
the population and density for a large, fixed-route system. This section will detail a few
examples of taxi-bus systems and provide general lessons and guidelines arising from those
examples. These examples were chosen for their similarities with Clarence-Rockland. Factors
that were taken into consideration when looking for appropriate case studies included:
population density, total serviced population and proximity to a larger urban area.
3.2.1
Société des transports de Rimouski
Service type: Fixed-route bus and taxi-bus
Service area: Rimouski, Québec
Population: 50,912
Rimouski is often considered the archetypal Canadian taxi-bus system. Implemented in 1993, it
owes its existence to the increasing economic unfeasibility of the contemporary transit system.
The City was unwilling to increase its subsidies to maintain transit service at an acceptable
level; subsidies greater than $400,000 per year would be required to provide adequate service.
As a result, the City was forced to seek out an alternative – a public-private partnership with
local taxi operators. At present, Rimouski has both a taxi-bus and fixed-route bus system that
complements each other. An important aspect of the system is the TRAXIBUS software used to
manage trip organization and vehicle dispatches. The success of Rimouski’s taxi-bus has
positioned it as the model that other Canadian taxi-buses have since followed.
Taxi-bus service is provided by a cooperative of all local taxi drivers and managed by a nonprofit organization established by the City of Rimouski. Thus, the City manages reservations
26
Report Number – 3414021 – October 2014
and then forwards the data to the taxi company, which determines when and where taxis should
be dispatched.
Users must be registered with the City and must phone to make a reservation at least 1 hour
prior to their trip. Pickups and drop-offs occur at designated stops. Rimouski itself has two types
of taxi-buses. The standard taxi-bus travels along fixed routes but is demand-responsive; that is,
trips only occur if a reservation has been made. Taxi-bus-plus, in contrast, has no fixed route.
Passengers can travel across zones and routes without having to transfer. A third system,
INTER-taxi-bus, implemented by the regional government, serves an even larger area and
connects with the Société des transports de Rimouski. The taxi-buses shares two terminal
transfer points with regular bus service (transfer is included in the fare). Thus, the taxi-buses
serve as a feeder system, bringing people from surrounding communities to the fixed-route
system.
All regional residents are permitted to register and use the taxi-bus system, though prices can
vary for residents depending on several factors. The fare system is detailed in the Table 12
below. Reduced rates are available to those 16 years old or younger, 65 years old or greater
and full-time students. Children aged 5 or less travel for free.
Table 10: Fare System in Rimouski
3.2.2
Taxi-bus
Taxi-bus-plus
INTER-taxi-bus
Regular rate (one-way
trip, as of July 2014)
$3.50
$5
$5
Reduced rate (oneway trip, as of July
2014)
$2.55
---
$3.50
Taxi-bus Thetford Mines
Service type: Taxi-bus
Service area: Thetford Mines, Québec
Population: 25,709
Since 2008, the City of Thetford Mines has provided a taxi-bus service to all residents. As with
other implementations, users must perform an initial registration to use the taxi-buses.
Reservations are also required; users must phone at least one hour in advance of their desired
departure time. Pickup and drop-off occur at designated stops only. In 2012, taxi-buses in
Thetford Mines exceeded expectations by completing a total of 43,903 trips when estimates had
projected only 34,000.
Project Number – 3414021 – October 2014
27
Final Report : Clarence-Rockland Transit Feasibility Study
The City pays for its taxi-bus system through a combination of user fares, government subsidies
and revenue raised through general taxation. In 2012, $237,127 in funding came from the City
itself, $112,610 from Transport Québec and $156,619 from fares. User fares are $4.25 per trip
with no special provisions for groups other than children less than 5 years old, who travel for
free. Alternatively, an unlimited monthly pass can be purchased for $100. Service is offered
every day of the weekend except Sunday.
3.2.3
Taxi-bus Victoriaville
Service type: taxi-bus
Service area: Victoriaville, Québec
Population: 46,354
Since 2000, Victoriaville residents have enjoyed a municipal taxi-bus service. Like other
services, it requires registration in order to use the service and users must make a reservation
at least 1 hour prior to their trip. Pickup and drop-off must occur at designated stops. Fares are
set at $4 flat rate with the option of a $100 monthly pass. Victoriaville is unique, given its size, in
offering Sunday service as well as extensive Saturday service and typical weekday service.
3.2.4
Conseil Intermunicipal de Transport du Sud-Ouest (CITSO)
Service type: Fixed-route bus and taxi-buses
Service area: Beauharnois, Léry, Châteauguay and Salaberry-de-Valleyfield, Québec
Population served: 128,968 (Salaberry-de-Valleyfield, the area of focus, has 40,077)
The Conseil Intermunicipal de Transport du Sud-Ouest is a transportation service covering an
area southwest of the island of Montreal. Being situated close to a major urban centre, CITSO
shares some of Clarence-Rockland’s transit needs; that is, many people work in downtown
Montreal and require transportation to work but, at the same time, the communities covered by
CITSO also require intra-regional transportation. CITSO meets these needs through a hybrid
system. Within the larger urban centres and especially along routes to the island of Montreal,
CITSO runs fixed-route buses. On the periphery and other areas where ridership numbers do
not justify fixed-route buses outside of peak hours, a system of taxi-buses is employed. While
CITSO’s fixed-route buses cross municipal borders, its taxi-buses are community specific; that
is, Beauharnois, Léry, Châteauguay and Salaberry-de-Valleyfield each have a separate set of
taxi-buses, despite all falling under CITSO’s purview.
CITSO’s taxi-buses share several characteristics. They all: function on a system of fixed
pickup/drop-off points, require reservations 1 hour prior to travel, require registration to use the
system and accept Québec’s OPUS card as payment. The major difference between the taxibus systems lies in their scope. The system in Salaberry-de-Valleyfield has many stop locations
and it is designed to be flexible and transport people around the community. In contrast, the
other taxi-buses run fixed routes done by normal buses during rush hour. They have a reduced
number of stops and lack flexibility by design.
The system in Salaberry-de-Valleyfield resembles a typical taxi-bus and is the system most
applicable to Clarence-Rockland. Unlike other taxi-buses presented in the case studies, its fares
are determined in part by distance. Trips within the same sector are $4. Once a trip goes 5km
28
Report Number – 3414021 – October 2014
beyond the origin sector, the fare is $5.25. At 10km or more, the fare is $6.25. There are no
reduced rates available although children less than 12 years old travel for free. A monthly pass
is available for $95. Service is offered every day of the week except Sunday.
3.2.5
Town of Peace River, Alberta
Service type: Subsidized passes for private taxis
Population: 6,729
In 2005, the Town of Peace River implemented a fixed route public transit system. It consisted
of one bus doing a single route forming a circuit around the town. It was discontinued in 2011
due to high costs. However, while the transit system was still in operation, the Town decided to
supplement the single bus with subsidized taxi passes. Individuals purchase passes from the
Town which are then used with regular taxis. The cost of a trip using this method is one taxi
pass plus $2.50 or $5 depending on the distance traveled. Honouring the taxi passes is a
decision made by the taxi companies. The passes are only available to certain groups: students,
low income individuals/families, seniors and individuals with physical or mental disabilities.
Users are permitted to buy 40 tickets every 4 weeks at a cost of $30. As of 2013, the taxi
subsidies are costing the Town $146,109 and bringing in revenues of $14,098 though ridership
is growing. This example is provided to demonstrate a system where the taxis are privately
owned, run and organized, completely independent of the municipality.
3.2.6
Sou’West Nova Transit Association (SWNT)
Service type: Taxi-bus + private vehicles
Service area: Shelburne County, Nova Scotia
Population: 14,500
Sou’West Nova Transit Association (SWNT) is a non-profit, charitable organization providing
point-to-point transportation to residents of Shelburne County since 2012. Unlike the other
examples provided so far, it is not directly associated with a municipal body. SWNT is available
to all members of Shelburne County; though it prioritizes clients it defines as “most in need.”
Subsidies are available for those who qualify.
SWNT provides a different perspective on the traditional taxi-bus service. Since it is largely a
volunteer organization, it is restricted in terms of the number and types of vehicles it can deploy.
SWNT has one true taxi-bus supplemented by a dozen volunteer drivers using their own private
vehicles. Budgetary constraints limit the number of paid employees, such as dispatchers and
bus drivers. As a result, users must book their trips at least 24 hours in advance. Service is
provided directly from door-to-door. Users are charged $0.50 per kilometre and the price
includes a one hour free errand period between return trips to allow for shopping with the option
of paying for a longer period ($5 per 15 minutes). There is no limit on the wait period for a return
trip for a medical appointment. SWNT provides a more affordable “shopping shuttle” option in
areas where demand allows ($10 one-way trip) as well as additional shopping runs around
Christmas time.
Project Number – 3414021 – October 2014
29
Final Report : Clarence-Rockland Transit Feasibility Study
3.2.7
Ride Norfolk
Service Type: Fixed-route bus
Service Area: Norfolk County, ON
Population: 63,175
Ride Norfolk provides standard fixed-route bus service to residents of Norfolk County. It is
notable for using this model in a largely rural setting with scattered suburban communities. The
system has only been in place since late 2013 and will be re-evaluated in 2016. Service is open
to all members of the community. As a traditional fixed-route system, no registration or
reservation is required. Users are required to pay a fare of $2 for trips within Simcoe (the main
population centre), and $6 for inter-community trips. There are no reduced fares although
children under 5 years old may ride for free.
The Norfolk system is also unique because it has a highly variable schedule. Each weekday, a
different set of communities are served by the buses with Simcoe as the anchor. Service in
Simcoe itself runs Monday through Friday. There is no service on any route over the weekends.
Cost of operations in 2012 was approximately $300,000 though the cost borne by the County
was reduced through various subsidies as well as fare revenue. In 2013, the total cost to the
County was $42,000 with fares contributing 20% of the total operating costs.
3.2.8
Summary of Taxi-bus Characteristics
Despite the variation in contextual factors present in each situation, there are characteristics
common to all or most of the systems examined, including:





30
One-way trip fares tend to be a flat rate of $4 to $5 regardless of distance traveled. Most
systems have discounted rates available to certain groups (e.g. seniors) and will allow
children under a certain age (extremely variable) to travel for free.
Service is typically provided every day except Sunday. Taxi-buses are usually available
for reservation starting at 6:30am until 9:30pm. The end time is more variable and is
influenced by the larger community context as well as the day of the week.
All systems are subsidized to some degree. The source of subsidies varies significantly
by province. For example, Transports Québec has a robust subsidy system available to
small municipalities looking to implement public transit.
All taxi-bus systems require users to register with the City or organization providing
service
For taxi-buses, reservations are required at least 1 hour in advance. Failure to provide at
least 15-30 minutes’ notice when cancelling a trip will result in a fine and, after repeat
offenses, termination of a user’s registration.
Report Number – 3414021 – October 2014
3.3
Lessons Learned
Small cities are capable of offering public services of varying scales and levels of service. Their
costs and ridership levels can range significantly. One key indicator is the revenue-to-cost ratio
(i.e., the percentage of the operating cost recoverable from transit fares), which range from
22% to 37%, with an average of 31% which is on the higher side of what typically experienced
in smaller transit systems across the country. This means that for every 10 dollars expended by
the municipality for the transit service, from 2 to 3 dollars will be returned in fares or other
revenues such as advertising.
Existing transportation systems, such as those outlined in the case studies, have also revealed
a number of important considerations that future systems can learn from:

Service levels should reflect demand. Municipalities must customize their transit service
to meet their specific needs.

Contracting the service to private operators can yield faster implementation, lower capital
costs and greater flexibility to change the service.

Developing an appropriate legal framework to govern the service is essential to its
success.

Demand-responsive services may require more hands-on management since routes and
scheduling are dynamic.

Demand-responsive services, such as taxi-buses, minimize financial risk and increase
flexibility.

The quality of service provided by a taxi-based transit service can easily exceed that of a
fixed-route transit system in smaller communities. Specifically, quality of service is
improved by eliminating transfers and reducing travel times.

Cooperation with local taxi operators is feasible and can be beneficial to the municipality
and the taxi operations.
These points provide guidance for considering Clarence-Rockland’s transportation needs. A
taxi-bus system may be appropriate given the community’s population and density. As other
communities have demonstrated, it is possible to achieve adequate ridership and service quality
in lower density rural areas using a taxi-bus. Moreover, the City would be able to minimize
financial risk by contracting the service to private operators as other communities have done. A
partnership with local taxi drivers is something the City should strongly consider given its
success in other communities; it minimizes the need to invest in new vehicles, drivers or
infrastructure by using resources which already exist.
Overall, successful transit implementation exists in many forms in many communities. The
transit models in other communities may be useful as starting points for designing a transit
system that works for Clarence-Rockland.
Project Number – 3414021 – October 2014
31
Final Report : Clarence-Rockland Transit Feasibility Study
32
Report Number – 3414021 – October 2014
4
Public Engagement
Two main types of activities were undertaken to solicit input from the residents and stakeholders
of Clarence-Rockland. The first activity involved two workshops, both held on the same day to
encourage both stakeholders and the public to provide their insight and input into the transit
feasibility study. Two surveys comprised the second activity; one for English-speaking residents
and the other for French-speaking residents.
4.1
Stakeholder and Public Workshop Results
MMM Group hosted two workshops to actively engage stakeholders and citizens in the process.
Through these workshops, the project team collected the opinions and ideas of the participants.
It also allowed the team to tap into the knowledge of local issues possessed by the participants.
The workshops took place on June 24th, 2014 at the Clarence Creek Community Centre. The
afternoon session involved 13 stakeholders. Attendees included the mayor, City Council
members, community group organizers, and the taxi industry. The evening session was open to
the public and saw a total turnout of 13 people.
4.1.1
Workshop Outline
The structure of the two workshops was identical. In each one, Patrick Déoux (Project Manager)
and Guy Félio (City Councillor) provided opening remarks and contextualized the workshop.
Following the introduction, participants divided into groups of 6 to 10 people for discussion. With
the guidance of a moderator, each group explored three questions:
1. Is the introduction of a public transportation service within Clarence-Rockland a
necessity and a priority for you, as a resident of this community?
2. What type of public transportation service do you envision service the City of ClarenceRockland?
3. What are the main destinations that you would like to see served by a public
transportation service?
Participants were able to offer their input through verbal participation in the discussion in
addition to writing answers in the provided workbooks. Large maps of Clarence-Rockland were
also available at each table so that participants could draw routes, indicate destinations and
other important areas.
4.1.2
Data Analysis
Following the workshop, all of the participant comments and moderator notes were combined
and analyzed. Major ideas and themes were synthesized and categorized systematically.
Given the nature of this data, it is impossible to precisely indicate how many people expressed a
particular idea or opinion. Moreover, people may indicate their approval or disapproval of ideas
brought up in discussion through short, unrecorded statements such as “yes I agree” or through
Project Number – 3414021 – October 2014
33
Final Report : Clarence-Rockland Transit Feasibility Study
their body language. For these ideas, the moderators used their judgement in determining the
popularity of an idea. In light of this, approval of specific statements will be quantified by the
following terms:




“Most people” expressing an idea means an idea was mentioned at more than one
discussion table and appeared to be favoured by the majority of participants at those
tables. These ideas resulted in few or no disagreements among participants. This
typically indicates a total of more than 9 supporting statements that came from a range
of individuals.
“Many people” indicates that an idea was supported by a noticeable majority at one or
more tables but less unanimously than the “most people” category. This typically
indicates 7 to 9 supporting statements from different people.
“Some people” supporting a statement means the idea was favoured by several
individuals but not a majority. Such statements would often have a different group
espousing the opposite opinion or a modified opinion. This typically indicates 4 to 6
supporting statements from different people.
“Few people” indicates an opinion that was expressed by more than one person but was
still a minority opinion. This typically indicates two or three affirming statements from
different people.
In addition to the caveat regarding quantification, this synthesis did not include every idea from
the workshop. Due to the volume of data recorded, an analysis of all the ideas would be
unmanageable. Moderators used their judgement to include and exclude data based on its
importance and relevancy.
With those qualifications in mind, the following section presents the major ideas and themes
from the workshop. Statements have not been organized in any particular order, although those
located at the beginning of the section tend to be more popular.
4.1.3
Emerging Themes
The workshops were informative in that themes were derived from the comments and
discussions that took place. The comments have been arranged into broader categories
containing various themes. A full transcript of the workshops can be found in Appendix B.
While a vision was not developed during this process, a number of words and phrases were
repeated so that it is possible to create a vision.
Vision of Desired System
During the workshop, several phrases and words were brought
forward to describe a vision for an intra-city public transportation
service. The most common words brought forward were accessible,
affordable, equitable and flexible. The participants in the workshop
also suggested that it be available to everyone; encourage economic
prosperity; meet the needs of residents in a timely and efficient
manner and carry people to desired destinations.
34
“Public transit has an important
social aspect to it. You run into
people you know and meet other
members of the community. It
also helps connect people to
social activities in the city. ”
Report Number – 3414021 – October 2014
Social and Demographic
Economic considerations: Most participants agreed that a good transit system can have a
positive economic effect. People would be able to reach various stores within the city more
effectively which would improve business at local stores. Another
factor brought up by a few participants was that people coming to
“A good transportation system
Clarence-Rockland want a transit service that can take them to
will strengthen our local
Ottawa. It is an important consideration for real estate developers
economy and encourage
people to shop within
and buyers. A few participants mentioned that an effective transit
Clarence-Rockland.”
system could help some members in the community hold jobs and
end their dependence on welfare.
Social benefits: A few participants mentioned that public transit has a
social component. Buses can connect people within the city and can act as
a social hub on their own.
“An effective
transportation system
would help unite the
city.”
Disability: Having a system which can accommodate the needs of
disabled individuals was a priority among many participants. While few specific points were
discussed, the general idea that a transit system grants greater independence to disabled
individuals came up repeatedly as well. Related to that idea, most participants agreed that
transit vehicles should be fully accessible. There was also acknowledgement among some
participants that there could be additional subsidies related to disability.
Youth: Many participants were concerned with the ability of
youth to get around Clarence-Rockland on their own through
the use of public transit. Without effective transit, parents would
have to pick up children from every activity. Given that
Clarence-Rockland is quite a large area, this takes a
considerable amount of time. Some participants were
concerned about young people leaving the city as they get
older and noted the potential role of poor transportation to
Ottawa and within Clarence-Rockland.
“Young people tend to leave and go
to Ottawa as they get older because
there is no decent transit and no way
to get around. Cars are less
appealing to young people these
days. They prefer public transit.”
Seniors: The main idea raised by most participants was that public transit enables seniors to
function more independently, especially when they are unable to drive. Unlike people traveling
to work at rush hour, they use transit during the day. Many participants pointed out that
scheduling for a transit system would have to take into consideration the needs of seniors. A
few participants pointed out that minimizing transfers should be a priority since seniors will get
physically tired if a trip using public transit is prolonged.
Destinations
Destinations within Clarence-Rockland: Participants
mentioned a variety of destinations. Most agreed that Rockland
was the most important destination with Bourget as the second.
Most participants mentioned the importance of reaching medical
facilities by public transit. Community centres and YMCAs were
mentioned by many participants as well. Shopping locations
Project Number – 3414021 – October 2014
“We need a transportation
system that can be relied upon
to serve all of our needs:
social, medical, recreational
and professional.”
35
Final Report : Clarence-Rockland Transit Feasibility Study
also featured prominently among destinations (listed below).
Traveling to Ottawa: In general, opinions were mixed as to the need to travel to Ottawa
(especially for people working downtown or those who are considering moving to ClarenceRockland) versus the desire for Clarence-Rockland to be as self-sufficient as possible. Some
participants had transportation to Ottawa as a priority while other participants had transportation
within Clarence-Rockland as their priority. Several ideas for connections points with OCTranspo
were discussed though no clear consensus came up.
Transit Service
Pricing and subsidies: Most participants agreed that some
kind of subsidy is necessary but, beyond that point, there
“For some people, getting to
wasn’t much consensus. Many participants identified a
Rockland or other places to work is
minimum requirement of subsidies for vulnerable populations
too expensive. They end up staying
on welfare instead. An affordable and
such as seniors, disabled individuals and people with low
functional transportation system
income. Most participants agreed that about $5 for a one-way
could end this problem.”
trip via taxi-bus within Clarence-Rockland seemed reasonable
with a few participants disagreeing. The issue of subsidies for
routes to Ottawa versus subsidies for intra-city routes was contentious. Some participants
wanted an equal subsidy for each route while many others preferred a larger subsidy for routes
within Clarence-Rockland.
Frequency of proposed system: Many participants pointed out that a system focusing on
peak period travel will exclude many potential users such as younger people and seniors who
often travel throughout the day. Regular service to Rockland was identified by most participants
as a priority. Frequent service to Bourget was also important to most participants. Many
participants expressed a need for high enough frequency to make using the system practical.
The idea of having specific days for certain routes was popular among many participants. That
is, having two or three days a week where a bus would do a grocery store run, for example.
Some participants also identified a need for flexible frequencies; for example, different run
frequencies when people are doing Christmas shopping in December.
Routes for proposed system: Many participants identified a need for special bus routes for
events. Most participants agreed that there should be a bus travelling in a circuit around
Rockland. Buses could then bring people from the surrounding communities enabling for
transfer to the Rockland circuit. Some participants thought there could be a bus doing a large
circuit around the City to bring people to Rockland from the
surrounding communities while some others thought it would
“I like the idea of a ParaTranspo-style
be more convenient to have several different, shorter routes
service. Residents would indicate
bringing people to Rockland from the villages.
their interest in advance and the bus
would pick them up rather than
Taxi-bus system: Adding some form of taxi-bus system
having a bus going around the city.”
seemed to be the preferred option among most participants.
The convenience of being able to call and schedule a pickup
was favoured among most participants and it was also perceived to improve accessibility for
seniors and disabled individuals. Many participants pointed out the need to retain the existing
system of buses for routes that require it; the taxi-bus would be a supplement. Most participants
36
Report Number – 3414021 – October 2014
were also in favour of having a privately contracted service since it would offer the city more
economic flexibility.
Other Considerations Related to Transit
Reasons to use transit: The most important reason to use transit
identified by most participants was not having access to a car or
being physically unable to drive. The other reasons listed below
were mentioned by only a few participants.
“The quality of ClarenceRockland’s transportation
system is an important
consideration for potential
home and condo buyers.”
Reasons not to use transit: Reasons for not using transit related
primarily to the quality of service. Most participants agreed that poor frequency was a very
important reason not to use transit. Long travel times were also mentioned by some participants
as an important factor. Transit being too expensive was another factor mentioned by some
participants.
“Don’t cut service when usage
declines. We should improve
Things participants wanted the consultants to consider:
service to attract riders.”
Several times, participants made a note about something they
wanted the consultants to take into consideration. The idea which
came up the most was a desire for good data on what people in Clarence-Rockland want from a
transportation system to make sure it will be used. Many participants wanted to see an analysis
of taxi-bus systems in other municipalities.
4.2
Survey Results
The study team developed an online survey for the residents of Clarence-Rockland to fill out as
part of the public consultation process for the feasibility study. The survey collected data about
where, how and why respondents tend to travel; their opinions on public transportation in
general and in Clarence-Rockland; and some basic demographic data. While paper copies were
made available to community residents, the vast majority of surveys were completed online. The
survey was available to all residents from June 16 to July 18, 2014 and it was completed by 122
individuals.
The rest of this section presents the survey questions and results. Most of the questions had a
good response rate (>90%); when this wasn’t the case, it will be noted as appropriate in the
following discussion. Combined percentages derived from the answers are stated in the write-up
for clarity; other percentages are written on the graphs themselves and not in the text.
Project Number – 3414021 – October 2014
37
Final Report : Clarence-Rockland Transit Feasibility Study
Question: In what community or area do you live? (main respondent only)
Unsurprisingly, a majority of respondents indicated Rockland as their home community. While
there was some representation from most communities, there were no respondents from
Cheney and both Saint-Pascal-Baylon and Clarence Point had only one respondent each.
Home Community
n = 117 responses
Rockland
70.9%
Clarence Creek
Bourget
11.1%
4.3%
Hammond
Cheney
Saint-Pascal-Baylon
Forest Hill / Blue Jay
Clarence Point
Rural
6.0%
0.0%
0.9%
4.3%
0.9%
1.7%
Question: What is your employment status? (main respondent only)
As this question addressed the main respondent only, the majority of respondents being
employed full-time was expected. Of note is the relatively high percentage of retired individuals
who will have different travel needs from those working full-time. The seemingly low percentage
