Transit Commission

Minutes

Meeting #:

2

Date:

Thursday, February 09, 2023

Time:

9:30 A.m. - 11:30 A.m.

Location:

Champlain Room, 110 Laurier Avenue West, and by electronic participation

Present:

• Chair Glen Gower, 
• Vice-Chair Cathy Curry, 
• Councillor Riley Brockington, 
• Councillor Marty Carr, 
• Councillor David Hill, 
• Councillor Jeff Leiper, 
• Councillor Wilson Lo, 
• Councillor Shawn Menard, 
• and Councillor Tim Tierney 

---

1.

Notices and meeting information for meeting participants and the public

Notices and meeting information are attached to the agenda and minutes, including: availability of simultaneous interpretation and accessibility accommodations; in camera meeting procedures; information items not subject to discussion; personal information disclaimer for correspondents and public speakers; notices regarding minutes; and remote participation details.

Accessible formats and communication supports are available, upon request.

Except where otherwise indicated, reports requiring Council consideration will be presented to Council on February 22, 2023 in Transit Commission Report 2.

The deadline to register by phone to speak, or submit written comments or visual presentations is 4 pm on Wednesday, February 8, and the deadline to register to speak by email is 8:30 am on Thursday, February 9.

2.

Declarations of Interest

No Declarations of Interest were filed.

3.

Confirmation of Minutes

3.1

TTC Minutes 36 – September 14, 2022

• Carried

3.2

TTC Minutes 1 – January 27, 2023

• Carried

4.

Responses to Inquiries

4.1

TC 02-22 – Hurdman Station

With the will of Commission, Members discussed this item, and asked questions of staff. Pat Scrimgeour, Director, Transit Customer Systems and Planning, and Troy Charter, Director, Transit Service Delivery and Rail Operations, responded to questions.

John Redins and Miranda Gray spoke before the Commission and provided comments on the response to inquiry.

Commission gave the following DIRECTION to staff:

That staff report back to Transit Commission with suggested improvements to Hurdman Station and Tunney’s Pasture Station, including permanent sheltering solutions and the capital costs associated with those improvements.

4.2

OCC 22-12 – Emergency Intercom Button - Confederation Line Train

With the will of Commission, Members discussed this item, and asked questions of staff. Troy Charter, Director, Transit Service Delivery and Rail Operations, responded to questions.

5.

Office of the City Clerk

5.1

Transit Commission Terms of Reference

ACS2023-OCC-CCS-0009 - Citywide

Commission received an email from John Verbaas dated February 4. Miranda Gray spoke before the Commission and provided comments on the response to inquiry. There being no questions, the Commission carried the report recommendations as presented. 

• Report recommendation

  That the Council approve the Transit Commission Terms of Reference, as outlined in this report and attached as Document 1. 

  Carried

6.

Presentations

6.1

OC Transpo Update – Rail, Bus, and Para Transpo

Renée Amilcar, General Manager, Transit Services Department, Paul Treboutat, Chief Safety Officer, Pat Scrimgeour, Director of Transit Customer System and Planning, and Troy Charter, Director of Transit Service Delivery and Rail Operations, provided an oral update and answered questions from the Commission.  A copy of their slide presentation is filed with the Office of the City Clerk.

Commission received a written submission from Jan Lam, submitted January 31. John Redins spoke before the Commission and provided comments on the item.

Transit Services Department staff undertook to report back to Transit Commission on:

• Fare options to incentivize use of transit for those who are returning to work 2 or 3 days per week. Staff anticipate reporting back by mid-2023.
• Core infrastructure issues (outside of operational issues) such as track, laydown area, and overhead catenary.
• A periodic comparison of key performance indicators as compared to other Canadian cities.

6.2

Line 1 Service Disruption, January 4 – 10, 2023

Renée Amilcar, General Manager, Transit Services Department, and Richard Holder, Director of Transit Engineering Services, provided an oral update and answered questions from the Commission.  A copy of their slide presentation is filed with the Office of the City Clerk.

Mario Guerra (Rideau Transit Maintenance) and Daniel Hauber (Transportation Resource Associates Inc.) were in attendance and also answered questions from Commission.

