UREN/MUNICIPAL

HAMILTON STREET RAILWAY

1991 TRANSIT SERVICE PLAN Options for Discussion

SOY feet ed tee Tee Ley

ed

Es tk Sa NW oS aa RRA ES SRD

e's het hee

iy

; URBAN/MUNTCIPar, 4 URBAN MUNICIPAL | b a Ni We DO 4 0; nS RE, EE IV Gav jgoygJ

GOVET "MENT pacurcnts

THE HAMILTON STREET RAILWAY COMPANY

owned and operated by

THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF HAMILTON-WENTWORTH

1991 TRANSIT SERVICE PLAN OPTIONS FOR DISCUSSION

November, 1990

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.0 INTRODUCTION PAY) ASSESSMENT OF PRESENT SERVICES

PAI General System Trends

73) Route Performance Review

23 Customer Concerns

2.4 Financial Perspective

2.5 Comparison to Other Transit Systems

3.0 DEVELOPMENT OF SERVICE OPTIONS

3.1 Route Changes

a2 Service Revisions

3.3 Service Standards Modifications 3.4 Fare Plan Options

4.0 PROPOSED 1991 TRANSIT SERVICE PLAN

41 1991 Service Changes

4.2 1991 Fare Structure Modifications

43 Financial Implications of the Plan APPENDICES

Appendix A - Route Ridership Data Appendix B - Customer Opinion Survey

Table E.1 Table E.2

Table 2.1 Table 2.2 Table 2.3 Table 2.4 Table 2.5 Table 2.6 Table 2.7 Table 2.8 Table 2.9 Table 2.10 Table 2.11 Table 2.12 Table 2.13

Table 3.1 Table 3.2 Table 3.3

Table 4.1 Table 4.2

Figure 2.1 figure 22

Figure 3.1 Figure 3.2

List of Tables

Follows Page Proposed 1991 Services Changes. (ii) Proposed 1991 Fare Plan (it) H.S.R. Operating Trends 2-1 1990 Route Ridership Estimates 2-2 1990 vs. 1989 Route Ridership Estimates 2-2 Route Revenue/Cost Performance op Overview of Services with Low Performance 2-3 Trends in Customer Contacts 2-4 Financial Overview of H.S.R. 2-5 Analysis of Fare Concessions 2-6 Allocation of 1990 Transit Costs by Time Period 2-7 Overview of Comparison Transit Systems 2-7 Hours of Service Comparison 2-8 Average Service Frequency Comparison 2-8 1990 Fare Level Comparison 2-8 Summary of Selected Schedule Changes 3-8 Summary of Service Standard Options 3-9 1991 Fare Plan Options 3-ll Priorities for Service Changes 4-1 Summary of Comparison of Fare Plan Options 4-2

1 igures

H.S.R. Ridership Trends 2-1 Overview of 1990 Customer Contacts 2-3 Bayfront/Nash/Fennell/Burlington Route Changes 3-1

Delaware/Parkdale/Stoney Creek Local/Beeline Route Changes

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The 1991 Transit Service Plan has been developed to guide the preparation of the final 1991 budget for H.S.R. A proposed program of service changes and fare structure modifications has been developed which will enable the financial performance of H.S.R. to be improved while minimizing the impacts on transit users as much as possible.

As a basis for developing the 1991 plan, a detailed assessment of the adequacy of current service was carried out. Some of the main findings of this assessment are as follows:

On a system-wide basis, H.S.R.’s financial performance has been declining for several years. While ridership levels have been slowly declining, the amount of service has been held fairly constant and costs have been steadily increasing.

The performance of specific H.S.R. services varies significantly across the system. Routes with very low performance include several suburban routes and the Sherman/Ottawa, Burlington, Limeridge, Aberdeen and Parkdale routes. Also, early morning and evening time periods as well as Sunday and Holiday services were also found to exhibit poor performance.

H.S.R. monitors customer concerns and preferences very closely. In 1990 the feedback from customers indicated strongly that transit users are primarily concerned with qualitative aspects of the service such as cleanliness of buses and bus stops, courtesy of H.S.R. staff and availability of tickets and passes. Transit users did not indicate that increases in service was a major priority or that fare levels are very important.

From a financial perspective the local transit levy on City taxpayers is $15.8

million in 1990. One of the main contributors to this levy is the extent of the fare concessions provided to specific H.S.R. users (1.e. students, seniors and

(1)

children). In 1990 the equivalent value of fare concessions on H.S.R. services is about $8.8 million. Also, transfer payments to other local government agencies contribute an additional $1.1 million to the local transit levy. An assessment of the service contribution to the transit levy indicated that about $2.6 million of the levy is a direct result of evening and weekend services.

A comparison of H.S.R. service and fare levels with four other municipalities was conducted. This comparison indicated that service standards were generally equivalent or somewhat better than in other systems. Concession fares and monthly pass prices were lower in Hamilton than in the comparison systems.

Based on the assessment of existing services, a range of options for service changes was developed and assessed. These options included route changes, schedule refinements and service standards modifications. Through this investigation, a proposed program of service changes for 1991 was developed, as outlined in Table E.1. On an annual basis, this program is estimated to impact approximately 450,000 passenger trips while reducing H.S.R. costs by $2.5 million. The annual impact on the transit levy would a net reduction of about $1.6 million.

A proposed fare plan has been developed for 1991 as outlined in Table E.2. This fare plan would inrease transit revenues about 5% in 1991 which is roughly equivalent to current inflation levels. Also, the plan reduces the number of different fare categories which will improve H.S.R.’s capability to monitor proper payment of fares (i.e. "fare is fair” concept) and it brings the child category up to the same level as students and Seniors.

(ii)

Change in

; Annual Passenger Annual Costs Service Change Trips Impacted (1991 Dollars) i) Selected Schedule Refinements (King, Barton, Cannon, Locke, York and other routes) 8,000 -$124,000 li) Sunday & Holiday Frequency Service Standard Modified to 30 and 60 Minute Headways 1,000 -$82,000 iii) Sunday & Holiday Hours Service Standard Modified to 8:00 a.m. to Midnight 94,000 -§365,000 iv) Bayfront/Nash,Fennell/Sherman- Ottawa/Burlington Route Changes 122,000 -$614,000 v) Delaware/Parkdale/Stoney Creek Local/Beeline Route Changes 109,000 -$827,000 vi) Garth/Upper James Route Changes 70,000 -$174, 000 vii) Aberdeen Route Change 52.000 -$266.000

Total 456,000 -$2,452,000

TABLE E.1 PROPOSED 1991 SERVICE CHANGES

ADULTS - Cash Fare

- Tickets

- Monthly Pass STUDENTS/SPECIAL . ADULTS - Cash Fare

- Tickets

- Monthly Pass CHILDREN Cash Fare) |

- Tickets

- Monthly Pass

SENIOR CITIZENS - Cash Fare - Tickets - Monthly Pass - Annual

Convenience Pass

- Annual Over 70's Pass

UNIVERSIT Y/COLLEGE SEMESTER PASS

Proposed

$1.25 $1.25 $48.00

$1.25 $0.75 $34.00

$1.25 $0.75 $34.00 $1.25 $0.75 $34.00 $150.00

$35.00

$155.00

TABLE E.2. PROPOSED 1991 FARE PLAN

(Current)

($1.15) ($1.15) ($43.50)

($1.15) ($0.75) ($30.50)

($0.50) ($0.50) (n/a) ($1.15) ($0.75) ($30.50) ($25.00 + $0.25)

($31.00)

($147.00)

“1.0

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this report is to present a proposed program of service and fare changes for the Hamilton Street Railway (H.S.R.) in 1991. This program has been developed through a planning study conducted in-house by H.S.R. staff during the past several months. In developing this program, a number of considerations were recognized as follows:

There is a need to maintain and improve the financial performance and service efficiency of the H.S.R.

Services should continue to be designed to meet customer needs as far as possible.

Changes- should be implemented in an incremental manner which will minimize disruption and inconvenience for regular transit users.

It is intended that this program, when approved, will provide a basis for bringing forward a detailed budget for 1991.

In developing the 1991 Transit Service Plan, a detailed assessment of existing

services was carried out. This assessment considered overall H.S.R. trends, route performance, customer concerns and a comparison of service policies with several other transit systems. This assessment is outlined in Section 2.0 of the report. A range of service and fare options have been developed for consideration, including route changes, schedule changes, service standards adjustments and fare structure modifications. Section 3.0 describes each of these options, together with an indication of ridership and cost impacts. The recommended program of service and fare changes for 1991 is presented in Section 4.0.

11

2.0

2.1

ASSESSMENT OF PRESENT SERVICES

An important input to the 1991 Transit Service Plan is an assessment of the performance of existing H.S.R. services. This section provides an overview of present services in terms of general system trends, route performance, customer concerns and financial requirements. Also a brief comparison of service standards and fare levels with other similar sized transit systems is provided.

General System Trends

Over the last five years the demand for H.S.R. services has been declining. As indicated in Figure 2.1, ridership levels have been decreasing since 1984 with the most significant ridership losses occurring in 1985 and 1988. Over this period of time, the average rate of ridership decline is about 400,000 trips per year. This rate of decline is expected to continue through 1991. A recent study by the Canadian Urban Transit Association examined the effects of demographic changes on transit ridership in Canadian cities. This study found that the 15-24 year old age group, which has the highest rate of transit use, has been declining in size relative to the overall population. These demographic changes have contributed to declining ridership in many other cities. In Hamilton, these demographic changes, combined with relatively low growth rates, are a major contributing factor to the ridership decline in recent years. ;

An overview of H.S.R. operating trends since 1986 is provided in Table 2.1. Some of the main points to be noted in these data are as follows:

The amount of service provided by H.S.R., in terms of miles operated, has remained almost constant since 1986.

The cost of supplying service, in terms of expenses per mile, has increased by about 17% over the same period. This is largely attributable to increased costs of fuel and labour.

Total H.S.R. expenses have increased by about 25% while the net costs of the service, funded through Provincial and Municipal subsidies, have

increased by about 30% since 1986.

2-1

Overall, the trends indicate that declining financial performance of the H.S.R. can be directly related to increasing unit costs of supplying services and declining ridership. Potential strategies to improve financial performance of the H.S.R. include refinements in services to better match ridership needs and improving the revenue performance of the system.

