I’ve been hearing more and more frustration with parking around the LRT: both the shortage of convenient places to park for riders, and neighbouring community concern with so-called ‘parasitic parking’ plugging up nearby residential streets.

We filmed a short video with my thoughts on some considerations and possible next steps for Park and Ride:

The city stands ready to assist neighbourhoods with implementing residential parking restrictions if they are desired. Restrictions have gone in near 76 Ave, they are being implemented in Malmo just West of Southgate station, and they are being contemplated in Parkallen to the east of South Campus and in Blue Quill to the west of Century Park station.

So the good news is people want to use the LRT. The bad news is a lot of folks are driving to get to it. As suggested in the video, we need better bus feeder service to help commuters access LRT without needing their cars.

We will also eventually need a larger permanent lot to the south near the Henday to take up some of the regional and suburban demand where bus service is poor or nonexistent.

Most people don’t realize that the city still owns the land for a parkade in the northwest corner of Century Park. However, if we’re going to build a parkade at Century Park (or anywhere else for that matter) I think riders will have to come to terms with paying something for the privilege of parking in a parking stall that costs $30,000 or more to construct.

The Parking Membership pilot program, which I support, is a start toward this. It calls for 18% of the stalls to be set aside for people who buy the roughly $40/month membership. I believe if will be oversold on day one. This program will be debated by the next council as part of the 2011 budget deliberations for implementation in the new year. Charging a modest fee will also help manage demand by sending a price signal to those who could walk or take a connecting bus or carpool with others to the park and ride to make a more cost effective choice.

So we have work to do in the short term and long term to deal with the impacts of high-demand LRT service.

I haven’t said much about the ongoing Expo 2017 bid but I’ve been getting more questions about it, particularly in neighbourhoods adjacent to the proposed U of A South Campus site.

On the one hand, I accept that council overwhelmingly supported it, and I see some of the benefits like leveraging investment in U of A expansion and getting some other key civic infrastructure fast tracked, like LRT and a new Walterdale bridge.

On the other hand I see some practical risks. The cost of building the proposed infrastructure on a tight timeline has uncertainty because strict deadlines sometimes drive costs up. More concerning, our resource-heavy economy is still subject to commodity-driven booms which also drive up construction costs, and this is completely out of our control. If the province is able to assume the risk on the infrastructure side, that at least will reduce our city’s financial risk. The current thinking is that the city would back the operations and take the risk there. The infrastructure budget is in the billions, the operational budget are the hundreds of millions.

I am also concerned about risk to the city’s reputation if the Energy theme isn’t very carefully handled. Energy issues are tricky in Alberta, and the project cannot look like a marketing exercise for the oilsands otherwise it could do more harm than good. However, I’m assured that those working on the bid are also hypersensitive to this.

I have a more principled hesitation, which is that while hosting these events can yield great investments in infrastructure for host cities, the very reason this is attractive is because we have a weak urban infrastructure strategy in this country. Now this isn’t an Expo issue, it’s an intergovernmental fiscal issue, but it’s related because we need to build communities to succeed whether they host big events or not; but that isn’t happening now – which is part of why cities go after these events.

The other reason for these events is more etherial: Montreal and Vancouver are both cited as Canadian examples which had transformative impact. But can Expos still make the kind of impact they once did? The Shanghai Expo happening this year does seem to be presented by the Chinese Government as a kind of watershed moment for that country, but the scale of it eclipses anything previously presented (they’ve spent more than $60 billion), and is orders of magnitude greater than what is proposed for 2017 ($2-3 Billion).

It’s been argued by many of my Council colleagues that our city needs a moment to rally around – a spark to ignite a new and more confident way of seeing ourselves in the world, and this notion is the source of their enthusiasm. Some of them who were at Expo ’67 describe having this kind of experience, and remember Canada having just such a moment. Thus, the concurrence with Canada’s 150th anniversary in 2017 is no accident.

And yet, I still find myself pondering what mid-size cities in the world are doing to ‘get on the map’ as it were. I think of Portland, Oregon; Boulder, Colorado; and Austin, Texas. All of them are leveraging strong post-secondary institutions, focusing on economic development in technology, and delivering exceptional quality of life for residents. They do this to attract and retain productive people. It’s a simple formula when you break it down, but it seems to me that whether we get Expo or not, we need to stay focused on that kind of city-building here in Edmonton.

So: since you asked, I’m agnostic on Expo. Most of the rest of the outgoing Council was firmly committed to it so my focus has been, and will be, to provide constructive input on managing the risks, and special attention to ensuring meaningful engagement with the surrounding communities that would be affected by the main site on South Campus.