Miranda Gray spoke before the Commission and provided comments on the item.

Transit Service Department staff undertook to report back to Transit Commission on the findings for the Line 1 Service Disruption.

6.3

Zero emission buses infrastructure update

Renée Amilcar, General Manager, Transit Services Department, and Richard Holder, Director of Transit Engineering Services, provided an oral update and answered questions from the Commission.  A copy of their slide presentation is filed with the Office of the City Clerk. 

7.

Finance and Corporate Services Department

7.1

2023 Draft Operating and Capital Budget - Transit Commission

ACS2023-FCS-FSP-0001 - City Wide

The draft budget was tabled at the Council meeting of February 1, 2023. The Transit Commission’s report on the draft budget will be considered by Council at its meeting of March 1, 2023.

Renée Amilcar, General Manager, Transit Services Department, Pat Scrimgeour, Director of Transit Customer System and Planning and Scott Laberge, Associate Director, presented an overview of the report recommendations and answered questions from the Commission.  A copy of the slide presentation is filed with the Office of the City Clerk.

The following staff also responded to questions:

• Finance and Corporate Services Department: Isabelle Jasmin, Deputy City Treasurer
• Transit Services Department: Jocelyne Turner, Director, Strategic Communications and External Relations, and Paul Treboutat, Chief Safety Officer
• Office of the City Clerk: Caitlin Salter MacDonald, Manager, Council and Committee Services

Commissioners received the following submissions, and a copy of each is filed with the Office of the City Clerk:

• Lisa Freeman letter received February 3
• Giulia Brown email dated February 6
• Zack Ladouceur email dated February 8
• Michael Fakhouri email dated February 8

The following members of the public spoke before the Commission and provided comments on the report recommendations:

1. Nick Grover (Free Transit Ottawa)
2. Sam Hersh
3. Anna Bramble
4. Giulia Brown
5. Richard Langlois
6. Sarah Donnelly
7. Erin Coffin
8. Rachel Buxton
9. Kyle Humphrey
10. Laura Rose Seebach Shantz
11. Thomas Ledgley
12. John Redins
13. Miranda Gray
14. Chris Wrinn
15. Ole Hendrickson (speaking notes on file)

Transit Services Department staff undertook to share with Commission documentation on how fare revenue is calculated, including modeling of payment patterns for single fare as compared to passes.

Following discussions, Commission considered the following motions.

• Recommendation

  That the Transit Commission consider the relevant portions of the 2023 Operating and Capital Budgets and make recommendations to Council sitting in Committee of the Whole to be held March 1, 2023.
• Amendment:
  Motion No. TTC 2023-02-01
  Moved by W. Lo

  WHEREAS the 2023 Draft Operating and Capital Budget documents for the Transit Commission were circulated and published after being tabled at Council on February 1, 2023, which was after the Transit Commission agenda publication date; and

  WHEREAS a corrected Transit Commission Budget Book (English Full and Condensed) was distributed to Council and published on the City’s agendas and minutes web portal on February 8, 2023; 

  THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that, pursuant to Subsection 89(3) of the Procedure By-law, the Transit Commission add the budget documents to the Agenda, including corrected English Full and Condensed Budget Books for Transit Commission that shows on page 3 the “Transit Engineering Services” line. 

  Carried
• Amendment:
  Motion No. TTC 2023-02-02
  Moved by R. Brockington

  WHEREAS transit service on Prince of Wales Drive south of Meadowlands Drive and north of Baseline/Heron Roads was removed by decision of Council in 2011 as part of a “route optimization” process of cost reduction,

  WHEREAS many residents of areas along and east and west of Prince of Wales Drive south of Meadowlands and north of Fisher are beyond a convenient walking distance of their nearest bus stops,

  WHEREAS, clients visiting the Debra Dynes Family House, many whose only means of transportation is via public transit, and the staff who work there, have passionately advocated for a return of this much needed Prince of Wales corridor service,

  WHEREAS, the Carleton Heights and Area Residents Association has consistently championed the need for a return of this much needed corridor service,