Route Performance Review

On an ongoing basis, H.S.R. monitors the actual ridership, revenue and operating costs of each individual route. A detailed estimate of 1990 route ridership is provided in Table 2.2. Some of the main points to be noted from this table are:

Five routes (ie. Barton, King, Delaware, Upper Wentworth/Wellington, Upper James) carry over 50% of the H.S.R. ridership.

- About 85% of H.S.R. ridership is carried on weekdays, with about 10% on Saturdays and 5% on Sundays.

- The most lightly used routes are special services (ie. Rock Gardens, Confederation Park) and routes serving low density outlying areas (ie. Dundas Local, Ancaster, Stoney Creek Local). The Sherman/Ottawa route is also a lightly utilized route. |

A comparison of 1990 and 1989 route ridership is provided in Table 2.3. This table compares ridership in the first six months of 1990 with the same period in the previous year. While overall ridership is declining, the change in ridership varies considerably between routes. The routes with the greatest ridership declines are generally the routes in the older developed areas of the city (e. Delaware, Barton, Aberdeen, Bayfront, Cannon, Locke and Sherman/Ottawa). Ridership growth has occurred on a number of routes, particularly on the King route, several mountain routes (i.e. Upper Wentworth/Wellington, Upper Gage, Upper Sherman, Upper Paradise, Garth and College) and the Stoney Creek Central route. These routes generally are serving areas which are experiencing new development and population growth.

An analysis of Revenue to Cost performance of each route for the first five months of 1990 is shown in Table 2.4. The routes with particularly low performance tend to be the routes serving outlying, low density areas (.e. Ancaster, Dundas Local, Stoney Creek Local) and city routes not connecting

Pid

TOYAL ANNUAL RIDERSHIP * |

ARC DERIVED

1990

BENRQRARe B® YARSeR SSSR sf A

i a ee

428,515 433,051 65,736 4, XB 364,108 44,158 31,873 31,70 4,13 50,660 4,668 91,524 67,28 D133

ns a ee

66,800 966

2,738, 09 2,783,169 487,180 623,171 2,687,121 25,518 198,413 197 ,644 488 807 528,84 52,400 2B,8Al 487,157 B1,SB 792,46 G2 SES 1,139,772 988,374 820,967 220,978 332,296 414,070 201,498 44,172 175,506 427,297 18,88 174,857 427,482 350,474

6.7% 6.80% 3.02% 3.48% 6.08% 4 BAS 5.27% 5.2% 100.0% 3.72% 4.5% 4.51% 4.87% 4.08% 2.81% 4.5% 3.51% 7.08% 2.32% L7% ee 4 3.2% 2.47%

80.60% 80.65% 5.4 89.7% BX SL.4iz| B.1% SLalz | Bb.1% 100.0% S7.H% | 8.6% 100.0% 100.0% AX] 8.9% 86.18 | 9.3% 5.28% | 9.8% 6.61% | 931% S.7e | Ue 83.62% | 11.8% 87.41% | 9.01% 100.0% 2.51% | Wk 7.8% | 98% MZ | 3.74% BX | 7.87% DAZ | WK 100.0% 100.0% 4.2% B2X | 1.7% AE | S.6Z 3.78% | 16.2% 100.0%

se ee ee es ee ee ee ee ee ee

d Bu 8 saneneeetAE UU nlite Taaiaa Ahad ae ioganaseongman ae

SO SO On a an en Se = ee

Ridership does not include over 70’s pass users.

*

TABLE 2.2 1990 ROUTE RIDERSHIP ESTIMATES

JPA Jad NOD - (06.02S-€8,99q) aulpap diussepu eBeJaAY ¥# SCL, OSRU pue Ssey 6,0/ JOAO apNyoul }OU Sap diysJEphy *

SJed),

9861 S861

dIHSH3SCH CS.LO300Ud

sea), O1 JAA GiysuapRY Ul EGUBUD WUad!ed O66I-E86l

spuol diysieply “HSH Ve eanbi4

* (S,000) Giysuepiy YLUOW 2}

Population Served (,000) Miles Operated (,000) Expenses (,000)

Transportation Revenue (,000)

Net Cost of Service (,000) Total Bus Fleet Reverie/Cost Ratio (%) Revenue/Mile

Expenses/Mile

TABLE 2.1

1990

(Budget) 1989

400 9,288 $50,912

$23,522 $27,390 274 46.2% $2.53

$5.22

399 9,167 $48 , 306

$22,207 $26,099 274 46.0% $2.42 $5.27

1988 399 9,159 $44,240

$21,213 $23,027 286 47.9% $2.31 $4.83

H.S.R. OPERATING TRENDS

1987 394 9,023 $42,308

$20,657 $21,651 276

48 .8% $2.29 $4.68

. 1986

386 9,075 $40,566

$19, 484 $21,082 262

48 .0% $2.15 $4.47

=

|YR.T0 DATE |YR.10 DATE

|PASS. TRIPS |

1989

| BOARDINGS

1989 TRIPS

ec ens ee ce ee ee a ee ee ee ee ES ES ES NS RES SS ND ED NS NS SR SS

512,783 382,655 606,512 4,283 42,7 52,400 484,179 966 1,73 427,297 929, 182 062,394 563,513 693,860 4N, 38 721,26 1,328,561 242, 181

mc ce ee ee ee es ee SS Se Se ee eS SS OD a Se

19,05 948, 40B 233,398

52,949

1,342,481 244,719

re ee ere ees ree ee ee eee eemee me ceme ceree e de E S S S S S S S Y NS SNS SLY SSLS SENS SES SE

-11.7% 0.0% -10.7% 4.2% 3% 4.2% 8.4% AN 6.% 2% 3.&% 5.4% 2.2% 5.5% 2.% 0.2% 8. -1.% 2.7% BS 4 71.% 3.8% -3.7%

a ns cc es a mr mc re ee ee ee ee ce ce ee ee een em ED GED CoD REDS SNES SEED SENS NENT

i a cc

143,371 0 12,143 1,789,661 366,650 79,03 94,397 306,048 108,896 481,775 15,663 191 101,30 129,199 265,886 200,908 318,483 1,35 209,687 27,909 240,960 966 41,989 25,H4 471, 5B D4, 05 289, 986 360,264 240,072 S71 Aa 657,345 18,471

ec cs ee ee ee ee ES SS SS LS SY SLD SLRS SES SES SES

10,679 19,332 391,846 137,577

4,722 2,163, 785 13,807 69,377 139,498 118,108 10,18 193,087 351,224 314,062 5,579 1,508 271,105 B62 307,977 0 64,967 296,451 361,135 72,85 363,699 458,047 301,662 457 967 814,342 175,24

7,081

12,712 316,066 103,065

2,857 1,765,106

10,527 496,884 108,707

1,661,329 101,275 128,923 2,911 205,501 32,22

1,150 211,59

B55

207, 991 0

D,Z5 232,407 44B,142 B,D 28,176 363,187 24,511 35,68 624,95 12,221

a ce mc cr a mr es ee ee ee SS ES ES ES SS

390,572 10,6799 6, 52A

4,513,816 979,353 695,860 74),2 273,01

27,58

4,219,807

B

1,383,562 280, 785

4,190, 28,733 364,97 663,817 608,415 $98,307

5,797 522,318 92,2% 623,633 73 124,855 36,357

1,107,353

1,451,097 713,051 894,878 $5,737 858, 664

1,657,757 ¥O,9D

a ee ee ce ee ee a SS ES LS LS LS SS SS TT

303,981 7,081 5,22 3,612, 660 727, 528,087 au, D4, 965 203,750 16,388 3,416, 931 17,888 978,146 219, 362 3,319,574 202,793 264,181 527 9948 36,54 622,881 3,646 411,363 63,623 422,311 475 96,429 444,105 892,767 1,14,473 35,499 76,518 465,244 78,59 1,276,413 228,380

a ce ce es ee SE SS SS LS LS LS LS LT SS

Passenger trips do not include Over 70’s pass users.

NOTES:

TABLE 2.3 1990 VS. 1989 ROUTE RIDERSHIP ESTIMATES

ROUTES

King

Barton

University

Upper Gage Upper Went/Well Upper James Dun/Del/WH/MW Beeline Express Cannon

York

Upper Paradise Upper Ottawa Upper Sherman Garth

Nash

S.C. Central Upper Kenilworth College

Rock Gardens Locke

Mohawk Bayfront Sanatorium Fennell Parkdale Aberdeen

S.C. Local Limeridge Dundas Local Burlington Ottawa/Sherman Ancaster Spine S.C. Frances Ave.

Confederation Park

Grand Total

mel DD REVENUE

$1,432,439 1,528,595 205,363 394,642 545,885 458,077 1,443,425 216,206 256,468 102,193 198,670 301,173 307,831

177,038 397,916 250,977 117,912 33,614 82,920 8,899 79,460 23,805 10,863 999

0

$10,005,063

YTD YTD REV/COST

COST RATIO $1,717,042 83.42% 2,107,550 72.53% 296,888 69.17% 759,601 51.95% 1,068,815 51.07% 946,533 48.40% 3,047,603 47.36% 458,159 47.19% 543,965 47.15% 228,439 44.74% 447,901 44.36% 684,010 44.03% 702,108 43.84% 230,206 42.85% Sye4k) 42.13% 493,539 40.86% 610,465 39.80% 239,590 39.41% 1,817 38.94% 289,308 37.22% 589,928 36.61% 895,434 34.57% 515,213 34.36% 1,256,447 31.67% 845,026 29.70% 409,483 28.80% 139,053 24.17% 344,770 24.05% 42,884 20.75% 458,554 17.33% 146,127 16.29% 80,332 13.52% 17,307 5.77% 641 0.00%

$20,989,953 47.67%

TABLE 2.4 ROUTE REVENUE/COST PERFORMANCE

directly to the downtown area (ie. Sherman/Ottawa, Burlington, Limeridge, Parkdale and Fennell). The Aberdeen route also has relatively poor performance. The highest revenue to cost performance is exhibited by the main east-west corridor routes (i.e. King, Barton, University) and the central mountain routes (i.e. Upper Gage, Upper Wentworth/Wellington, Upper James).