Plain and simple, the petition had two problems: not enough valid signatures, and it came in too late. The petition reports are here.

The petition did not get the 78,244 valid signatures required by provincial law to force a binding plebiscite. I put no stock in the conspiracy theories concerning the petition verification process – the City’s clerks are among the most fair-minded process-driven people you’d ever meet. Suggestions to the contrary are insulting to the integrity of hard-working City staff.

There was a lot of speculation about how many signatures would be enough: 50,000; 60,000; 75,000? In the end Council stuck to the threshold set out in provincial law. It is a high threshold, but for good reason, and it should not be undermined.

It became apparent to me in the discussion yesterday that the other problem with the petition is actually more serious: timing is everything, and the Envision Edmonton petition was submitted far too late. Under the Municipal Government Act, petitioners desiring to overturn a Council decision must submit their petition within 60 days of the decision. That clock started running in July of 2009. No doubt that is onerous but the reason for the deadline is that it’s costly and difficult for a city to stop once it begins to implement a decision like this, particularly a decision with impacts upon third parties and that calls for significant city investment.

The date of closure set for the first runway (16/34) was known months in advance. The fact that lease buyouts were under active negotiation is common knowledge. The LRT planning to and through the Airport lands has been ongoing. Key decision points have come and gone, and yet Envision waited to begin their campaign until this summer, and submitted their petition only weeks before this fall’s election.

Mr. Allard, the petitioners’ spokesperson, said Democracy doesn’t have a best before date, and while I have to say that the 60 day rule would be an unduly harsh standard to judge their efforts by, waiting 350+ days was clearly a political move to prime this election season and push Council to take easy political cover by putting the issue on the ballot as a non-binding plebiscite.

A motion was put forward to put the issue on the ballot that might have provided just that political cover. It was roughly: “Do you want the city keep the City Centre Airport open for general aviation – yes or no.” The practical problem with the question is that an affirmative vote means the airport would limp along with one runway for another 10 years, until the question of the airport’s viability inevitably arose once again. This cycle could conceivably repeat until the expiry of the Edmonton Regional Airport Authority lease in 2052. Under that lease, opening it back up to scheduled air service is  out of the question, and all costs to enhance the airport would bear upon the City.

One point raised over and over that I need to address is that the 1995 plebiscite question included an afterword that read: “Under both options the City will continue to own and offer general air services (e.g. private planes, small charters, air ambulance) at the Municipal Airport.” So did 100% of people vote to keep the airport open in 1995 as has been argued? Not necessarily. The question was on consolidation of scheduled service at the International. People had no way to give their opinion on closure so we can’t make any conclusions about the public’s will. The statement simply reflects that the Council of the day said they intended to keep it open either way.

So we tried that for 13 years until the question of the Airport’s sustainability was raised at Council 2008. After lengthy study in 2009, my conclusion was that the City Centre Airport was in inexorable decline, and that’s why I supported closure then. That decline has only accelerated with the implementation of Council’s decision over the past year. The appropriate time for the public to petition, or for Council to put it on the ballot, was sometime last year.

Phased closure will continue, and I’m prepared to defend that decision in this fall’s election.

Last week at Council’s Community Services Committee we received an an update on progress of the REACH Edmonton Council for Safe Communities initiative, and the business case for the 24/7 service delivery model (summary). This week it comes to Council for approval.

I probably should have written about REACH previously, and the important precursor work of the Mayor’s Task Force on Community Safety. All credit is due to the Mayor and to Councillor Amarjeet Sohi for their leadership on the task force. I’ve been very supportive of the work when it’s come before Council.

They key is to bring together existing agencies and programs under one roof, with community buy-in, and lining it all up to reall ymake an impact on prevention. The only catch? Patience. Here’s the pitch from the Reach Report:

IN ONE GENERATION

If adopted and shared, this strategy can ensure individuals, families and neighbourhoods work together with social agencies to address the root causes of crime in Edmonton. This report acknowledges that we need law and order to bear on the results of crime, but it is grounded in the belief that the best results, the greater efficiencies and the greatest social returns come from preventing crime.

One of the most interesting aspects is the emphasis throughout the process on Social Returns on Investment. In essence, this means estimating the long term impacts of up-front investments in programs to, for instance, help kids steer clear of gangs, or help families deal better with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder. Another recommendation that is particularly appealing is the focus on ‘Schools as Hubs’ for high-needs families, children and youth. With approval this week of the 24/7 Service Delivery model five of the nine recommendations will have been addressed.

