Could City of Peterborough’s transit upgrades include Uber?

Innisfil has made a hybrid transit-Uber system work

Next week, Peterborough city council is expected to approve a recommendation that up to $2,077,188 be spent on an “intelligent transportation system” for Peterborough Transit. This investment will represent a substantial technological upgrade to the city’s transit service and include improvements such as real time tracking of the location of buses; prediction of the arrival time of buses at bus stops; notification to users of route detours; an app that permits travellers to plan trips; bus communication with traffic signals to extend a green light; automatic passenger counts to help with planning; and cameras on buses for passenger and driver safety and video evidence.

In recent years, the city has taken some small steps in the technological upgrade of its transit operations, including electronic next stop announcements and pre-boarding announcements, both of which were required by Ontario accessibility legislation. Nonetheless, city staff correctly point out that Peterborough has lagged behind other municipalities in terms of its transit technology. The proposed “intelligent transportation system” improvements are welcome and deserve to be supported.

As city council considers these improvements , it might well have a look at a recent transit initiative in the Town of Innisfil just south of Barrie. A year ago last month, the town partnered with technology company Uber to launch Canada’s first doorto-door, ride sharing-transit partnership. The town pays a subsidy for every Uber car trip taken by residents. Riders set up an account connected to an electronic payment system or use an Uber gift card. They use a smartphone to drop a pin or enter the name or address of their destination. Many trips have a flat fare of between $3 and $5. All other locations have a discount of $5 off the fare and there are no Uber surcharges. An UberPool service enables and encourages shared rides.

The Innisfil transit experiment has worked extremely well. In the first eight months of the program, 3,400 residents took more than 26,700 trips using the service. The program cost the Town $165,535 or an average gross subsidy of $5.73 per passenger – a bargain compared with the $33 per rider subsidy predicted for a traditional bus service. A transit user survey revealed a 77 per cent customer satisfaction rate. After a trial period, the town added more flat-fare options and increased its subsidy budget.

In effect, Innisfil taxpayers subsidize the users of a demand-based transit operation that requires no buses; no terminals; no fixed routes, schedules or transit stops; and no staff salaries. Uber, which has more than 35 partnerships with public transit agencies around the world, benefits by securing local business; it also creates local, part-time employment.

Could a similar Uber program serve as an added feature to current Peterborough Transit operations, which require a net subsidy of $7.7 million this year? It has a great deal to commend it, including reduced public costs, 24-hour door to door service to an entire community and local employment.

However, the concept will be problematic for those who view traditional public transit as a method of keeping private cars off the road. In urban areas, it adds to concerns about increased traffic congestion. Some will have a principled opposition to the privatization of public services. Traditional transit operators will argue that their ridership may decrease. Transit unions will be unhappy.

The concept should have some appeal in low-density Peterborough County. In the City of Peterborough, however, it is likely well beyond city council’s narrow comfort zone for innovation.