A detailed estimate of route ridership by each time period is provided in Appendix A together with the estimated passenger boardings per revenue hour for each route-time period. Passenger boardings per revenue hour is an excellent indicator of service performance as operating costs are closely related to revenue hours. Table 2.5 provides a summary of the route-time periods with particularly poor performance. A review of this table indicates that the route service performance is generally lowest during early morning (i.e. before 6:30 a.m.) and evening (i.e. after 6:30 p.m.) time periods. Also, the performance is generally lower on Saturdays and Sundays as compared to weekdays.

Customer Concerns

H.S.R. keeps a record of and regularly reviews all customer contacts to help assess how well the public is being served. As of the end of September, over 900 customer contacts had been recorded for 1990. An overview of the nature of these contacts is provided in Figure 2.2. Customer contacts were classified as complaints (74%), requests for specific changes (19%) and compliments (7%). The most common topic of customer contact dealt with employee conduct, both for complaints and compliments. Specific employee concerns most commonly noted were lack of courtesy, driving performance and passing bus areas without stopping. While the number of requests for service is relatively low (19%), some specific areas can be noted as follows:

Improved service was requested most often on the Parkdale route.

Improved or additional bus stops were requested most often on the Upper Wentworth/Wellington route.

2-3

Weekday Services With Less Than 15 Passenger Boardings per Revenue Hour

Aberdeen - Evening

Sherman/Ottawa - A.M. Peak Ancaster — A.M. Peak.

Upper James - Early Morning

Garth - Early Morning

Sanatorium - Early Morning, Evening Upper Paradise - Early Morning College - Evening

Mohawk - Evening

Limeridge - Early Morning, Evening Dundas Local - A.M. Peak, P.M. Peak Burlington - Early Morning

Saturday Services with Less Than

10 Passenger Boardings Per Revenue Hour

Parkdale -— Evening

Upper Kenilworth - Early Morning

Upper Wentworth/Wellington - Early Morning College - Evening

Mohawk - Evening

Limeridge - Early Morning, A.M. Peak Burlington - Early Morning

Stoney Creek Central - Early Morning Stoney Creek Local - A.M. Peak

Sunday Service With Less Than 8 Passenger Boardings Per Revenue Hour

Bayfront - A.M. Peak

Delaware - Early Morning

Aberdeen - Early Morning, Evening

Parkdale - Early Morning

Upper Ottawa - Early Morning

Upper Sherman - Early Morning

Upper Wentworth/Wellington - Early Morning Fennell — A.M. Peak

Burlington - Early Morning, A.M. Peak

TABLE 2.5 OVERVIEW OF SERVICES WITH LOW PERFORMANCE

LOVLNOD 40 SIldOL

SLOVLNOO YAWOLSND

YZ,

SLOVLNOS 30 HSEWNN

FIGURE 22 OVERVIEW OF 1990 CUSTOMER CONTACTS

The Delaware route had most of the compliments while the King route had most of the complaints. It should be noted, however, that these routes both have relatively high ridership.

The general trends in customer contacts are shown in Table 2.6 below.

1990 1987 1988 1989 (Projected) Compliment 9 61 22 70 Complaint 300 718 560 807 Request I (PE, 256 172 Total 481 1,102 838 1,049

Table 2.6 Trends in Customer Contacts

Overall it would appear that the number of compliments and complaints are rising while the number of requests has decreased in 1990.

To supplement, H.S.R.’s records of customer contacts, a brief public opinion survey was conducted in September-October of 1990 to identify any major service concerns. Four hundred persons were contacted by telephone and interviewed. Appendix B contains the survey questionnaire that was utilized and a tabulation of the responses to each question. The results of the survey can be summarized as follows:

The persons surveyed were well distributed throughout the H.S.R. service area and over 90% of those surveyed could be considered regular H.S.R. users (i.e. they made at least 4 trips per week).

The main aspects of H.S.R. services which respondents said should be improved were (in order of priority):

- number of litter containers in bus areas - cleanliness of buses

- number of benches at bus areas

- availability of tickets and Perel

- number of shelters

2.4

- About 90% of the respondents indicated that fares were not an important factor when deciding to use the bus. None of the respondents (i.e. 0 out of 400) indicated that fares were a very important factor related to using the bus.

The information utilized to assess H.S.R. services from the customer perspective has been somewhat limited due to the availability of time and resources. However, there does seem to be a fairly common theme. Customers are . primarily concerned with the qualitative aspects of the service such as cleanliness of buses and bus areas, comfort of stops in terms of benches and shelters and the courtesy and attentiveness of H.S.R. employees. The amount of service provided and the fares charged do not appear to be major concerns of H.S.R. customers in 1990.

Financial Perspective

In assessing the current H.S.R. service and determining the requirements for changes in 1991, it is helpful to review the financial aspects of the system. A summary of the 1990 budget revenue and expenditure for H.S.R. is provided in Table 2.7. The total expenditures of $50.9 million in 1990 are required to provide the planned level of service for this year. A more detailed analysis has been condicted to determine the nature of the relationship between these expenditures and the services supplied. This analysis indicated the following:

- About 60% of the costs ($30.4 million) vary directly with the amount of service provided. Variable cost items include drivers wages, fuel, vehicle maintenance.

About 19% of the costs ($9.4 million) vary indirectly with the amount of service provided. Indirect variable cost items include trolley overhead maintenance, purchasing and stores, building and grounds maintenance, etc.

About 21% of the costs ($11.0 million) are largely fixed each year. Fixed cost items include capital repayment, taxes, management, service planning, customer services, etc.

D535)

EXPENDITURES (1990 BUDGET):

Support Services _ Engineering & Maintenance

Operations

Transportation Services (Less Recoveries)

Total Expenditures

REVENUES (1990 BUDGET):

Fares & Other Transit Revenues MTO Grants & Subsidies General Support Grant (Region) Suburban Municipalities Levy City of Hamilton Levy

-Total Revenues

$3.73 million $20.70 million $25.43 million $3.35 million $(2.30) million

$50.91 million

$23.52 million $9.69 million $0.59 million $1.35 million $15.76 million

$50.91 million

TABLE 2.7. FINANCIAL OVERVIEW OF HLS.R.

The significance of this cost breakdown is that changes in service do not change overall expenditures in direct proportion. For example, minor reductions in evening service will enable only variable costs to be reduced in the short run (e.g. 1 year). However, with more extensive reductions over a longer period of time (e.g. 5 years), it would be possible to also reduce semi-variable and fixed costs.

As indicated in Table 2.7 the net cost-of transit services to the City of Hamilton will be about $15.8 million in 1990. One of the major factors contributing to this cost to the municipal taxpayers is the fare concessions provided to different groups of H.S.R. customers. These concessions, which have been made for social service, educational assistance and various other reasons, enable certain groups to use H.S.R. services at significantly reduced prices (as compared to the basic adult cash fare). An analysis of the value of the fare concessions is provided in Table 2.8. In summary, the equivalent value of fare concessions in 1990 is estimated to be about $8.82 million. This amount is distributed over the various transit users (except persons paying the full adult fare) with senior citizens being the primary beneficiaries of concession fares.

There are also a number of H.S.R. budget expenditure items which are basically transfer payments between local governments and do not contribute to the

amount of service provided. These costs are as follows, for 1990:

Business and realty tax payments to municipalities (less Provincial subsidy) $866,000

Cost allocations from municipalities for litter removal (less Provincial subsidy) $76,000

Cost allocations from municipalities for snow and ice clearing (less Provincial subsidy) $126,000

2-6

Estimated Estimated Revenue Value Percent

1990 Fare at $1.15 of Fare of Customer _ Trips Revenue Per Tri Concession Total Group (millions) — (anillions) (millions) (millions) § Value Adults 14.98 $16.06 $17.23 $1.17 13% Secondary School Students & Special Adults 5.60 $3.69 $6.44 $2.75 31% Children 1.19 $0.60 $1.37 $0.77 9% Senior Citizens & "Over 70's” Group 3.93 $0.61 $4.52 $3.92 44% University/College Semester Pass Users 0.50 $0.37 | $0.58 $0.21 2% Total 26.21 $21.32 $30.14 $8.82 100%

TABLE 2.8 ANALYSIS OF FARE CONCESSIONS

In summary, fare concessions and local government transfer payments amount to about $10 million in 1990 or about 63% of the $15.8 million City levy for the H.S.R. This portion of the municipal transit levy is directly related to non-transit purposes (e.g. social or educational fare concessions) or to costs beyond H.S.R.’s control (e.g. municipal taxes and cost allocations).

In assessing the net costs of H.S.R. services, it is also useful to look at how these costs are allocated by time period. Table 2.9 provides an overview of 1990 costs and revenues allocated to weekday service, evening service, Saturday service and Sunday and Holiday service. This allocation assumes that all semi-variable and fixed costs (e.g. bus capital payments, buildings and grounds, planning, marketing, management) are allocated to weekday service and that only variable costs (i.e. strictly marginal costs) are assigned to evenings and weekends. This is a realistic assumption since the transit system’s main function is to accommodate weekday travel demands. On the basis of this allocation, it can be seen that about 84% (i.e. $13.2 million) of the net cost of public transit to the City of Hamilton is attributable to weekday service. The remaining 16% or $2.6 million of the net costs are related to evening and weekend services. These services are operated primarily to provide mobility for individuals without access to an automobile and can be considered to be a form of social service.

Comparison To Other Transit Systems

In assessing transit services and policies it is useful to compare services and policies to other similar sized cities and identify any major differences. It should be recognized that differences will exist between specific cities as a result of local conditions and policy preferences. However, comparisons to other cities help to highlight areas which should be reviewed.