of students (secondary and post-secondary) can likely be attributed to the question only being
answered by the main respondent.
Employment Status
n = 120 responses
Student (post-secondary)
Student (secondary)
5.8%
0.0%
Employed full-time
Employed part-time
Unemployed / looking for work
66.7%
5.0%
3.3%
Retired
Not employed outside the home or…
38
17.5%
1.7%
Report Number – 3414021 – October 2014
Question: How many people live in your household?
The most common household size was two people with single person households being the
least common. If households with 3 or more people are considered to be mostly families, then
more than half (54.3%) of respondents fall into this category. This is an important consideration
since the travel needs of families can be somewhat different from the needs of couples and
single individuals.
Household Size
n = 118 responses
1 person
9.3%
2 people
36.4%
3 people
24.6%
4 people
19.5%
5 or more people
10.2%
Question: How many registered and insured vehicles are owned within your household?
Nearly every household (94.8%) answering the survey had at least one vehicle. Moreover, the
majority of households (62%) had two or more vehicles available to them. These figures are
expected given Clarence-Rockland’s location and density. Considering the number of vehicles
available to residents, a public transportation system would have to provide a noticeable benefit
over driving to achieve high usage.
Number of Registered and Insured Vehicles per Household
n = 116 responses
None
5.2%
1
32.8%
2
3 or more
Project Number – 3414021 – October 2014
49.1%
12.9%
39
Final Report : Clarence-Rockland Transit Feasibility Study
Question: How many trips (to school, shopping, work, appointments, social events, etc.)
are made from your house to somewhere else on an average day, considering all
persons in your household?
Most households (82.3%) make 6 trips or less per day originating from their house while 17.8%
undertake more than 7 trips.
Daily Trips Originating from Home
n = 118 responses
Less than one a day
5.1%
1 to 3
45.8%
4 to 6
7 to 10
More than 10
31.4%
7.6%
10.2%
Question: Have you or someone you know ever missed a medical / dental health
appointment, job or education opportunity, due to a lack of transportation?
More than one quarter of respondents (28%) indicated that a lack of transportation had caused
them or someone they know to miss an opportunity or appointment. Comments from
respondents generally indicated that these situations were due to either a vehicle breaking
down or not having access to one of the household vehicles because someone else was using
it. Some people mentioned having to forgo opportunities altogether since they did not have the
means to travel there.
Question: Where do you (and / or others in your household) usually work?
Downtown Ottawa is clearly the most popular work destination followed by “other places in
Ottawa” and Rockland. It’s important to note that those working at home or with no place of
work have significantly different travel requirements than those commuting on a daily basis.
When categorized by larger geographic bodies, 52.7% of all people are commuting outside of
Clarence-Rockland, 38.6% are working within Clarence-Rockland (including working at home)
and 8.7% have no place of work. Other areas mentioned by respondents in comments included:
Embrun (three people), Alfred-Plantagenet (two people), Limoges (two people), Hawkesbury,
Casselman, Alfred, Ottawa East and Carlsbad Spring.
40
Report Number – 3414021 – October 2014
Location of Work
n = 112 surveys providing 264 selections (multiple answers permitted)
No regular place of work
At home
Rockland
Clarence Creek
Hammond
Bourget
Cheney
Saint-Pascal-Baylon
Rural
Orleans / Cumberland
Downtown Ottawa
Downtown Gatineau
Other places in Ottawa
8.7%
11.4%
17.8%
4.2%
1.1%
2.7%
0.8%
0.0%
0.8%
6.1%
25.8%
3.0%
17.8%
Question: How do you get to work most of the time (answer for all members of the
household)?
Given the community profile, it is no surprise that driving is the most popular commuting option.
However, CR Transpo also enjoys a sizable ridership. The number of people indicating “work at
home” for this question nearly mirrors the number of “work at home” from the previous question
which indicates good reliability in the questions. Comments indicated that several park and ride
locations are used by residents: Trim (three people), Clarence-Creek (two people), Bourget
Community Center and Rockland City Hall.
Usual Transportation Mode for Journey to Work
n = 109 surveys providing 257 selections (multiple answers permitted)
Work at home
13.6%
Drive myself
43.2%
Car pool (as a passenger)
5.4%
Use CR Transpo
20.2%
Drive (or car pool) to
use OC Transpo
7.4%
Walk
Bike
Taxi
Project Number – 3414021 – October 2014
6.2%
1.6%
2.3%
41
Final Report : Clarence-Rockland Transit Feasibility Study
Question: Which of the following statements best describes your likelihood to use a
public transportation service (answer for all members of the household)?
This question resulted in an even split between those “very likely” to use public transportation
and those who would never use it as the two most popular options. Of interest is the relatively
large number of people who indicated “not sure.” This would seem to be an ideal group of
people to target as potential public transit users.
Likelihood of Using Public Transit
n = 114 surveys providing 264 selections (multiple answers permitted)
Very Likely
33.3%
Likely
14.4%
Not sure
18.9%
I would never
use public transit
33.3%
Question: If transit or a form of public transportation was available (such as dial-a-ride,
taxis, community shuttle), where would you likely be traveling to? Answer for all
members of the household.
The variety of answers for this question indicates that the need for public transportation is not
linked to one particular type of trip or destination. Instead, it indicates that people plan to use
public transportation for all aspects of their daily lives. This is a fact that any transportation
system would need to acknowledge by not focusing solely on trips to work.
Indicated Destinations for a Taxi-Bus, Community Shuttle or
Taxi Service
n = 113 surveys providing 545 selections (multiple answers permitted)
For visiting friends and family
9.2%
For entertainment
15.2%
For appointments
12.8%
For shopping
12.1%
For groceries
For school
For work
I would not use public transit.
42
11.0%
5.7%
14.1%
19.8%
Report Number – 3414021 – October 2014
Question: Why would you not take public transit? (multiple selections, answer for all
members of the household)
This question reveals the primary reasons people choose not to use public transportation. It’s
interesting to note that the top three concerns (schedule inflexibility, lack of destinations, and
convenience/length of trip) would all be improved by a taxi-bus system. The people who simply
enjoy driving are unlikely to use public transportation regardless of how a system is improved or
incentivized. It should be noted that 21.3% of the total number of respondents skipped this
question.
Reasons for not Taking Public Transit
n = 96 surveys providing 359 selections (multiple answers permitted)
Other modes are cheaper
13.4%
Other modes are faster or more convenient
20.6%
The bus is unlikely to go where I need to go
22.6%
My travel schedule requires flexibility that
a bus system is unlikely to promote
23.7%
My driving routine involves dropping off
passengers, running errands, etc.
I would feel crowded
or uncomfortable on a bus
I enjoy driving
Project Number – 3414021 – October 2014
8.1%
3.3%
8.4%
43
Final Report : Clarence-Rockland Transit Feasibility Study
Question: For public transportation system to be useful for you, how often would you
expect a bus to come by (answer for all members of the household)?
The results show a dichotomy between the most frequent service option and the unlikeliness of
the respondent to use a transit service at all. The answers for these two options accounted for
nearly two-thirds (64%) of all answers. Those expecting regular service every half hour may
have a harder time adapting to a taxi-bus system which would require calling and scheduling in
advance.
For Public Transit to be Useful, What Frequency Would it
Require
n = 111 surveys providing 271 selections (multiple answers permitted)
About once every half hour
32.5%
About once per hour
10.3%
Several times per day
A few times a day, everyday
I could work around the schedule
14.4%
5.2%
6.3%
Unlikely to use,…
31.4%
Question: How often do you think you will take the bus or some form of public
transportation?
The results of this question show that people expect and require transportation on any given
day. This reinforces the concept that a transportation system limited to weekday commuting is
missing many potential users.
Days of Week Respondents would Expect to Use Public
Transportation
n = 110 surveys providing 296 selections (multiple answers
permitted)
Sunday
Saturday
Weekdays
44
31.8%
32.4%
35.8%
Report Number – 3414021 – October 2014
Question: What time of day would you and/or a member of your household use the
service (to and from your destination)?
This graph illustrates how people expect service to be available more or less consistently
throughout the day. There is a decline after the morning rush hour and another decline in the
evening. Using these numbers, peak usage would occur during the afternoon rush hour. This
further reinforces the need for a comprehensive transportation system which covers all days of
the week for the entirety of each day. Of note is that 31% of respondents skipped this question.
What Time of Day Would you and / or a Household Member
use the Transit Service (to and from your destination)?
n = 84 surveys providing 338 selections (multiple answers permitted)
6 to 7 am
40.5%
7 to 8 am
8 to 9 am
47.6%
29.8%
9 am to 12 pm
45.2%
12 to 3 pm
40.5%
3 to 4 pm
41.7%
4 to 5 pm
50.0%
5 to 6 pm
40.5%
6 to 7 pm
33.3%
Later than 7 pm
33.3%
Question: What do you think would be a fair rate (per trip) for public transportation in
Clarence-Rockland? (For reference, the current price of an OC Transpo fare is $3.75)
Most respondents favour a rate below OC Transpo’s current fare. The answers follow a normal
distribution, peaking at $2 to $3. Based on this data, a fare above $4 would likely prove
unpopular. A critical consideration in determining a fair rate is whether the system is a taxi-bus
or a standard bus.
Data quality note: 17.2% of respondents skipped this question.
Project Number – 3414021 – October 2014
45
Final Report : Clarence-Rockland Transit Feasibility Study
Preferred Fare Rate per Trip for Public Transportation in
Clarence-Rockland
n = 101 responses
Under $2
20.8%
$2 to $3
35.6%
$3 to $4
24.8%
$4 to $5
14.9%
More than $5
4.0%
Question: To what age group do you belong?
Most of the respondents tend to fall within the working age range, with a noticeable peak in the
45 to 54 year olds. The relatively small number of respondents under 25 can be attributed to this
question addressing the main respondent only.
Age of Respondents
n = 109 respondents
14 or younger
0.0%
15-19
1.8%
20-24
1.8%
25-34
13.8%
35-44
17.4%
45-54
38.5%
55-64
16.5%
65-79
80 and over
10.1%
0.0%
This is a useful demographic to compare with statistical data. The comparison with the age
distribution of the general population (from the 2011 census) indicates that younger cohorts
were underrepresented in the survey and that older cohorts are over-represented. This may
reflect the likelihood that head of the household tended to complete the survey.
Question: What is the approximate annual income of your household considering all
persons living there?
The income distribution of respondents was slightly biased towards the higher income levels. It
is also important to note that 27% of respondents skipped this question.
46
Report Number – 3414021 – October 2014
Question: Are you male or female?
The gender breakdown for this survey was 62% female and 38% male.
Open-ended responses
Respondents had the opportunity to provide general comments at
the end of the survey. Though the majority of the respondents did
“I really hope this becomes a
reality. It would mean so much
not provide any comments, several respondents expressed the
to have the ability to
view that tax dollars should not be used to subsidize this transit
independently travel
service. Several others expressed strong support for a community
within/outside city limits
whenever I choose.” Survey
transit system, noting that it would enable residents – particularly
Respondent
young people – to travel within Clarence-Rockland independently.
One respondent suggested monthly passes, and another
suggested that a service to Place d’Orleans and the OC Transpo Park and Ride is all that is
required on a frequent basis.
4.3
What this all means
Clarence-Rockland residents articulated a vision of a transit system that is