  WHEREAS, during the 2022 election campaign, the number one transit issue in the Carleton Heights – Courtland Park neighbourhood was a need to provide transit service along the Prince of Wales corridor,

  WHEREAS, the current situation is contributing to lower transit use among residents of these area

  THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that staff be directed to assess the financial feasibility of restoring peak-period, peak-direction transit service to the section of Prince of Wales Drive between Meadowlands and Fisher, based on the current population, current and future rates of transit ridership, and funding available within the approved 2023 transit operating budget; and

  BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that staff work with the Ward Councillor to confirm the financial feasibility of the proposed new service and subsequently to confirm implementation

  Carried
• Amendment:
  Motion No. TTC 2023-02-03
  Moved by R. Brockington

  WHEREAS, increasing revenues, other than from the transit levy or transit fares needs greater attention by the Transit Commission,

  WHEREAS, free transit, in addition as a temporary offer in response to compromised LRT service and the Winter 2022 occupation, have historically been linked to Canada Day and New Years’ Eve,

  WHEREAS, augmenting sponsorship opportunities to offer free transit on a particular day, that would cover all or partial costs for the day, will both increase ridership and generate much needed revenues,

  THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that, the General Manager prioritize ways to augment sponsorship opportunities with outside entities, enter in to an agreement if feasible and report back to the Transit Commission by October 2023 on what progress has been made, how other jurisdictions attract sponsorships to offer free transit and challenges encountered to attract new sponsorships.

  Carried
• Amendment:
  Motion No. TTC 2023-02-04
  Moved by R. Brockington

  WHEREAS OC Transpo transit fare is free for children aged 0-7 years old,

  WHEREAS, on November 17, 2021 Transit Commission approved a motion to amend the fare category for children from ages 0-5 which was free of charge and to expand the range to 0-7 years of age, 

  WHEREAS OC Transpo transit fare (cash) for children aged 8-12 is $1.90,

  WHEREAS transit fare is free in the following Canadian jurisdictions, by specified children’s age group:

  • Victoria, BC, transit fare is free for children aged 0-12,
  • Vancouver, BC, transit fare is free for children aged 0-12,
  • Edmonton, AB, transit fare is free for children aged 0-12, when accompanied by a fare-paying customer,
  • Winnipeg, MB, transit fare is free for children aged 0-11, when accompanied by a fare-paying customer,
  • Toronto, ON, transit fare is free for children aged 0-12,
  • Montreal, QC, transit fare is free for up to five children aged 0-11, when accompanied by a fare paying customer aged 14 or older,
  • Halifax, NS, transit fare is free for children aged 0-12,
  • St John’s, NL, transit fare is free for children aged 0-11

  WHEREAS transit fares paid by passengers aged eight to twelve years of age are estimated, on an annual basis, to generate $174,000 in fare revenue (based on 12 months, at 70% pre-COVID ridership),

  WHEREAS increasing the coverage of free fares for children will benefit families, particularly racialized families and those led by single parent households,

  WHEREAS, it is unlikely that children aged 0-11, will ride public transit alone, and instead be accompanied by at least one fare-paying passenger,

  THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT Transit fares for children aged 8-12 shall become free of charge, and go in to effect on July 1, 2023. 

  For (8)	G. Gower, T. Tierney, J. Leiper, R. Brockington, S. Menard, C. Curry, M. Carr, and W. Lo
  Against (1)	D. Hill

  Carried (8 to 1)
• Amendment:
  Motion No. TTC 2023-02-05
  Moved by C. Curry

  BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Transit Commission recommend that Council, sitting as Committee of the Whole, approve the Transit Commission 2023 Draft Operating and Capital Budget, as follows:

  1. Transit Services as follows:
     1. User fees as amended (pages 4-6);
     2. Operating Resource Requirement (revised page 3);
  2. Transit Commission Capital Budget (pages 7-8, individual projects listed on pages 15-42).

  For (8)	G. Gower, T. Tierney, J. Leiper, S. Menard, C. Curry, D. Hill, M. Carr, and W. Lo
  Against (1)	R. Brockington

  Carried (8 to 1)

  Councillor S. Menard dissented on the Operating Resource Requirement (Page 3) - Transfers, Grants and Financial Charges - $42 Million Reduction to Capital Reserve (as described on Page 13).