For the purpose of this comparison, four other similar sized cities (.e. Kitchener, Ottawa, London, Mississauga) have been utilized. A_ general comparison of these transit systems is provided in Table 2.10. The Ottawa transit system is larger than Hamilton’s. while the other three are smaller than H.S.R. Mississauga’s transit services differ somewhat in that these services are

strongly oriented to connections with TTC and GO Transit services.

oe),

Transit Cost Allocations (millions)

Ridership (excluding _ Over 70’s group) (mullions)

Transit Revenues (millions) MTO Grants (millions)

Net Cost to

Municipalities

& Region (millions)

City of Hamilton Share of Net Cost (millions)

Weekday ic

$39.8

17.4 $17.2 $7.7

$14.9

$13.2

Evening

Vv

$4.9

2.4

$2.4

$0.9

$1.6

$1.4

Saturday Service

$3.6

$0.5,

Sunday /Holiday Service

$2.5

al

$1.2

$0.5

$0.8

$0.7

TABLE 2.9 ALLOCATION OF 1990 TRANSIT COSTS BY TIME PERIOD

Hamilton Kitchener

Population Served 400,000 235,000 Ridership Level

(millions 27.0 9.3 Employees 835 271 Fleet Size 274 108

Ottawa

568,000

80.0 2,116 814

issi

TABLE 2.10 OVERVIEW OF COMPARISON TRANSIT SYSTEMS

A comparison of the service hours is provided in Table 2.11. The service hours in Hanulton are generally similar to Ottawa's service hours and significantly better than the service hours provided in Kitchener and London. Although Mississauga’s service hours are longer than Hamilton’s, this is primarily a reflection of the orientation towards TTC services. It should be noted that Hamilton’s Sunday and Holiday service hours are longer than all the other comparison systems.

A comparison of service frequencies between the different cities is provided in Table 2.12. Frequencies in peak periods tend to be based on the passenger volumes carried while the frequency of service on evenings and weekends is generally based on policy considerations. In comparing the service frequencies in Hamilton with other cities, the most noteable difference is in the early morning where Hamilton’s service levels are much higher. Also, on Sundays and Holidays, Hamilton’s service levels are equivalent or better that the comparison cities.

Fare levels in each of the comparison cities are summarized in Table 2.13. The adult cash fares in Hamilton are generally similar to the other cities, except London and Ottawa. In the case of London, adult cash fares are slightly lower than in Hamilton but all concession fares (i.e. students, children, seniors) are higher. Ottawa’s fare structure is quite different from the other cities, as follows:

- Different cash fares or passes are required for types of services. For example, Express routes require a $2.30 cash fare or $59.00 monthly pass

while local feeder routes require a $0.90 cash fare of $36.00 monthly pass.

Cash fares are the same for adults, students and children but monthly pass prices are reduced for certain groups.

2-8

Weekdays Early Morning

A.M. Peak Mid-day Base P.M. Peak Early Evening

Late Evening

Saturday Daytime

Late Evening

Sunday & Holiday Daytime

Late Evening

TABLE 2.12 AVERAGE SERVICE FREQUENCY COMPARISON

30 min.

Hamilton Kitchener

45 min.

Ottawa

30 min. 10 min. 15 min. 10 min. 15 min.

30 min.

15 min.

30 min.

20 min.

30 min.

60 min.

(TYPICAL ROUTE TO DOWNTOWN)

30 min.

Weekdays

First Bus Arriving Downtown

Last Bus Leaving Downtown

Saturdays

First Bus Arriving Downtown

Last Bus Leaving Downtown

Sundays & Holidays First Bus Arriving Downtown

Last Bus Leaving Downtown

6:00 a.m.

1:00 a.m.

6:00 a.m.

1:00 a.m.

6:30 a.m.

12:00 a.m.

8:15 a.m.

12:00 a.m.

5:20 a.m.

1:00 a.m.

5:40 a.m.

1:00 a.m.

6:05 a.m.

1:00 a.m.

6:30 a.m.

12:00 a.m.

6:30 a.m.

12:00 a.m.

10:00 a.m.

11:00 p.m.

TABLE 2.11 HOURS OF SERVICE COMPARISON

5:00 a.m.

215 am.

5:30 a.m.

2:00 a.m.

8:10 a.m.

1:30 a.m.

HOSIWdHWOD IRART AAVA OG66T €t°? wATAVL

OO°9ET$ 103 SSed A98e4sSeMeS YRUOM Se7Y4R & PUP H0O°OHT$ FOZ BSed AEeRSeMeES YRZUOM ANOJ e& SAHZIJO TEeUEeYIATYH (at) “@TQETTBAR wotqQdo exrezJ DTZTOeds e& You St e1eyR SUPE Y/N (TTT) -Kat> eya Aq peztprsqns 1eyRzINZ O10 BRSHOTQR OFENL “G7G°O$ FR SIOTUSS OF BREXSTZ SIEZTIO UOpUoT (tt)

“Op ta 26d -¢7 70s snita

ebnesstsstw

uopuoy

BAe2320

2TeUuveyrzITyY

uozTTweHR

pzes Tenuue 10Z 00'SZ§ 89809 Weaborg EduUeTUEAUOD BIOTUSES OUL *‘szo0fues 10J BSUOTAIdO eIeZ TeIeEeASS SeY VORTIWEH (tT)

2 8EQ0N

e/u e/u e/u O9TS-9ETS(AT) OO°LETS sesseq 1Te_ZsSeMEesS SbeTTOD/AQVTSISATUNH ocs zes tt$ os°Les os°oEes siojTues e/u e/u e/u Oos°L4es e/u sueIpTtyd ees e/u besS-9E$ os’zes os°o0Ees szuepn ys oss eps 6S$-9€$ ges os'ebs S2INPY sessed ATUUON OT°T$/0z2°T$ z7S°0$/S0°T$ (TT) 06°0$ 06°0$ 6z7°0$ (T) szioTues -ecu/oz° ts 09°0$ 0€°2$-06°0$ 06°0$ 0s°0$ ueipTttys $6°0$/0z°T$ so°ts 0€°27$-06°0$ 06°0$ GL°O$/S6T°TS$ szuepn ys OR TS 0:2" TS so°ts 0€°27$-06°0$ Gt°Tt$ GT’ T$ S2TNPY

SJeXyOTL/eEAeA Ysed

In comparing Hamilton’s fare levels with other cities, the following main differences are noted:

- Fares for children and seniors in Hamilton are significantly lower than in other cities.

- Student ticket prices are lower than student fares in other cities.

- Monthly pass prices, relative to cash fares, are lower than other cities.

3.0

ul

DEVELOPMENT OF SERVICE OPTIONS

This section of the report presents a wide range of options which have been considered in developing a proposed Transit Service Plan for 1991. The intent is to identify and assess all relevant options in order to enable the Region to adopt a program for 1991 which best meets its transportation needs and financial capabilities.

The assessment of existing H.S.R. services, as outlined in the previous section, has provided the main basis for the identification of potential service options. Specifically, service revision proposals have been developed for all routes with revenue to cost performance below 30%. Also, service modification options have been developed for time periods such as late evening and Sundays when ridership levels are very low. The comparison of H.S.R. service standards to other cities has helped to identify potential areas where adjustments could be considered to the service frequency and hours. For each potential service option, an analysis has been carried out to determine the number of passenger trips which might be affected by the change. Also, the change in annual costs and revenues to the H.S.R. have been estimated. A summary of this analysis is provided for each potential service option. .

Route Changes 3.11 Bayfront/Nash/Fennell/Sherman-Ottawa/Burlington Routes

This route change option has been developed in order to address the following concerns: Poor revenue/cost ratios on Sherman-Ottawa and Burlington routes. Improving transit access for residents in the Red Hill, Vincent and Gershome neighbourhoods. Rationalize service frequencies and reduce bus requirements. Congestion at Kenilworth Circle recovery point. Lack of evening service in Parkview neighbourhoods.

Figure 3.1 shows the proposed bus routings for the services involved in this change. A description fo these proposed changes is provided below.

3-1

peoy wnuoryeueg uo uM - ¢F 3n0y eeeeeveeee siaeneee Tats 7 - Te anoy BeBe e828 Be BB

qsenuosieg - p 3n0y yoons 8 yey

onUsAy []2UU>,J BSRER RRR RRSHRRRRERERRBRBRBeReeeeteeenee

QNUDAY [[TYUIAIH ar ae |

| ka4Bingdy 190 WOIsss0N0Z

/ yang Sury eae a | |

SO UROOON OL. peoy wojsuson~)

".

ssocoy TOMUSy

ans UTEW @0000000000

| N

$ @ @ @ e @ @ e @

@ oy | PC tI

PIEMpoo MA Sa a a ake

ONUSAY MOH

Jai : SHINVHO ALNOW NOLONITYNG/TIANNGAA/HS VN/LNOUAAYV > PE AYALA

“PALA 99e°G e

Ba nt 4 and Nash 57

These two routes have been combined into one route, providing direct service to the Industrial sector from the Red Hill, Vincent and Gershome neighbourhoods, as well as downtown. Service will be provided to the residential area on Greenhill Avenue, south of King Street. Weekday service frequency will be 15 minutes in the peak periods and 20 minutes in the off peak periods.

Peak period frequency of service is reduced by 3 minutes on the Bayfront portion of the route and a reduction of 5 minutes will occur on the Nash portion of the route as a result of this change.

The section of Gage Avenue and Beach Road formerly served by the Bayfront route will be served by the Fennell route. The section of Ottawa Street between Beach Road and Main Street, formerly served by the Bayfront route will be served by the Burlington route.

The following street sections will no longer receive bus service:

Ottawa Street, Main Street to King Street.

- Nash Road, Barton Street to Bancroft Street.

- Bancroft Street, Nash Road to Kenora Avenue. Kenora Avenue, Bancroft Street to Barton Street.

Fennell 31

This route will now provide all day service to the heart of the Industrial sector. Weekday service frequency in the peak periods will remain at 12 minutes. Off peak frequency will change to 20 minutes from 15 minutes.

Grenfell Street and Beach Road, between Ottawa Street and Kenilworth Avenue, will now receive one way eastbound only service. However, this area will now receive service during all time periods, instead of off peak periods only.

Gage Avenue between Burlington Street and Beach Road will receive southbound only service. Beach Road between Gage Avenue and Ottawa Street will receive eastbound only service. Peak period frequency in these areas will be improved from 24 minutes to 12 minutes.

3-2

Kenilworth Avenue north of Grenfell Street will now receive one-way northbound service.

td

Sherman-Ottawa 15 This weekday, peak period route will be eliminated.

Service on Ottawa Street will be provided by the Burlington route. Service on Industrial Drive and Burlington Street will be provided by the Bayfront and Fennell routes.

The following street sections will no longer receive bus service:

Sherman Avenue, Delaware Avenue to Burlington Street. - Birch Avenue, Burlington Street to Wilson Street.

Burlington 53

This route will be extended further west into the Industrial sector along Burlington Street and Industrial Drive to Ottawa Street, where it will travel south to Main Street. At this point the route will travel west along Main and King Streets to the Central Business District.