accessible,
Accessible
affordable,
Affordable
equitable
and
Equitable
Flexible
flexible.
Residents indicated that a top priority of a local transit system should be to meet the needs of
youth, older adults, and people with disabilities. It should therefore operate regularly, at all times
of day, not just at rush hour. Rockland was identified as the key destination, with Bourget as
another important destination.
The survey revealed that residents would use transit for many purposes, all days of the week,
and at all times of the day (from 6am to after 7pm). Most respondents suggested that $2 to $4
would be an acceptable trip cost, and that frequency every 30 or 60 minutes would be required
for transit to be useful.
Project Number – 3414021 – October 2014
47
Final Report : Clarence-Rockland Transit Feasibility Study
48
Report Number – 3414021 – October 2014
5
Transit Service Analysis
The transit service analysis for Clarence-Rockland considered two types of transit services: a
fixed route service (more traditional type of transit service in urban centers) and an on-demand
service. Section 3 presented examples of both fixed route and on-demand services used in
other municipalities.
Fixed route (or conventional transit) is the most common type of public transit service. Vehicles
operate along a fixed route with designated transit stops, and follow a set timetable. Service is
generally provided along main roadways where key destinations are located. Customers can
plan their trips based on the transit schedule and do not need to register with the transit
provider.
On-demand service (or dial-a-ride service) is generally used in areas where transit demand is
too low for fixed route service. With on-demand service, customers register with the transit
provider and book their trips in advance through a dispatch centre. Routes are not fixed;
instead, clients are picked up and dropped off based on demand, often at designated pick up
and drop off locations. Vehicle routes are optimized to service as many people as possible and
to provide direct connections between trip origins and destinations.
The transit service analysis began with an assessment of fixed route service options for
Clarence-Rockland. The study identified potential fixed routes (section 5.1) and evaluated the
demand that would be required for those routes (section 5.2). The study compared the fixed
route options based on feasibility and service quality (section 5.3). An assessment of whether
Clarence-Rockland would likely generate the demand required for these fixed routes (section
5.4). Finally, fixed route options are compared to on-demand options considering the likely
demand for transit in Clarence-Rockland (section 5.5).
5.1
Fixed Route Identification
Four possible fixed routes for intra-city transit service in Clarence-Rockland were developed,
drawing on the results of the two workshops and the on-line survey (described in section 4).
Routes and service hours were developed to achieve as many as possible of the following
objectives identified by workshop participants:






Providing access to Rockland’s retail establishments, medical and dental centres, and
community facilities;
Serving major destinations and residential areas, including the urban area of Rockland
and Bourget;
Having a minimum of one route serving the villages and rural areas;
Operating during off-peak times when the commuter service is not running;
Providing stops within a reasonable distance of concentrations of population; and
Maintaining reasonable travel times and using major corridors.
Project Number – 3414021 – October 2014
49
Final Report : Clarence-Rockland Transit Feasibility Study
Figure 9: Transit Travel Routes
Identified by the Public
During the public and stakeholder workshops, the
participants also provided feedback on the corridors along
which a public transportation service should travel. Below
are the most popular corridors clockwise from the northeast as illustrated on the summary map from the
workshop (Figure 10):










Landry Rd
Du Golf/Saint-Pascal Rd
Champlain Rd
Laval St/Russell Rd
County Road 21
Oakwood Drive
Baseline Rd
St. Jean St
Laurier St
Caron St
Drawing on this community input, four potential fixed service routes were developed for
Clarence-Rockland. Each route provides access to Rockland, thereby providing residents with
independence particularly for seniors and youth. The following four routes are described on the
pages that follow, and are the basis for the cost/revenue and ridership requirement analysis in
Section 5.3:




50
Red Route
Green Route
Blue Route
Purple Route
Report Number – 3414021 – October 2014
5.1.1
Red Route
The Red Route serves a limited part of the City of Clarence-Rockland. This route primarily
serves the urban area of Rockland, including Clarence Creek and the Forest Hills subdivision,
and spans a total of 28.3 kilometres. The stops along this route are located at major
intersections and key destinations, to meet the needs of residents. The Red Route is presented
in Figure 10.
Figure 10: Fixed Route Option 1: Red Route
Red Route
Route Segments and Length
Fixed Stops
Caron St.
3.5 km
1
Caron St & Laurier St
Baseline Rd
2.3 km
2
Caron St & David St
Landry St.
3.1 km
3
Caron St and Baseline Rd
Vinette Rd
5.5 km
4
Baseline Rd & Landry Rd
Joanisse Rd
2.2 km
5
Landry Rd @ Ste Felicité Church
Oakwood Dr
2.3 km
6
Landry Rd & Vinette Rd
Canaan Rd
1.5 km
7
Vinette Rd & Bouvier Rd
Baseline Rd.
1.4 km
8
Vinette Rd & Joanisse Rd
St. Jean St
3.8 km
9
Joanisse Rd & Scharf St
Laurier St
2.7 km
10
McDermit Dr & Oakwood Dr
11
Canaan Rd & Baseline Rd
12
Baseline Rd & Joanisse Rd
13
St. Jean St. & Baseline Rd
14
St. Jean St & Poupart Rd
15
St. Jean St & Laurier St
Total
28.3 km
Project Number – 3414021 – October 2014
Route Map
51
Final Report : Clarence-Rockland Transit Feasibility Study
5.1.2
Blue Route
The Blue Route travels throughout the urban area of Rockland (including the new medical
centre) and the nearby settlements of Forest Hills and Clarence Creek. With a length of almost
39 kilometres and 20 stops, it serves a significant number of residents and includes a number of
destinations to meet the needs of the residents. The Blue Route is presented in Figure 11.
Figure 11: Fixed Route Option 2: Blue Route
Blue Route
Route Segment and Length
Caron St
Baseline Rd
Landry Rd
Vinetter Rd
Canaan Rd
County Road 17
Chamberland Rd
Laporte St
Poupart St
St. Jean St
Laurier St
Total
52
3.5 km
3.7 km
3.1 km
5.5 km
8.3 km
3.8 km
0.8 km
0.2 km
1.7 km
3.8 km
4.2 km
38.5 km
Fixed Stops
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Route Map
Caron St & Laurier St
Caron St & David St
Caron St & Baseline Rd
Baseline Rd & Landry Rd
Landry Rd @ Ste. Felicité Church
Landry Rd & Labonte Rd
Vinette Rd & LaCasse Rd
Vinette Rd & Joanisse Rd
Vinette Rd & Canaan Rd
Oakwood Rd & Canaan Rd
Baseline Rd & Canaan Rd
Medical Centre on Chamberland Rd
Laporte St & Chamberland Rd
Laporte St & Laurier St
St. Jean St & Poupart Rd
St. Jean St & Patricia
St. Jean St & Laurier St
Laurier St & Giroux St
Laurier St & St. Joseph St
City Hall
Report Number – 3414021 – October 2014
5.1.3
Purple Route
The Purple Route serves the urban area of Rockland, Bourget and the rural areas of ClarenceRockland. The route is 44.5 kilometres in length and has 17 stops. This route will provide
residents with access to both Bourget and Rockland. However, this route does not access the
villages of Clarence-Rockland. The Purple Route is presented in Figure 12.
Figure 12: Fixed Route Option 3: Purple Route
Purple Route
Route Segment & Length
Landry Rd
Champlain Rd
Russell Rd
Drouin Rd
Joanisse Rd
Baseline Rd
Poupart Rd
Laurier St
Caron St
9.2 km
6.1 km
7.1 km
9.1 km
2.2 km
1.4 km
1.7 km
4.2 km
3.5 km
Fixed Stops
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Total
44.5 km
5.1.4
Green Route
Route Map
Landry Rd @ Ste. Felicité Church
Landry Rd & Claude St
Landry Rd & St. Pascal St
Champlain Rd & Dollard St
Champlain Rd & Laval Rd
Laval Rd & Lavigne St
Russell Rd & Legault Rd
Russell Rd & Drouin Rd
Drouin Rd and La Croix Rd
Hammond Gold and Country Club
Vinette Rd & County Road 21
Joanisse Rd & Scharf Rd
Joanisse Rd & Baseline Rd
Baseline Rd & St. Jean St
St. Jean St & Poupart Rd
St. Jean St & Laurier St
Laurier St & Caron St
The Green route is the longest of the four routes presented and serves the rural areas of
Clarence-Rockland as well as the settlements of Clarence Point, Clarence Creek, St. PascalBaylon, Bourget, Cheney, and Hammond and provides access to the urban area. It is over 60
kilometres long and includes 36 stops. This route therefore serves the greatest number of
people. The Green Route is presented in Figure 13.
Project Number – 3414021 – October 2014
53
Final Report : Clarence-Rockland Transit Feasibility Study
Figure 13: Fixed Route Option 4: Green Route
Green Route
Route Segment & Length
Landry Road
9.2 km
1
Landry Rd & Ste. Felicité Church
St. Pascal Road
6.7 km
2
Landry Rd & Claude St.
Champlain Road
6.1 km
3
Landry Rd & St. Pascal St.
Russell Road
7.1 km
4
St. Pascal St & Champlain Rd
Drouin Road
9.1 km
5
St. Pascal St & Dulac Rd
LaCroix Road
3.0 km
6
County Road 8 & Champlain Rd
Joanisse Road
2.2 km
7
Champlain Rd & Lemery St
Baseline Road
1.4 km
8
Champlain Rd & Laval Rd
St. Jean Street
3.8 km
9
Laval Rd & Lavigne St
Laurier Street
3.7 km
10
Russell Rd & Bouvier St
County Road 17
3.4 km
11
Russell Rd & Legault Rd
Ramage Road
1.1 km
12
Russell Rd & Drouin Rd
Old Highway 17
2.4 km
13
Drouin Rd & LaCroix Rd
14
Joanisse Rd & du Golf Rd
15
Vinette Rd & Joanisse Rd
16
Joanisse Rd & Scharf St
17
Joanisse Rd & Baseline Rd
18
Baseline Rd & St. Jean St
19
St. Jean St & Poupart Rd
20
St. Jean St & Laurier St
21
Laurier St & Caron St
22
Laurier St & County Road 17
23
County Road 17 & County Road 8
24
Old Highway 17 & Sophie St
25
Old Highway 17 & Ramage Rd
26
County Road 17 & Charbonneau St
Total
54
Fixed Stops
60.2km
Route Map
Report Number – 3414021 – October 2014
5.2
Analysis of Costs, Revenues and Ridership Required
This section analyzes the four routes to evaluate the ridership levels required, based on
estimated operating costs and revenue forecasts. The analysis uses the following key inputs:
the revenue vehicle hours for each route, hourly operating costs (based on the peer review),
and a revenue-to-cost ratio of 50%. The revenue-to-cost ratio of 50% was selected as the City
of Clarence-Rockland has indicated that this is the largest subsidy that it would be willing to
provide.6
The analysis is based on service from 6AM to 12AM, thereby meeting the need for service
during off-peak hours. However, the analysis addresses service in one direction only (going in a
loop). Bi-directional transit service would provide a higher quality of service, particularly for the
longer routes. However, if headways and service hours were maintained, bi-directional service
would require double the number of buses and double the number of passengers.
5.2.1
Revenue Vehicle Hours
Table 11 shows the in-vehicle travel time for each of the four routes based on the total length of
route (including the existing commuter routes which have been used to determine travel times)
and the estimated average urban and rural speeds. The speeds were estimated based on travel
speeds for CRT Routes 530 and 535. The total times listed are straight travel times, and do not
include stops and terminal times. The time required for stopping and loading is known as the
dwell time.
Table 11: Route Length and In-Vehicle Travel Times
Route
Length (km)
In-Vehicle Travel Time (min)
Urban
Rural
Total
Urban
45 kph
Rural
65 kph
Total
minutes
Red
8
15
24
11
14
25
Green
12
47
59
16
43
59
Blue
11
28
39
14
26
40
Purple
7
36
44
9
34
43
Table 12 illustrates the total travel time and average operating speed including “dwell” time and
“terminal” time. The total travel time also includes terminal time, which is the buffer included in
the total travel time of a route and includes recovery time and layovers. It is usually about 5% of
the travel time.
6
However, most small transit systems require larger subsidies of 60% to 75% of operating costs. With a
subsidy of more than 50% of operating costs, lower ridership levels would be required.
Project Number – 3414021 – October 2014
55
Final Report : Clarence-Rockland Transit Feasibility Study
Table 12: Travel Time and Speed (Including Dwell Time and Terminal Time)
Route
Number of
stops
Dwell / Stop
Dwell Time
Terminal
Time
Total Travel
Time
(min)
(min)
(min)
(min)
Avg. Op
Speed
(kph)
Red
16
1
16
2
43
32.8
Green
26
1
26
4
90
39.4
Blue
20
1
20
3
63
36.7
Purple
17
1
17
3
63
41.4
Table 13 shows the number of buses that will be needed along each route, depending on the
headways that are desired. The headway is the amount of time between consecutive buses
along a route. As shown, with more frequent service and more revenue vehicle hours, more
buses that are required.
Table 13: Headways, Number of Buses and Revenue Vehicle Hours
Route
Number of Buses
Revenue Vehicle Hours (6AM - 12AM)
30 min
60 min
90 min
120 min
30 min
60 min
90 min
120 min
headway
headway
headway
headway
headway
headway
headway
headway
Red
2
1
1
1
36
18
18
18
Green
3
2
1
1
54
36
18
18
Blue
3
2
1
1
54
36
18
18
Purple
3
2
1
1
54
36
18
18
5.2.2
Estimated Operating Costs and Revenues Required
Operating costs for the four routes were developed based on the Peer Review summarized in
Chapter 3. The weekday operating costs are a function of the total number of hours traveled
each day (under the heading of Revenue Vehicle Hours in Table 13) and an hourly cost of
$80.00 (estimated for an efficient system based on the Peer Review) The total daily operating
costs are below in Table 14.
56
Report Number – 3414021 – October 2014
Table 14: Daily Operating Costs - Total
Route
Weekday Op. Cost
Number of Trips
30 min
headway
60 min
headway
90 min
headway
120 min
headway
30 min
headway
60 min
headway
90 min
headway
120 min
headway
Red
$ 2,880
$ 1,440
$ 1,440
$ 1,440
36
18
12
9
Green
$ 4,320
$ 2,880
$ 1,440
$ 1,440
36
18
12
9
Blue
$ 4,320
$ 2,880
$ 1,440
$ 1,440
36
18
12
9
Purple
$ 4,320
$ 2,880
$ 1,440
$ 1,440
36
18
12
9
Table 15 below calculates the revenues required per trip to achieve the revenue-to-cost ratio of
50%. The operating cost per trip is based on the number of buses on a route and the headways
and the cost per hour.
Table 15 : Costs and Revenue per Trip (based on 50% Revenue-to-Cost Ratio)
Route
Op. Cost per trip
Revenue per Trip
30 min
headway
60 min
headway
90 min
headway
120 min
headway
30 min
headway
60 min
headway
90 min
headway
120 min
Headway
Red
$ 80
$ 80
$120
$160
$ 40
$ 40
$ 60
$ 80
Green
$120
$160
$120
$160
$ 60
$ 80
$ 60
$ 80
Blue
$120
$160
$120
$160
$ 60
$ 80
$ 60
$ 80
Purple
$120
$160
$120
$160
$ 60
$ 80
$ 60
$ 80
5.2.3
Ridership Required
Table 16 below shows the minimum number of passenger trips that would be required in order
to obtain the required revenue identified in Table 17. The required ridership is calculated based
on a fare (per trip) of $2.50. This fare was selected based on the survey results (section 4.2)
and the fares observed in the Peer Review (section 3). Without this level of ridership, the
revenue-to-cost ratio would fall below 50%.
Table 16 : Required Daily Passenger Trips (based on fare of $2.50)
Route
Passengers per Trip
Passengers Trips per Day
30 min
headway
60 min
headway
90 min
headway
120 min
headway
30 min
headway
60 min
headway
90 min
headway
120 min
headway
Red
16
16
24
32
600
300
300
300
Green
24
32
24
32
875
600
300
300
Blue
24
32
24
32
875
600
300
300
Purple
24
32
24
32
875
600
300
300
Project Number – 3414021 – October 2014
57
Final Report : Clarence-Rockland Transit Feasibility Study
Note: Passengers per day were rounded to the nearest 25.
For all routes and headways, a minimum of 300 passenger trips per day would be required in
order to achieve a fixed-route service in Clarence-Rockland with a 50% revenue-to-cost ratio.
5.3
Comparison of Fixed Route Options
Table 19 compares the fixed route and headway options based on five characteristics that are
important to the City of Clarence-Rockland and its residents:





Service area: To serve as many residents as possible, routes should cover both the
rural and urban areas of Clarence-Rockland.
Minimal demand: To be financially feasible, routes should be able to operate with
relatively low ridership (no more than 300 passenger-trips per day).
Fleet size: To reduce capital costs, routes should be able to operate using one bus per
route and direction (this means that route length should be less than headway).
Quality of service: To be convenient for Clarence-Rockland residents, routes should
provide relative frequent service (30 or 60 minute headways).
Vehicle type: For cost efficiency, routes should be able to seat all passengers and
achieve required revenues using a mini-bus (24 passengers or less).
Table 17 : Comparison of Fixed Route Options (Unidirectional Service)
Red Route
Headway
30
60
90
Green Route
120
Service area
(urban & rural)
Blue Route
30
60
90
120
√
√
√
√
30
60
90
Purple Route
120
30
60
90
120
√
√
√
√
Minimal
demand
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
Fleet size
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
Quality of
Service
√
√
Vehicle type
√
√
Preferred
options
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
Based on the analysis of these five criteria, three options are recommended as preferred
options. The trade-offs between these options are described below.
58
Report Number – 3414021 – October 2014

Red Route with 60-minute headway: This route provides the most convenient service
but has the smallest service area. With 60-minute headways, it would provide frequent
service to major destinations and to the densest residential areas. Furthermore, it is a
relatively short and direct route (roughly 40 minutes in total). However, the Red Route
does not serve the rural areas or villages of Clarence-Rockland.

Purple Route with 90-minute headway: This route has intermediate coverage and
convenience. It serves Bourget, the rural areas, and Rockland, although it does not
serve the villages. Like the Green Route, it has 90-minute headways. However, it is
more convenient for passengers than the Green Route because it is more direct.
(Because the full loop is roughly 60-minutes, getting to a destination could take 10
minutes, while getting home would take 50 minutes).

Green Route with 90-minute headway: This route has the highest coverage but is
least convenient for passengers. It serves Bourget, the rural areas and villages, and
Rockland. However, it has 90-minute headways. Furthermore, it is a long and indirect
route, particularly with uni-directional service. (Because the full loop is 90 minutes,
getting to a medical centre in Rockland could take 10 minutes if the client lives at one
end of the loop, but getting home would take 80 minutes. Bi-directional service would
therefore be required to make this route work well).
If Clarence-Rockland implements a fixed route transit service now or in the future, the City will
need to evaluate the trade-offs between coverage and convenience.
Other Fixed Route Options Considered
During the workshops, participants discussed two other potential transit options that could serve
the residents of Clarence-Rockland: a shuttle to Rockland to connect with CR Transpo, and a
shuttle to the edge of Cumberland Village to connect to the OC Transpo system. These options
were considered, but are not recommended for the following reasons:

The option of providing a shuttle to Rockland to connect with CR Transpo is not
recommended as it creates an extra transfer for CR Transpo riders, thus reducing the
appeal of using CR Transpo. Furthermore, it does not significantly improve service or
reduce costs for CR Transpo.

The option of providing a bus to the edge of Cumberland Village, to connect to the OC
Transpo system, is not deemed a priority based on the results of community
engagement. In the interests of complementing rather than duplicating service provided
by CR Transpo, it is recommended that Clarence-Rockland focus on connecting
residents to destinations within Clarence-Rockland.
5.4
Characterisation of Transit Demand
As described in section 5.3, all of the fixed route transit options require a minimum of 300 daily
passengers to achieve the revenue-to-cost ratio of 50%. This section evaluates the likelihood of
Project Number – 3414021 – October 2014
59
Final Report : Clarence-Rockland Transit Feasibility Study
achieving this ridership level based on experiences in other jurisdictions (section 3) and relevant
characteristics from the Clarence-Rockland community profile (section 2).
5.4.1
Transit Demand in other Jurisdictions
The estimated demand for transit in Clarence-Rockland starts from the analysis of “ridership per
revenue vehicle hour” in other jurisdictions. This metric indicates the number of transit trips that
are taken in an average hour of service. Ridership per revenue vehicle hour is a useful metric
because it describes the required ridership levels for each hour that the vehicle is operational (in
service). A municipality with only one bus operating on one route could have the same ridership
per revenue vehicle hour as a municipality with ten buses operating on multiple routes.
In the peer review, transit systems in comparable municipalities achieved average ridership
levels of 19 passenger trips per revenue vehicle hours. Table 20 illustrates the daily and annual
ridership associated with this average level of transit demand for the three preferred fixed route
options in section 5.2.3. Note that all three of these routes will run for 18 revenue vehicle hours
per day.
Table 18 : Estimated Ridership Based on Average Demand in Other Municipalities
Red, 60-min
headway
Purple, 90-min
headway
Green, 90-min
headway
Daily RevenueVehicle Hours
Trips per RevenueVehicle Hour
Daily
Trips
Annual
Trips
Annual Trips
per Capita
18
19
342
125,000
5.4
18
19
342
125,000
5.4
18
19
342
125,000
5.4
Note: Annual trips were rounded to the nearest 100.
As illustrated in Table G, with 19 trips per revenue vehicle hour, Clarence-Rockland would just
meet the required ridership of 342-passenger-trips per day, which equates to 5.4 annual trips
per capita..
However, several community characteristics suggest that Clarence-Rockland’s community
transit system would be unlikely to achieve 19 trips per revenue vehicle hour in the short-term.
These factors are discussed in section 5.4.2.
5.4.2
Community Characteristics and their Influence on Transit Demand
Several key characteristics featured in the Community Profile (section 1) suggest that ClarenceRockland’s fixed route would fall below the average ridership levels in other jurisdictions. These
characteristics are discussed below.

60
Commuter-focused service already in existence. In other jurisdictions, transit
services target commuters and non-commuters alike. Transit ridership is highest during
peak commuting hours, and commuters comprise a large proportion of regular transit
users. However, Clarence-Rockland already has a well-established commuter-focused
Report Number – 3414021 – October 2014
transit service (CR Transpo) that connects residents to Ottawa and Gatineau. CR
Transpo records about 152,000 passenger trips per year, or 6.5 trips per capita. A new
Clarence-Rockland intra-community transit service could still be used by commuters who
live and work within Clarence-Rockland. However, the “core customers” will likely be
youth, older adults and non-drivers. Peak hour demand for the intra-community transit
service is therefore expected to be significantly less than in jurisdictions with commuterfocused systems. This will, in turn, mean fewer trips per revenue vehicle hour in
Clarence-Rockland than in other jurisdictions.