  
  

7.2

Delegation of Authority – Contracts awarded for the period January 1, 2022 to June 30, 2022 for Transit Commission

ACS2023-FCS-PRO-0001 - City Wide

• Report Recommendation(s)

  That the Council receive this report for information.

  Received

8.

In Camera Items

There were no in camera items.

9.

Notices of Motions (For Consideration at Subsequent Meeting)

9.1

Motion – Para Transpo Fare Zone Study , Barrhaven-Riverside South and Manotick

Submitted by Councillor W.Lo

• WHEREAS Para Transpo is a lifeline for vulnerable residents, many of whom receive financial assistance from the government, connecting those who are unable to drive or use conventional transit with care services, employment, and family and friends; and

  WHEREAS Para Transpo currently charges a rural flat rate fare of 10$ one-way, 20$ round-trip for trips that cross the urban-rural transit boundary; and

  WHEREAS Para Transpo trips originating in Barrhaven and Riverside South, ending in Manotick Village and vice versa are currently charged the rural flat rate; and

  WHEREAS the communities of Barrhaven, Riverside South, and Manotick have grown considerably since amalgamation and continue to grow, and

  WHEREAS that growth has brought the three communities geographically and socially closer together, including using services like regular appointments and employment in each other’s communities;

  THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED; that staff study the feasibility of creating a special fare zone for Para Transpo trips originating from locations in wards 3, 22 (west of and including Boothfield Street), and 24 ending within the Manotick Village boundary in Ward 21 and vice versa; and

  BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED; that the study assumes trips within the special fare zone be charged as urban fares instead of the current rural flat rate; and

  BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED; along with any relevant information, the study include the following data:

  • • Number of trips taken between Ward 3 and Manotick Village in 2019 and 2022;
    • Number of trips taken between Ward 22 (west of and including Boothfield Street) and Manotick Village in 2019 and 2022;
    • Number of trips taken between Ward 24 and Manotick Village in 2019 and 2022;
    • Revenue, ridership, and passenger impacts;
    • Financial impacts to the city and residents.

10.

Inquiries

10.1

TC-2023-01 – Communicating Live Information to Riders

Submitted by Councillor D. Hill:

What is the current OC Transpo operations procedures and practices for communicating live bus location/arrival times to riders?

Does the city rely on human operators, live GPS or other technologies?

On a standard operating workday (Monday to Friday) how up to date is the data shared to riders about bus arrival/delay/cancellation?  

How much of the current operating budget is spent on developing or implementing a communication system for live bus arrival/delay/cancellation information via bus stop number?

Given the above, what is the current timeline and total project cost to bring live arrival times via bus stop number to completion?

If not planned to be completed in the next fiscal year, what would be the incremental cost to expediate the project and complete it by Q1 2024?

What are OC Transpo’s procedures to assess in real-time the accuracy and timeliness of bus arrival/delay/cancellation information provided to riders?

Are there any current plans to enhance the communications between riders and OC Transpo? If so, what options are being considered?

10.2

TC-2023-02 – LRT technical operations inquiry

Submitted by Councillor W. Lo:

At approximately 11:45 pm on 4 January 2023, an eastbound train became immobilised between Lees and Hurdman stations. What followed was the unavailability of Line 1 rail service between uOttawa and Tremblay stations for six days.
Transit users across the city suffered as already-stretched resources were further strained to support R1 bus service, including during eight peak periods.

My approach here would have been completely different had this been the first, second, or even third major disruption in Line 1’s service life. Yet time after time, fix after fix, promise after promise, we find ourselves where we started.

Without meaningful root cause analyses, permanent fixes aren’t really permanent, even if it’s at a new location, a new issue, or even the same issue at a new location. Ultimately it further erodes trust in the transit system.

In recognition of recommendation 62 of the Ottawa Light Rail Transit Public Inquiry report, I trust staff will support council’s oversight role over the city organisation and work diligently to provide truthful and fulsome answers in the public interest, the overarching messaging behind the report.