Weekday service frequency will remain at 20 minutes in the peak periods and will be improved to 30 minutes in the off peak periods.

Kenilworth Avenue from Burlington Street to King Street will now be served only by the Fennell route.

Customers along Ottawa Street will experience a drop in peak period frequency,

from 12 minutes to 20 minutes. However, a more direct service to downtown will be provided.

Analyses Summary

Change in Annual Bus Hours 15,900 Annual Passenger Trips Impacted 122,000 Change in Annual Total Cost $(614,200) Change in Annual Passenger Revenue - $(107,300)

3-3

312 Delaware/Parkdale/Stoney Creek Local/Beeline Routes

This route change option has been developed in order to address the following 4

concerns:

Poor revenue/cost ratio on Stoney Creek Local route.

Improve transit access for residents in the Gershome neighbourhood. Rationalize service frequencies and reduce bus requirements. Operational difficulties at bus recovery points.

Improve transfer connections at Eastgate Square Terminal.

Figure 3.2 shows the proposed bus routings for the services involved in this change.

Delaware 5

The Delaware route will be realigned to provide service along Mt. Albion Road, Greenhill Avenue and King Street in a one-way counter-clockwise loop. Residents in the Red Hill, Vincent and Gershome neighbourhoods will now receive direct service to the Central Business District (C.B.D.) every 15 minutes during weekday peak periods and every 30 minutes during off peak periods.

The section of King Street between Centennial Parkway and Jones Street, formerly serviced by the Delaware route, will continue to be serviced by the Stoney Creek Local route. Service improvements to the Stoney Creek Local and the Beeline routes will considerably reduce travel times for customers who live in Old Stoney Creek. )

The following street sections will no longer receive transit service: King Street, Greenhill Avenue to Centennial Parkway. Rainbow Drive, Nash Road to Orphir Road.

Orphir Road, Rainbow Drive to Pottruff Road. Pottruff Road, Orphir Road to King Street.

3-4

SEBS EEG o*

onusay / Iryasa

/ ase be

peoy $3, JOWIDAODH)

(sepanq)

2u 0

O8e nan ae ae aa sCeceeeenneunmenaant

sepengy M OTE -7S mw mm UPA -Ol eo ee areMrpd- S$

(SAWVIE ® ONIX AO LSAM) GNADAT

[HoT FD fou01g- 85 mw mw mw MNPA-Ol eoee CPUC T- Tl mem CEM -S _ __

(SAWVE ¥ ONIX AO LSVI) UGNADAT

Ig vosTTS

12aNg 190Ng uoMNAA «= sae

West of the Central Business District, the section of the Delaware route currently operating as Route 52 Main West-Dundas will now operate only between the C.B.D. and Bond Street at King Street in Dundas. Previous surveys have indicated that most passengers from Dundas are destined to the Downtown. Customers travelling between Dundas and the area of Hamilton east of the C.B.D. will be required to transfer. However, service on this particular route segment will operate as an express between the C.B.D. and Main Street West at McMaster University, thereby improving loading conditions and reducing customer travel time. Service frequency in the weekday afternoon peak period will be reduced from 12 minutes to 20 minutes.

Parkdale 11

This route will continue to provide service to Heritage Green. Weekday peak period frequency will be 20 minutes and off peak frequency will be 30 minutes. On weekday and Saturday evenings and on Sundays and Holidays, the route will terminate at the Mt. Albion Road and Glencastle Drive bus loop.

The route portion operating on Greenhill Avenue between Mt. Albion Road and Summercrest Drive will be eliminated. Service on this street will be provided by - the Delaware and Bayfront/Nash routes.

Stoney Creek Local 58

Weekday peak period service frequency will be increased from 40 minutes to 20 minutes. All peak period trips will be timed to meet the Beeline Express route at Eastgate Square Terminal.

Beeli xpress 1]

Service frequency on this weekday, rush hours only route will be increased from 12 minutes to 10 minutes. Schedules will be coordinated in order to provide transfer connections with the Stoney Creek Local and Stoney Creek Central routes. This will result in convenient transfers and shorter travel times for weekday Stoney Creek customers who are Hamilton-bound. Also, this will increase capacity in the CBD - McMaster University corridor.

3-5

Existing Beeline customers will benefit from the improved convenience of an - increased service frequency.

Analyses Summary

Change in Annual Bus Hours 22,100 Annual Passenger Trips Impacted 108,600 Change in Annual Total Cost $(827,500) Change in Annual Passenger Revenue $(95,500)

S35 Garth/Upper James

This route change option has been developed in order to address the following concerns:

Rationalize route coverage by reducing route duplication (presently Route 31 Fennell, Route 33 Sanatorium, Route 27A Upper James and Route 45 Limeridge also cover sections of Garth Street).

Opportunity to reduce the number of buses and related costs with minimal effect on service.

Route 32 Garth will be eliminated.

Customers along Garth Street north of Mohawk Rd. will be served by Route 33 Sanatorium and Route 31 Fennell buses. Customers along Garth Street south of Mohawk Rd. will be served by Route 27A Upper James buses. The service frequency on Route 27A Upper James will also be increased during A.M. and P.M. Peak periods from 20 min. to 15 min.

Analyses Summary

Change in Annual Bus Hours 4,500 Annual Passenger Trips Impacted 70,000 Change in Annual Total Cost -$173,800 Change in Annual Passenger Revenue -$61,600

3-6

3.1.4 Limeridge

This route change option has been developed in order to address the following

concerns: .

Poor revenue to cost ratio Route duplication Freeway will affect route continuity

The Route 45 Limeridge will be eliminated in 1991. Customers in the Heritage Green Area will still be serviced by Route 11 Parkdale buses. Customers along Limeridge Rd. west of Upper James will be serviced by Route 27A Upper James buses. Most affected customers are within 400 meters of the, "Upper”, mountain bus routes. An option would be to implement this change after 1991 when the new freeway is in place.

Analyses Summary

Change in Annual Bus Hours 14,500 Annual Passenger Trips Impacted 201,000 . Change in Annual Total Cost -$560,100 Change in Annual Passenger Revenue -$176,900

3.15 Aberdeen

This route change option has been developed in order to address the following concerns:

Poor revenue to cost ratio Route duplication

Reduce bus requirements

The section of Route 6 Aberdeen along Longwood Rd. from Franklin Ave. to Aberdeen Ave. will be eliminated.

Also, service frequency will be provided every 30 minutes during Weekday Midday, Weekday Early Evening, and all day Saturdays, Sundays and Holidays.

3-7

oie

3.3

1alySe Imma

Change in Annual Bus Hours 6,900 Annual Passenger Trips Impacted 52,000 Change in Annual Total Cost -$266,000 Change in Annual Passenger Revenue -$45,800

Service Revisions

A number of service options based on schedule refinements have been developed in order to address the following concerns:

Adjusting service frequencies to meet customer demand. Reducing operating costs during off peak periods.

Table 3.1 shows the existing service frequency and the proposed service frequency, by route, for the affected time period. The table also shows the number of annual customers affected and the estimated reduction in annual cost.

Early Morning Frequency Changes

On weekdays and Saturdays, the service frequency on the King, Barton and Cannon routes will be adjusted for the first hour of service. Service frequency on the Locke and York routes will be adjusted for the first hour on weekdays only. .

Analyses Summary

Change in Annual Bus Hours 3,200 Annual Passenger Trips Impacted 7,750 Change in Annual Total Cost $(124,300) Change in Annual Passenger Revenue $(6,800)

Service Standards Modifications

These service standard modification options have been developed to address the issue of providing an acceptable level of bus service during late evening time periods and on weekends and holidays, that will accomodate existing customer demand.

3-8

Time Period Early Peak Off Peak Early Late A.M.

Route A.M. Peak PM. + £Evening Evening

King- Weekdays 6-10 -Saturdays 8-10

Barton-Weekdays 6-10 -Saturdays 8-10

Cannon-Weekdays 12-15 -Saturdays 20-30

Locke-Weekdays 15-30 20-30 20-30 York-Weekdays 15-20 15-20

NOTES: 6-10” means service headway will be changed from 6 minutes to 10 minutes. Annual passenger trips impacted = 8,000 Change in annual cost = -$124,000

TABLE 3.1 SUMMARY OF SELECTED SCHEDULE CHANGES

Table 3.2 displays a variety of varied service standard options and includes an estimate of the number of customers that would be affected and an estimate of annual cost savings.

Shop! Weekdays and Saturdays Last Trip at 12:30 a.m.

Existing weekday and Saturday schedules provide for trips leaving the downtown at 1:00 a.m. and, on selected routes, at 1:20 am. This option will result in schedule adjustments so that the last trips on the downtown routes will leave from the Gore Park area at 12:30 am. This option will still allow customers to enjoy the various downtown late night attractions and make their trips home on the bus.

Bo2 Weekdays and Saturdays Last Trip at 12:00 a.m.

This service standard option is similar to 3.3.1 with the last trips leaving downtown at 12:00 a.m. instead of 12:30 a.m.

3.3.5 Sunday and Holiday Service from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m.

Existing Sunday and Holiday schedules provide bus service on 24 out of 33 routes. On some routes, service starts at 5:30 a.m. and finishes at 1:00 a.m. This option would reduce the number of service hours provided on most routes so that customers could make trips between 8:00 a.m. and 12:00 a.m. only. This option would still allow for the vast majority of church, recreational, shopping and work trips to be made by bus.

3.3.4 Sunday and Holiday Service from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.

This service standard option is similar to Option 3.3.3 with last trips leaving the ends of the line at 8:00 p.m. instead of 12:00 a.m.

20 No Holiday Service

Currently, Sunday bus schedules are in effect on statutory holidays. Many holidays, such as Christmas Day, result in low utilization of bus routes by H.S.R. customers. This service standard option would eliminate all public transit

services on statutory holidays.