Low population density and distributed population. Fixed route transit is most likely
to be cost-effective in areas with high population densities, and/or in areas where the
population is concentrated near or along key corridors. Clarence-Rockland’s population
density of 78 people per square kilometre is very low compared to other municipalities
featured in the peer review. Furthermore, outside of the Rockland urban area, the
population is dispersed throughout the small villages and rural area. The low population
density and distributed population will also mean fewer trips per revenue vehicle hour in
Clarence-Rockland than in other jurisdictions.
At the same time, demographics in Clarence-Rockland suggest that there will be a stable and/or
growing demand for public transit over the next twenty years.

5.4.3
Stable young population and growing elderly population. Clarence-Rockland’s age
15 to 24 cohort will remain relatively stable between 2011 and 2036. However, the
growth in the population aged 65 and over will likely translate to a gradual increase in
the demand for public transit. Older residents may not want to or be able to drive and
younger residents may not have access to vehicles.
What this all means

In the short-term, the demand for transit in Clarence-Rockland is unlikely to justify a
fixed-route service. Clarence-Rockland would need about 19 trips per revenue vehicle
hour to meet the ridership requirements of the fixed route options, or 5.4 trips per capita
per year. It is unlikely that Clarence-Rockland would achieve this ridership level, given
community characteristics and ridership levels in other municipalities. It is expected that
ridership for any of the proposed routes would be in the range of 5 to 10 trips per
revenue vehicle hour, or 1.5 to 4 trips per capita per year.

However, in the short-term, Clarence-Rockland can look to other types of public transit
service to meet the mobility needs of Clarence-Rockland’s youth and older adults.
Furthermore, in the long-term, as demand increases, it may be possible to achieve the
ridership level required for fixed route service in parts of Clarence-Rockland.
5.5
Fixed Route vs. On-Demand Service
As demonstrated by sections 5.1 to 5.4, fixed route transit is not likely to be cost-effective in the
short-term. Low estimated demand for transit would mean a revenue-to-cost ratio of less than
50% for fixed route service (i.e. the City would need to pay more than 50% of operating costs).
Project Number – 3414021 – October 2014
61
Final Report : Clarence-Rockland Transit Feasibility Study
In contrast, on-demand transit services can function cost-effectively in areas with lower demand.
With on-demand service, customers register with the transit provider and book their trips in
advance through a dispatch centre. Routes are not fixed; instead, clients are usually picked up
and dropped off based on demand, often at designated pick up and drop off locations. Routes
are optimized to serve as many passengers as possible and to provide direct connections.
In some ways, on-demand service is less convenient for the customer. Customers need to
register with the provider and request each trip. In other ways, on-demand service is more userfriendly within the Clarence-Rockland context because:



It can serve a large geographic area.
It can yield faster trip times because its routes are more direct.
It can fit into users’ schedules, as long as users plan their schedules in advance.
Overall, on-demand services have been shown to provide a more flexible and cost-effective
public transportation system in municipalities such as Clarence-Rockland. Several examples of
on-demand services are provided as part of the peer review (section 3.2).

62

Report Number – 3414021 – October 2014
6
Recommendations
In the short-term, a fixed route service is not recommended for Clarence-Rockland given the
anticipated low demand and high costs. However, an on-demand transit service has significant
potential to improve quality of life in Clarence-Rockland. An on-demand service pilot is therefore
recommended (section 6.1). Furthermore, in the longer-term, Clarence-Rockland may be able to
move to a hybrid system of fixed route serving the urban area and on-demand service in the
rural area (section 6.2).
Since this study was not meant to examine the existing transit service for commuters provided
by CR Transpo, the following transit service recommendations are designed to complement the
CR Transpo system. They are not intended to replace or complete with CR Transpo.
6.1
On-Demand Pilot Project
Based on the analysis to date, it is recommended that Clarence-Rockland implement a “pilot” of
an on-demand transit service. The pilot project would enable the City to further evaluate the
demand for transit, to confirm resident support for transit, and to test service design and delivery
options. Clarence-Rockland should consider the following in designing the pilot:

Duration. The pilot should be at least 18-months in duration. This will enable residents
to become aware of the service, try out the service, and talk about it with others. It will
also provide the City with data on the same season in two consecutive years. (With a
pilot of 12 months or less, the City would not be able to determine growth in demand
because of the impacts of seasonal variation).

Service design. There are several important on-demand service design features. For
example, most on-demand services have designated pick-up and drop-off points, but
some provide door-to-door service. The City will also need to determine fares, advanced
booking time requirements (e.g. 1 vs. 2 hours in advance), reservation methods, etc.
Where possible, the City should allow the community to have input into how the service
will look.

Service delivery. The pilot could be delivered by the City, contracted to an external
provider, or to a local taxi company or other community-based transportation
organization. Using an outside contractor for service delivery may be more efficient and
lower risk for the City, and is therefore recommended.

Customer experience. The pilot project should provide the full and positive on-demand
“customer experience”. Vehicles should be clean, comfortable, and consistent. Effective
registration, booking and scheduling technologies will need to be put into place. And
customer service should be considered at all touchpoints.

Monitoring and evaluation. To achieve the goals of the pilot, the City will need to
conduct rigorous monitoring and evaluation. This should include ongoing ridership
tracking, origin and destination tracking, and customer surveys delivered multiple times
Project Number – 3414021 – October 2014
63
Final Report : Clarence-Rockland Transit Feasibility Study
over the course of the pilot. The results of the monitoring and evaluation will inform the
ultimate design and implementation of a transit system that works for ClarenceRockland.

Local versus regional coverage. It is recommended that the pilot project serve all
Clarence-Rockland residents and all destinations within the City. This municipal-level
pilot will be relatively easy to design, implement and evaluate. Ultimately, as discussed
in section 6.2, a regional on-demand transit service could enable Clarence-Rockland
residents to travel to destinations across Prescott-Russell. There may therefore be an
opportunity for the City of Clarence-Rockland to partner with the regional PrescottRussell government on a local pilot and/or on regional transit system development.
Clarence-Rockland can look to Rimouski, Thetford Mines, and other examples from the peer
review (sections 3.2 and 3.3.2) for further guidance on the pilot project design. The City would
also benefit from using an experienced external party to manage the design, delivery and
evaluation of the pilot project.
The City of Clarence-Rockland can use the results of the pilot project to plan the next steps in
its transit system development. Options may include:




6.2
To transition from a pilot project to a permanent on-demand system with only minor
modifications;
To design and implement a significantly revised on-demand system based on lessons
learned from the pilot project;
To design and implement a hybrid or fixed route system, based on demand and trip
patterns; or
To put any type of transit system on hold for the time being.
Long-Term Transit System Development
Clarence-Rockland’s transit future will be influenced by population growth, socio-economic and
demographic changes, regional trends, and government investments. Over time, demand for
transit is expected to increase, and transit service could be enhanced in parallel. In five to ten
64
Report Number – 3414021 – October 2014
years, with the financial support of the City, the transit system may include the following
features:

Fixed routes in dense areas. A fixed route could eventually serve the urban area of
Rockland with higher a population density and more concentrated destinations.
Particularly given population growth forecasts for Rockland, there will likely be sufficient
future demand to develop a fixed route (similar to the Red Route or even shorter) along
Rockland’s key corridors.

On-demand service in rural areas. Fixed routes serving the urban areas of Rockland
could be supplemented by an on-demand service for residents in rural areas and
villages. The on-demand service would only be available for trips beginning or ending
outside the fixed route service area; therefore not impacting the demand for the fixed
route service. This on-demand service would ensure that all residents can function
independently within Clarence-Rockland.

Regional coverage. Many Clarence-Rockland residents make frequent trips, to
destinations outside of Clarence-Rockland (for example, to the Hawkesbury hospital or
other employment centres within the Prescott and Russell boundaries). These trips could
be accommodated by a regional, on-demand transit system led by the United Counties
of Prescott-Russell. This regional on-demand approach is currently being used in the
Ouatouais Region7. After developing a municipal on-demand system, ClarenceRockland may be able to partner with Prescott-Russell to develop a regional on-demand
system.
Investments in public transit benefit all community members and improve quality of life,
particularly for non-drivers, youth, older adults, and people with disabilities. By taking
incremental steps, Clarence-Rockland can develop a transit system that meets resident needs,
is financially sustainable, and increases community livability and prosperity.
7
As an example: http://www.cre-o.qc.ca/images/documents/plandactionreginalintegreentransportcollectifversionmars2013.pdf
Project Number – 3414021 – October 2014
65