Questions:

1. How was the decision to power the Confederation Line through an overhead catenary system (OCS) reached?
2. How often is the OCS inspected?
   1. Who conducts the inspections and what do the inspectors look for?
   2. Are there different types of inspections (eg. regular visual inspections, annual inch-by-inch inspection, etc.)?
   3. What are some issues that would require immediate repair, even if it affects regular service?
   4. When was the most recent inspection of the OCS in and around Lees Station prior to 4 January 2023?
   5. What are the most recent inspection dates of the OCS elsewhere?
3. Dissimilar metals in impure copper in the presence of an electrolyte like road salt spray accelerates galvanic corrosion. Understanding this can compromise tensile strength, resistance to further corrosion, and conductivity, do the wires conform to or exceed ASTM B1-13 or EN 50149:2012 standards for metal purity, order/delivery condition, and other specifications? How was this determined?
   1. What steps can be taken if it was discovered the OCS wires were of a substandard quality?
   2. ASTM B1-13 states no joints shall be made in the completed wire. How is this approached when repairs or replacement are necessary to just sections of contact wire?
4. Will staff work with RTG to obtain samples of contact wire—new and used—for independent testing?
   1. Will staff work with RTG to allow independent testing of the mounted contact wire during maintenance hours when the line is de-energised?
5. Despite question 3, pure copper is prone to salt corrosion. Was consideration given to this fact during any phase of the project, particularly in areas where road salt spray may be higher?
   1. What measures were considered to mitigate or prevent the effects of salt corrosion to the wires?
   2. How were the decisions to employ or not employ prevention measures ultimately made?
   3. Have the wires been inspected for corrosion from road salt, especially in areas where they pass underneath roadways like the westbound 417 ramp to Nicholas?
   4. How do the pantographs of passing trains at regular operating speeds contribute to any corrosion which may originate from road salt spray?
6. What materials are the pantograph shoes made of?
7. How often are pantograph shoes inspected?
   1. How often are the pantograph shoes replaced?
   2. What criteria triggers the need for a pantograph shoe to be replaced?
   3. How often should pantograph shoes be replaced?
   4. What are the effects of a deficient pantograph shoe?
8. In rail systems powered by OCS, the contact wire’s path is staggered (zig-zagged) to avoid wearing a groove into the pantograph shoe. In curved sections of track, the contact wire does not need to be staggered as straight sections through the curve are staggered by design. Is the OCS contact wired staggered in the straight sections of track?
   1. What are the effects of a pantograph shoe with an apparent groove?
9. Arcing is relatively normal in rail systems, whether OCS or third rail. However, as heat generated by arcing exceeds the melting point of copper, longer instances of arcing, such as one shared via a Twitter video on 4 January of an eastbound train approaching Hurdman an hour before the first train immobilisation that night, are of greater concern. Major arcing gasifies the pantograph shoe and melts the metal. Resulting deformities increases the likelihood of arcing in that location while shear forces there increase due to reduced real contact between the pantograph shoe and the wire. What damage to the contact wire was identified on Track 1 between the Rideau River bridge and the Hurdman Station viaduct?
   1. What damage to the pantograph of the LRV in the video was identified?
   2. Has the plastic deformation of metal, pitting, or corrosion been observed on the contact wire in other locations where significant arcing was identified in the past?
   3. Has significant arcing accelerated the deterioration of pantograph shoes?
10. What repairs were undertaken to restore the OCS in and around Lees Station following the lightning strike sustained 24 July 2022?
    1. Were any joints made in the contact wire for repairs in and around Lees Station after the lightning strike? If yes, where were they made, and did they contribute to further damage sustained by the OCS during recovery efforts in the 4 January incident?
    2. Were thorough inspections of the wires in the area conducted during and/or following repairs before service resumed?
    3. Did the lightning corrode or create pits in any section of the wires?
    4. Have any inspections of the OCS in that area been conducted since repairs were complete?
    5. Given the setup with multiple substations along the Confederation Line, in theory, could the current from the lightning strike have continued past a section to another, potentially corroding wires there?
    6. If so, were any inspections undertaken in nearby sections following the strike and/or repairs?