3-9

iv)

vil)

Vili)

anda ion

Weekdays & Saturdays Last Trip 12:30 a.m. Weekdays & Saturdays Last Trip 12:00 a.m. Sunday & Holiday Service from 8:00 am - 12:00 am Sunday & Holiday Service from 8:00 am - 8:00 pm No Holiday Service

No Sunday & Holiday Service

Sunday & Holiday - 60 Minute Evening Frequency

Saturday - 30 Minute Daytime Frequency - 60 Minute Evening Frequency

TABLE 3.2 SUMMARY OF SERVICE STANDARD OPTIONS

Annual Trips

90,000 115,800 59,000 155,000 80,000 1,096,000 1,000

63,000

Change in Total Annual Costaee SS

-$260,000 -$418,000 -$365,000 -$766,000 -$560,000 -$2,520,000 $82,000

-$261,000

3.4

53,0 No Sunday and Holiday Service

This option would eliminate all bus service that currently operates on Sundays and Holidays.

Bo Sundays and Holiday - 60 Minute Evening Frequency

Some routes currently provide bus service during the evening at intervals less than 60 minutes. Passenger demand on these routes indicates that a 60 minute

evening frequency would be sufficient. This option would provide 60 minute

evening service frequency, except on those routes where a more frequent service is necessary to meet the passenger demand.

3.3.8 Saturdays - 30 Minute Daytime and 60 Minute Evening Frequency

Some routes currently provide daytime bus service at intervals less than 30 minutes. This option would provide a 30 minute service frequency during the daytime on all routes, except those where passenger demand requires a greater frequency. On Saturday evening, this option would provide a 60 minute frequency on all routes, except where demand warrants a greater frequency.

Fare Plan Options

During the past several years, H.S.R. fares have typically increased about 5 cents per ride each year which represents a rate of increase roughly equivalent to inflation. For 1991, this level of fare increase could be considered as a "maintenance budget” increase which would correspond to the projected 1991 ridership level of 25.5 million passenger trips (includes 3 million Over 70's passholder and miscellaneous trips). This compares to the estimated 1990 ridership level of 26.1 million passenger trips.

3-10

In comparing H.S.R. fare levels to fares in other similar sized transit systems,

the following points were noted:

Concessions fares (i.e. seniors, students and children) are much lower at H.S.R.

, Monthly pass prices relative to cash fares are lower at H.S.R.

A number of fare plan options have been developed for H.S.R. in 1991. These options have been developed with several specific objectives in mind, as follows:

To contribute towards reducing the costs of H.S.R. for Regional

taxpayers.

° To ensure that fare increases do not create undue hardship for transit users.

, To improve the capability of bus drivers to monitor proper payment of

fares by transit passengers.

The third objective is particularly relevant for H.S.R. The current 1990 fare plan is quite complex, with a wide variety of different fare categories. For example, senior citizens have at least five different fare payment options available. As a result, it is very difficult for the operators to monitor proper payment of fares under crowded conditions. To ensure transit users pay correct fares, it is necessary to avoid having too many different fare categories. Under a "fare is fair” concept, the number of different fare categories would be significantly reduced to enable the bus operators to ensure all passengers paid the proper fare.

The different fare options which have been considered for 1991 are outlined in Table 3.3. A brief description of each option is provided below.

oa)

ssed

sesevod

00°SST

OO°SE

00°OST

OS‘ tPE ss° SZ t

ey Hes AE

OS be S Gis Sizer L 00°86 res Scar

oul petsytTpow qgdesuos

AITe®y St 81eY S¢ NOILdO

ssed

60°SST

OO*SE

00°OST

OO°PE SL° Sct

Ste Sz°T

OO°bE SL°

sz‘T 00° 8h Sica Sica

zu

epnyzs=PTTyo adesuo0)

IF@g SBT e1¥Y 6 NOILAO

SMHOILdO MBVId BAVA T66T

0O0°SLT

e/u

e/u v¥/u

00°0d 06° 00°T

06° 00°T

00°0F 06° Sz°Tt

00°0S

Se°T sz°t

uetTd e10g Aaysnpuy reotdséz € NOILdoO

00°zgoTt

oo°SsE

00°S9T ssed

sv-

O00°SE Se° Sz°T

09° 09°

O0°SE Se° S7°T

00° St

Sz°T Sz7-T

esversuyr 3ued OT

@ NOILAO

€°€ wg1avz

OO°LST

OO0°SE

00°OST Ov-

OO°EE 08° Oz°T

ss° Ss°*

OO°EE 08° Oz°T

00°9F

Oz°T oz°T

eseveiouy ques ¢

T NOILdO

OO°LET

OO Fete

SGZ° + 00°sz$

OS°OE SL° STt°T

0s* os°

OS‘*OE€ SL° Stat

OS*°E€b Site kh Sled

uetd e1eg

O66T

sSWd WaLsawngas AOAITTIOO/ALISUSAINN

§,0L 1°A0

weiboi1g e.ueTtTueAUOD

sseq ATyQuUOW VEHOTL used

WOHOTL yseo

sseq ATYyQUOW FOXITAL ysed

sseq ATYyRUOW FEHYOTL yseo

SUYOINTS

kc he © @ | Be)

LN3QGNLS

LINay Riobe ye

Option 1 (S Cent Increase)

In this option, the fare for all categories is increased an equivalent of 5 cents per ride. Monthly pass prices are increased $2.50, representing average pass usage of 50 trips per month. The price of the annual pass for the “Over 70's” - group of senior citizens has been increased $4.00 which is much less than 5 cents per ride but this fare category is recognized as a special case.

The price of the Convenience Program tickets for Seniors would be 40 cents per ticket, representing a 5 cent increase over the equivalent 1990 cost per ride of 35 cents. The Convenience Program annual pass for Seniors would cost $150.00 based on estimated average use of 380 trips yearly.

Option 2 0 Cent Increase)

Under Option 2, fares in most categories are increased by 10 cents per ride. The increased cost of monthly passes is $4.50 per month in this option to help alleviate the increased cash fares. The Convenience Program tickets and annual pass would be 45 cents and $165.00 accordingly while the "Over 70’s” annual pass price would remain at $35.00 as in the previous case.

Yotion 3 (Typical Ind .

Option 3 is intended to be representative of the fare levels in other similar sized transit systems across the province. Fares for concession categories (i.e. senior citizens, students, children) have been raised significantly and most of the differences between these categories have been eliminated. Adults and students would pay a basic cash fare of $1.25 while the cash fare for seniors and children would be $1.00. Discounted fares would be available to students, seniors and children through tickets at $0.90 each. Monthly passes would be priced at $50.00 for adults and $40.00 for student, seniors and children. The Convenience Program and Over 70’s Program for senior citizens would be phased out under this option.

a2

Option 4 (Fare Is Fair Concept)

Option 4 is an approach to reducing some of the numerous fare categories to improve fare monitoring (i.e. "Fare is Fair” Concept) while modifying the rate of increase for specific groups. The fare levels for children, students and seniors have been brought to the same levels ($1.25 cash fare, $0.75 ticket and $34.00 monthly pass). The Annual Convenience Pass would be available to senior citizens at $150.00 to alleviate the impact of other fare increases. Also, monthly pass prices are slightly lower under this option to reduce the impact of the increased cash fares.

ion 5 (Fare is Fai ncept

Option 5 is an alternative approach to reducing the various different fare categories. Under this option, cash fares would be set at $1.25 for all persons and discounts would be made available through reduced ticket prices. The ticket price for students and seniors would be set at 85 cents (compared to 75 cents in 1990). The ticket price for children would be set at 65 cents (compared to 50 cents in 1990). The annual Convenience Pass for seniors would cost $150.00 while the “Over 70's” pass would cost $35.00. Monthly pass prices for students and seniors would be set at $34.50.

3-13

4.0

41

PROPOSED 1991 TRANSIT SERVICE PLAN

This section of the report discusses the program of service changes and fare adjustments proposed for 1991. The various types of service changes outlined previously have been assessed and rated in terms of general priorities. Based on this assessment, a number of selected changes are proposed for 1991. The fare options are evaluated and a preferred option is identified for 1991. Finally, a summary of the financial implications of the proposed plan for 1991 is presented.

1991 Service Changes

The various route changes, schedule refinements and service standards modifications have been subjectively ranked by H.S.R. staff and a selected set of changes are proposed for implementation in 1991. These suggested priorities and the proposed program have been developed for discussion purposes and are subject to refinement by the Transportation Services Committee and Regional Council.

The proposed program of service changes are summarized in Table 4.1 and a brief discussion of each change follows:

- The set of schedule refinements have been identified as top priority for 1991 since the changes all involve adjusting service headways to more closely match current ridership levels. The number of passenger trips impacted is relatively low compared to the potential cost savings.

Changes to service standards for Sunday and Holiday services are proposed based on the low level of ridership and the relatively high standards currently provided. The major impact on transit users will be the reduction in hours of service from 6:00 a.m. - 1:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. - midnight.

Changes to the Bayfront/Nash and related routes are proposed for 1991 in view of the significant cost savings which can be achieved through this route rationalization. This change will impact about 122,000 trips and some specific areas (eg. Sherman Avenue, Birch Avenue) will lose their local bus service. However, alternative bus services are available within reasonable walking distances in most cases and these changes will reduce congestion at the Kenilworth traffic circle, eliminate the need for transfers between Nash and Bayfront routes and provide direct downtown service from the Beach strip.

4-]

VIC

a ions

A. CHANGES PROPOSED FOR 1991

- Schedule Refinements

- Sunday & Holiday Frequency Service

Standard Changed to 30 and 60 Minutes

- Sunday & Holiday Hours Service Standard

Changed to 8:00 a.m. to Midnight

- Bayfront/Nash/Fennell/Sherman-Ottawa/

Burlington Route Changes

- Delaware/Parkdale/Stoney Creek Local/

Beeline Route Changes

- Garth/Upper James Route Changes

- Aberdeen Route Change

Total (for proposed Service Changes)

- Saturday Frequency Service Standard

Changed to 30 and 60 Minutes

- Weekdays & Saturday Hours Service

Standard Changed to 12:30 a.m. Last Trip

- Sunday & Holiday Hours Service Standard

Changed to 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.

- Limeridge Route Change

- Sunday & Holiday Service Standard

Changed to No Holiday Service

- Weekdays & Saturday Hours Service Standard

Changed to Midnight Last Trip

- Sunday & Holiday Service Standard

Changed to No Sunday & Holiday Service

TABLE 4.1

Number of Passenger Trips Impacted

7,800

B. POTENTIAL CHANGES NOT PROPOSED FOR 1991

116,000

1,096,000

PRIORITIES FOR SERVICE CHANGES

Change in Annual Costs

(1991 Dollars)

-$124,000

-$82,000

-$365,000

-$614,000

-$827,000 -$174,000 -$266.000

-$2,452,000

-$261,000

-$260,000

-$766,000 -$560,000

-$560,000

-$418,000

-$2,520,000

42

The changes to the Delaware/Parkdale/Stoney Creek Local/Beeline routes are proposed for 1991 in view of the significant cost saving potential as compared to the number of transit trips impacted. The proposed changes will greatly improve services in the Red Hill, Vincent and Gershome neighbourhoods and will also simplify the current Delaware route and improve Stoney Creek route connections to the Beeline. However, some localized areas will lose their direct connections to downtown and approximately 109,000 trips will be impacted by the combined changes.

The changes to the Garth/Upper James routes will result in a significant cost saving by eliminating the Garth route. Users of this route have alternative routes within reasonable walking distance in most cases.

The change in the Aberdeen route is proposed in view of the significant cost saving as compared to the number of trips impacted. Ridership is relatively low on this route and has been declining, resulting in the current poor performance.

The remaining service options investigated are not recommended for implementation in 1991. Options involving further modifications to service standards are not proposed at this time due to the further impacts on ridership and the need to assess the actual effects of implementing the changes proposed

‘above. The Limeridge route change is not recommended for 1991 due to the

number of trips impacted. Also, other route changes requiring further planning investigations may be required in this area beyond 1991 and the proposed Limeridge changes would be premature. The full elimination of Sunday and Holiday service is not recommended due to the significant number of trips impacted and the general hardship this would create for persons reliant on public transit service.

1991 Fare Structure Modifications An analysis of the five fare plan options outlined previously has been carried out to determine the impact on ridership and transit revenues. The results of

this analysis are summarized in Table 4.2. A brief assessment of each option is as follows:

4-2

Option 1 (5 cent increase)

Option 2 (10 cent increase)

Option 3 (Typical Industry Plan)

Option 4 (Fare is Fair)

Option 5 (Modified Fare is Fair)

Estimated 1991 Revenue

(millions)

$22.50

323.30

$25.25

$22.99

$23.12

Estimated

1991 Ridership (millions)

25.54

Pasyeod

24.75

25.10

25.03

Average Revenue per Ride

in 1991

$0.881

$0.921

$1.02

- $0.916

$0.924

Change

in

Revenue VS.

+2.74%

+6.43%

+15.3%

+$5.02%

+5.57%

NOTES: - 1990 Passenger Revenue estimated to be $21.90 million.

Change in Ridership vs. 1990

-2.28%

-3.17%

-5.30%

-3.95%

-4.25%

- 1990 Ridership (including Over 70’s and misc.) estimated to be 26.14 million trips.

TABLE 4.2 SUMMARY COMPARISON OF FARE PLAN OPTIONS

Option 1 (5 cent increase) can be considered a “default” option which is generally consistent with past trends. This plan would have the least impact on H.S.R. ridership but the increase in passenger revenues is only 2.7% compared to 1990. This is clearly less than inflation and would not contribute to improved financial performance for the H.S.R. Also, this plan does not reduce the numerous fare categories currently in place.

Option 2 (10 cent increase) would increase transit revenues at a rate higher than inflation and would contribute to improved financial performance. The increased fares are generally spread over all groups so that it could be perceived as being more equitable than other options. However, this option does not reduce the number of fare categories which means that payment of fares would not be easier to monitor.

Option 3 (Typical Industry Plan) is representative of the fare structures in other similar-sized Ontario cities. It would enable a_ significant improvement in financial performance to be achieved compared to the other options. However, it would also mean significant increases in the fares for senior citizens and children as well as for monthly pass users. Under this option the Over 70’s pass would no longer be available which would likely meet with considerable resistance.

Option 4 (Fare is Fair Concept) is a plan which would greatly reduce the discrepancies between the different concession fares and would make monitoring of fare payment much easier than at present. The revenues would increase about 5.0% under this option which is roughly equivalent to the current rate of inflation. The group impacted most under this option would be children who are also a relatively small segment (about 4% in 1990) of H.S.R. ridership. On the other hand, students and seniors would benefit from constant ticket prices under this option.

4-3

4.3

Option 5 (Modified Fare is Fare) is a plan which introduces some reduction in fare categories but distributes the increased fares over all groups. This option would generate somewhat higher revenues than Option 4 and there would be a greater impact on ridership.

In evaluating these options, it has been concluded that Option 4 (fare is fair) is the preferred 1991 fare plan for H.S.R. for the following reasons:

- This plan would provide an increase in revenue which would keep pace with current rates of inflation.

- By reducing the number of different fare categories, H.S.R.’s capability to

monitor proper payment of fares will be greatly increased.

- The category with the most significant increase (ie. children) are the smallest segment of H.S.R. riders.

The proposed fare levels for all categories of users are very reasonable when compared to other similar sized cities.

Financial Implications of the Plan

A major objective of the 1991 Transit Service Plan is to improve the financial performance of the H.S.R. This directly affects the levy to municipal taxpayers for transit services. For 1990, the budget levy to the City of Hamilton is $15.76 million. The implications of the proposed service changes on the transit levy are summarized as follows:

Annual reduction in H.S.R. costs = $2.45 million

Annual reduction in MTO subsidy = $0.47 million

Estimated reduction in passenger revenue = $0.40 million

Net reduction in Municipal Transit Levy (Annualized) = $1.58 million

4-4

The full saving of $1.58 million will be difficult to achieve in 1991. Due to requirements in the driver’s collective agreement, service changes can only be introduced at specific points during the year. Therefore, it is likely that the actual reduction realized in 1991 would be about 50% of the annualized amount of $1.58 million. The full amount of these savings would be realized in future

years.

The proposed 1991 fare plan (1.e. Option 4) would generate additional revenues, as compared to the maintenance budget, which would directly reduce the municipal transit levy. A reduction in the levy of $0.46 million is estimated and, if the fare plan were implemented in January 1991, the full amount of this saving would be realized in 1991.

APPENDIX A

ROUTE RIDERSHIP DATA

| Route Name | Forecast | Farly AM. Mid P.M. Evening Total |

| | Rev. Pass. | Moming Peak Day Peak

1 - KING 3,398,212 | 70,563 501,277 1,105,857 64,709 420,553 2,738,959 |

2 — BARIUN 3,450,923 | 84,799 503,586 1,136,864 691,617 36,304 2,783,169 |

3 — CANN 570,134 | 17,133 87,420 189,117 14,74 52,716 487,180 |

4 — BAYFROWT 694,082 | 24,335 161,757 184,900 183,20 68,990 623,171 |

5 — DELAWARE 3,248,061 | 41,441 555,276 1,110,751 631,584 348,069 2,687,121 |

6 — ABERDEEN : 3,554. 34,497 6,682 %,1500 14,635 20,518 |

7 - LOE 243,123 | 3,083 2%,252 76,3133 65,324 27,473 198,413 |

8 — YORK 242,181 | 1,384 39,720 989,137 4,50 12,847 197,644 |

9 — ROK GARDENS 4,283 | | 10 - BEELINE 488,837 | 1%4,068 100,00 1%,55/7 489,326 |

11 — PARTALE 605,512 | 13,08 192,177 178,03 131,56 53,990 528,8% | 15 — SHERMANVOTTANA 52,400 | 9,715 18,80 10,58 #&#4213,247 52,400 | 16 — ANCASIER 23,841 | 6,121 2,900 14,820 23,841 | 21 - UW. KENILARIB 563,513 | 8,675 105,98 201,%5 127,144 43,375 487,157 |

27 - We. JAMES 1,062,3% | 14,231 173,188 371,462 211,782 «117,710 888, 374 | 31 - FENELL 998,570 | 23,565 164,021 326,745 210,266 %,381 820,967 | 32 - GRIH 70,978 | 5,279 51,145 82,822 987,112 4,620 20,978 | 33 — SANATORIIM 42,7% | 4,578 81,054 119,023 91,556 36,084 332,256 | 3h — UP. PARADISE 471,38 | 6,844 %,818 127,550 13,661 53,198 414,070 | 35 - CUEZ 213,107 | 3 54,063 74,131 6,089 11,756 201,493 | 41 - MAK 512,783 | 1,737 100,155 182,042 +. 124,40 44,867 454,172 | 45 — LIMERIDGE 200, 750 | 7 37,22 B77 3,53 25,114 175,53 | 51 — UNIVERSITY 427,297 | 0,574 24,82 123,10 427,297 | 52 — DUNDSS LOCAL 18,858 | 10,215 8,643 18,88 |

55 - ST. (RK. CENT. 179 | 7,297 99,996 162,96 + 116,752 9 50,471 427,482 | 56 - OONFED. BK 15,213 |

57 - NASH 382,655 | 6,711 106,759 129,026 39 65,275) «42, MB 350,474 |

5B - ST. CRK. LOCAL 79,733 | 12,3 27,25 18,244 8,982 66,800 |

FRANCES AVENE 966 | |

a _—————__——_——__—_——_—_—_————————— eeecccrc c c c—l—l— a — ec,

l TOTAL | 23,156,906 | |

TABLE A.l WEEKDAY RIDERSHIP

Forecast | Early A.M Mid Rev. Pass. | Moming = Peak Day 3,398,212 | 1,352 3,00 29,10 3,450,923 | 3,98 32,757 215,471 50,1% | 389 3,264 33,956 694,082 | 787 4,91 23,182 3,248,061 | 3,455 3,769 168,609 262,375 | 3,619 28,864 243,123 | 42 2,35 17,535 242,181 | 42 2,36 17,467 4,283 | 488,837 | 605,512 | 1,193 4,459 34,844 52,400 | 3,841 | 563,513 | 18 4,473 2,218 693,860 | 180 4,744 2,641 929,182 | 1,177 6,564 49,044 727,26 | 1,22 6,428 %6,468 1,328,561 | 1,08 11,08 98,112 1,062,394 | 1,892 11,60 57,84 938,570 | 1,471 8,425 42,483 230,978 | 42,73 | 4 3,06 19,727 411,338 | 3,00 2,74 213,107 | 1,216 3,647 512,783 | 3.2% 21,18 200,750 | 107 CEN 9 Tes te) 427,297 | 18,88 | 189,055 | 314 1,362 3,091 484,179 | 942 5,086 26,622 15,213 | 382,655 | 252 1,574 9,696 79,733 | 805 6,668 36 | | 23,156,906 |