11. As copper oxidises, it turns black, then its distinctive green. The layer of oxidation actually protects the metal from further corrosion unless disturbed or removed. However, copper’s green patina takes at least 10 years to form. For comparison, sections of the Chateau Laurier’s roof took 20 years to turn green, yet the messenger wire north of Lees Station under the 417, installed in 2017, is already green. What caused that section of wire to oxidise so quickly?
    1. Since the pantographs of passing trains easily remove oxidation on the contact wire, are there any corrosion concerns about the contact wire in this area, given the messenger wire’s seemingly accelerated process and the road salt spray from the highway above?
    2. What about other elements of the catenary, like the posts, arms, mounting brackets, and fasteners?
12. How much tension are the wires continuously under?
    1. How does that tension change due to the pantographs of passing trains operating under regular rates of speed
    2. Does ice buildup, especially when uneven, in an area cause an irregular amount of tension to be applied as pantographs pass by? How?
    3. What is the breaking load/tensile strength of the contact wires used on the Confederation Line?
13. Could anything or a combination of anything noted in the questions so far be a factor in the failures of the OCS between 4 January 2023 and 10 January 2023?
14. Supplied with 1,500 volts of power, the Confederation Line is uniquely Canada’s most powered mass transit railway, double or more than double the power supplied to every other system in the country. Similar systems like Waterloo’s Ion LRT, built around the same time, and LRT lines in Toronto and Mississauga opening this decade, are all supplied with 750 volts of power. How was the decision to supply our LRT with 1,500 volts of power reached?
    1. As voltage decreases with distance from a substation, was the voltage decision to permit fewer substations or as a result of fewer substations?
    2. Given question 14A, at the furthest locations between substations, how much voltage is the contact wire’s current
    3. Further to question 14B, how much voltage is in the current in the contact wires closest to the substations?
    4. How much voltage is there in the current generated by the substations?
    5. Further to question 14D (and supplementary to questions 14A, B, and C), is the workload within the substations’ design standards?
15. Per the Alstom catalogue, the default electric system option for the Citadis Spirit is 750 volts, with a 1,500-volt option. Are our trains outfitted with the 1,500-volt option or are our trains equipped with step-down transformers?
    1. Is there a safe tolerance for voltage discrepancies between what the train needs and what is supplied at points noted in questions 14B and C?
16. Were previous breakages relating to the parafil wire a failure of the wire itself, or the components at the ends affixing the parafil to other components of the OCS?
    1. What is the breaking load of the parafil wire?
    2. What is the material and the breaking load of the components that affix the parafil wires to other components of the OCS?
    3. Are there other systems in North America who use identical parafil wires with identical affixing components
    4. Under normal operating circumstances, how much force do the parafil wires experience due to passing trains, winds, and/or other factors?
    5. How often are the parafil wires inspected?
17. If the material of the OCS’s components is indeed the issue behind repeated failures, even if local environmental factors exacerbate the situation, will staff work with RTG to conduct a proactive end-to-end inspection of the OCS to prevent future occurrences elsewhere along the line?
    1. If so, can the end-to-end inspection be completed during maintenance hours without disruptions to service?
    2. Who will bear the costs associated with an end-to-end inspection?
18. If an end-to-end inspection determines the OCS is in an accelerated state of deterioration, can repairs or replacements be made during maintenance hours with minimal disruptions to service?
    1. Who will bear the costs associated with the repairs or replacement, including R1 bus service that may need to run as required?
19. Is the same material being used in the OCS of the Confederation Line extensions to Trim, Moodie, and Baseline/Algonquin stations?
    1. Although the material will be new and one can reasonably assume some time before failure, can we work with Stage 2 constructors to ensure similar issues are prevented?
    2. Who will bear the potential costs associated with those prevention measures?
20. Lastly, prior to the settlement, what steps has OC Transpo taken to repair or reset the relationship with RTG in the spirit of the recommendations of the Ottawa Light Rail Transit Public Inquiry report?

11.

Other Business

There was no other business.

12.

Adjournment

Next Meeting

March 3, 2023

The meeting adjourned at 5:52 pm.