TABLE A.2. SATURDAY RIDERSHIP

J

BBE Re OBE HEBRSRSe

—- 6 |6(e

—-— = we

¥ BB

-~- we Oe Oo UO

>

i,

RSra88 SRGaRey PRSBE ARESSBS

BS Sex BS $8

~~

3,398,212 | 2,696 20,042 108,876 3,450,923 | 2,722 2,33 105,63 570,134 | %0 10,35 694,082 | 50 2,97 ~—‘11, 086 3,248,061 | 1,302 14,180 81,463 262,375 | 5 91,2805, 745 243,123 | 785 «5, 40 242,181 | 782 «45,917 4,283 | 488,837 | 605,512 | Me 1,887 9,24 32,400 | 23,841 | 563,513 | 6 1,901 11,30 693,860 | 141 02,321 (13,642 929,182 | 79 = 3,269 :19,398 727,266 | 22 1,83 13,815 1,328,561 | 459 3,609 14,172 1,062,2% | 526 86. 3,740 ~—Ss«:19, 111 938,570 | 2,510 16,210 20,978 | 42,7% | 2,14 11,448 471,28 | 5,807 213,107 | 2,377 512,783 | 1,460 8,183 200,750 | 427,257 | 18,88 | 189,055 | 182 65 2,909

TABLE A3 SUNDAY RIDERSHIP

1,304

paBs

BRS BESRRBAS

=

ete

g [2S8NR [ARee8 ASMiMaAs jonnse AGE | A

; 2% =a ee

g|gg|SSRAM [ART tA /A BAe /HesAn |AANKA |S RoR | A

z e GRSSAISS**N| AMA|ANBS |S8dH°] Rania

k ay |SRSAR |AEr +a [NAMVe /AERIH |MARSH (BARKS | A

g aR BRESRIAA**RIS FHS|ARAGR|VRSRA|R ase [a

H zy [eneaa FO**9 /SORSR |GOSKR | SAEAT /AeHRA | gg [SF8S8 [BN tA lA AAG ARMS lon ARQ

ig |

g |8

148 |E8tay |ibued ides |i

: un He tee

Dost’ a # A |

TABLE A.4. WEEKDAY BOARDINGS PER REVENUE HOUR

: %* — APC data is not available for routes 8 —- YORK ad 10 — BEELINE cee to softwere problens. A blank field indicates that no service is scheduled for that time period m the selected route.

PASSENGER BOARDINGS PER REVENUE HOUR — SATURDAY SERVICE

January 1990 Board | March 1990 Board

September 1989 Board A blank field indicates that no service is scheduled for that tim period m the selected route.

+ — Indicates no data for the selected tim period was successfillly captured.

NOIE: & — AFC data was not available for route 8 - YORK de to a software problem,

TABLE AS SATURDAY BOARDINGS PER REVENUE HOUR

PASSENGER BOARDINGS PER REVENUE HOUR — SUNDAY SERVICE

| Jamary 1990 Board

September 1989 Board A blank field indicates that no service is scheduled for that time period m the selected route.

: *— ABC data is not available for routes 1 - KING, 8 — WR, 57 - NAGI die to softuare problems. + — Imticates no APC data was successfully captured during the Time Period.

TABLE A.6 SUNDAY BOARDINGS PER REVENUE HOUR

APPENDIX B CUSTOMER OPINION SURVEY

RECORD SEX

e a] : ee

ae RECORD AREA

*) 1990_ PUBLIC OPINION SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE Hi ! My name is and I am conducting a survey for the Hamilton Street Railway Co. about their transit

service. Could you please spare a few minutes to answer a couple of questions. Thank you ! 1. How many one way trips, on average, do you take each week on the bus? _________ trips

2. What routes do you use regularly? Please indicate up to three.

3. Please indicate how important it is to have the following areas improved. Please use definately needs improvement, needs some improvement and doesn't need improvement as the scale.

AREAS NEEDS IMPROVEMENT SOME IMPROVEMENT NO IMPROVEMENT Number of shelters C] [] Number of benches Number of litter containers Availability of schedules Availability of tickets/passes Weekday service Weeknight service Weekend service Existing route structures

D Route extension or new routes

_ Cleanliness of buses

Appearance of operators Courtesy of operators

Operators adhering to schedules Other ——_—_—________ Other

ee ee ee eee ee ee ee 8 ee 8 eS eS 8 ee eee ee ee ee eee nee ee ee ee ee ee Caen 0 pen Pil meme ed em ee ee mie ee ee eee ie Lee eee men Tee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee

4. Which three areas do you believe need the most attention? (Repeat choices above if needed)

5. Is the fare charged an important factor when deciding to use the bus?

Very important [ J Somewhatimportant [ ] Not important fe]

6. What is the main reason you take the bus?

D Thank you very much for your time! Do you have any comments about the questionnaire?

Once again, thank you and have a nice day!

SAMPLE:

1990 PUBLIC OPINION SURVEY RESULTS

SEX NUMBER Male 132 Female 268 Total 400 AREA NUMBER Ancaster 19 Stoney Creek 45 Dundas 23 Mountain 156 Downtown E 52 Downtown C 53 Downtown W 52 Total 400

PERCENTAGE

33.33% 67.00%

100.00%

PERCENTAGE

4.75% LT s25% 9./5% 39.00% 13.00% 13.25% 13.00%

100.00%

1. Number of one way trips taken each week;

# OF TRIPS

DBANMAWNFO

ROUTE NUMBER

WODANIAMNPWNE

# OF % OF RESPONDENTS RESPONDENTS

0 0.00%

21 5.25% 18 4.50% 60 15.00% 43 10.75% 92 23.00%

6 1.50%

70 17.50%

2. Regular routes used; # OF % OF RESPONDENTS RESPONDENTS

69 8.33% yl 6.16% 10 1.21% 25 3.02% 138 16.67% 16 1.93% 14 1.69% 10 Does

0 0.00%

PAP: 2.66% 7 25.05%

6 0.73%

22 2.66% 18 pas mba G: ral 2.54% 28 S565 23 2.78%

# OF TRIPS 9

10 a1 12 13 14 15

Total

ROUTE

NUMBER

25

# OF % OF RESPONDENTS RESPONDENTS

5 1.25%

56 14.00%

i 0.25%

26 6.50%

0 0.00%

2 0.50%

400 | 100.00%

# OF % OF RESPONDENTS RESPONDENTS

4.35%

30 3.62%

38 4.59%

23 2.78%

29 3.50%

32 3.86%

ih 1.333%

24 2.90%

23 2.78%

in 0.85%

iL 0.85%

i5 1.81%

lige) 1.81%

28 3.38%

iS Zo tee

7 0.85%

828 100.00%

€

3. The areas which need the most improvement;

AREA DEFINITELY NEEDS NEEDS SOME DOES NOT NEED IMPROVEMENT IMPROVEMENT IMPROVEMENT Number of shelters 39( 9.75%) 2050510. 25%:) 156( 39.00%) Number of benches 61(15.25%) 203(50.75%) 136(34.00%) Number of litter containers 86(21.50%) 278(69.503%) 36( 9.00%) Availability of schedules 2( .50%) TaGlidliclDs) SiG Leas. Availability of tickets/passes 57(14.25%) T3145 .25:%)) 162( 40.50%) Weekday service di mele] 5%) 72(18.00%) 321:(80.25%) Weeknight service 19( 4.75%) 144( 36.00%) 237(59.25%) Weekend service S30 6.25% )0 154(38.503%) PaWeM Plays A Pot | Existing routes 6( 1.50%) 34( 8.52%) 359(89.97%)* Route extensions/new routes 18( 4.50%) 38( 9.50%) 344(86.00%) Cleanliness of buses 6( 1.50%) 349(87.25%) 45 G0) 2252) Appearance of Operators (e253) 176( 44.00%) Z23( 55608 ) Courtesy of Operators 4( 1.00%) 117(29.253%) 274(69.75%) * Operators adhering to schedules 11( 2.76%) 180(45.11%) 208(52.13%)* Overall 350( 6.26%) 2202( 39.37%) 3041(54.37%)

* denotes less than 400 complete answers 4. The results are not used as the question was not fully understood. 5. How important are fares?

# OF RESPONSES

RESPONSE % OF RESPONSES > Fares are very important 0 0.00%

Fares are somewhat important 42 10.55%

Fares are not important 356 89.45%

6. Reasons for taking the bus;

% OF RESPONSES

REASONS # OF RESPONSES

Do not drive 121 30.25% Car not always available 108 27.00% Do not own a car 106 26.50% Too expensive to use car 9 2.25% Parking is expensive/hassle 33 8.25% Too young to drive Vi 25% Prefer not to drive at times 19 4.753% Help the environment 2 - 50% Weather dependent af 25% Total 400 100.00%

Cae:

hes

: 7) =e i a <i 7 7 i

ge. ae et ee

nike. leas LEU SRT EGE eal ee ee #0€, Ce eas

AIWEee.. | PES. i Fa VP ike PL EON Rg oa att: AT TAGES

ye cage caste as: Fea 3 iz ouinapeiion., vl Oot tou vs ; shee Rit ‘oan nd — : Lh - a> a . a r é : 4 7 09% Gt ey 7 dat 8 é y yea ee ae

4 wu, oe TTRALTS eau, | ;

wages 8 Laermer, Sie oat por seen ,

- ue © oe : Ze7. = 7s ei ray Ate i ae , ee . __ ® jé 2% Mia : Aion ae Tau at ba va 7 ey Ao : vp Lanne ; 700, Pas 7 5 ae =a De oe ave Lt 7 a oral a ¢ ri ub Li | He By P] a ae 7 Ra fa! rs > ae . vA TT eel ‘S568 y | ‘ ' tO ip. wero, a Vay wig | . . y ‘4 , Sioee tj ¥ 7 ivy mi

, “3 vee coh cle ody veo “aes Tite UN i a. At es Beh: Pe ar a nS i

i ae hap a ni hoes cr \ 7 : 5 ae. iM a eT Seah tt ee 8 Pe _

2585.

22129

N () eI ap)