Representatives of some of the agencies who spoke at the committee were very optimistic. Liz O’Neil from Big Brothers and Big Sisters reminded us that we all know we need to work across silos and jurisdictions on 30 year projects but that with the City brokering these conversations with the province instead of agency by agency we’ll make much greater progress. Sandra Bromley from iHuman noted that under the REACH umbrella agencies will be collaborating instead of competing for grants as they have historically.

So REACH is shaping up nicely. As they develop their monitoring and, in particular, their Social Return on Investment measures, I look forward to reporting more.

This post follows up on three previous posts on the Arena topic: here, here and here.

Mr. Katz came to City Hall this week in response to Council’s invitation to come and publicly present his vision for the Arena District. He clarified his position on funding: $100 million toward the arena itself, a new $100 million toward the nearby development, and reminded us that he spent roughly $200 million buying the team in the first place.

The Katz Group asserted that the Oilers will not play in Rexall Place, renovated or otherwise, past 2014. They would not clarify what happens after that, which leaves us all to speculate. But it does present a deadline and, more or less an ultimatum to deliver a new arena.

It would seem that Council may be prepared to go ahead and partner with him to build a new arena publicly. Council directed that this not involve raising taxes, and asked for Northlands to be brought back to the table (all the motions are below).

I’m still not sold.

My questions of the Katz delegation (here on video at the Edmonton Journal website) and city staff focused on two main points: exploring why a private funding option appears to have been ruled out, and what risks and opportunity costs the city might experience by being involved in building and financing the arena. My motions at council, which passed, probe these issues further:

Downtown Arena – Private Development

1. That Administration develop a benchmark scenario for private development of the facility and report back on the proforma for this. If it is Administration’s conclusion that it is not feasible for an arena to be built privately, then detail and quantify the financial gaps that stand in the way.

Community Revitalization Levy – (Downtown) Risk Leakage

2. That Administration report to Council on the risks of leakage of development potential from the pending Quarters Community Revitalization Levy to the proposed Arena District Community Revitalization Levy. [I wrote about some of the issues with levy financing in a previous post.]

The key message in the Katz Group pitch for a new arena is the assertion that the Oilers are ‘not sustainable’ as they operate today. They argued that this is because:

Rexall place does not meet their needs - not enough seats and luxury boxes, which translate to lower ticket revenues than might be realized in a new arena.

They don’t get all revenues realized from the arena - apparently other NHL teams get the non-hockey related revenues from their buildings, whether they own them or not; in other words, they want the business Northlands is doing on the other nights between hockey games. They also want a larger building with more concession opportunities.

The team has lost money over the last ten years, including each of the last two - it was said that Mr. Katz has subsidized the team with several million dollars in both seasons he’s owned it.

After speaking to the community benefits of the team Mr. Katz put it plainly: “But the team is also a business. And like any business, it needs a sound financial base in order to be sustainable, which today it is not.” This remark comes about five minutes into a video of his remarks on the Edmonton Journal website.

The Katz Group essentially argued that the Oilers play in a small building in a small market and that because of insufficient revenues they can’t afford to build their own rink – even if they had control of non-hockey revenue and could sell more seats.

They also argued that three of the last four Canadian NHL arenas failed – all of which were built privately – and that they are not prepared to take that risk (they supplied me this document on this point).

There may in fact not be enough money in the hockey business in Edmonton for them to afford to build a rink. If that’s true, and if they won’t play at Rexall, and if we want to have a hockey team, their logic flows that it has to be built by the city.

And so the real question Council was led to was: what’s it worth for Edmonton to keep the team? I don’t think there’s all that much risk of Mr. Katz moving the team. I think the issue is what happens if he felt forced to sell the team – and then who knows what the next owner might do?

The main motion, moved by Cllr. Batty was:

That Administration:

1. Enter into discussions with the Katz Group of Companies and Northlands on a framework for the financing, not including an increase in current property taxes, and operations of a potential downtown arena and entertainment project.

2. Develop a community consultation program, in line with City Policy C513, on a downtown arena and entertainment district project on a city-wide basis.

Anticipated Impacts on Northlands

3. Prepare a report for Council on Edmonton Northlands’ anticipated impacts and opportunities relating to any potential downtown arena and entertainment district project.

Invitation to Edmonton Northlands

4. Invite Edmonton Northlands to make a formal presentation to Council on the impacts of a new sports and entertainment facility and the future of Rexall Place and the overall financial health of Northlands.

Cllr. Sloan’s motion:

Downtown Arena – Potential Impacts

That Administration prepare a report on potential impacts on City operations, infrastructure and investments of a potential downtown arena and include an update on any commitments of Federal and Provincial funding for this project.

[Update, 2pm July 26: my written questions to Katz Group and City Administration posted to the comments area below.]

The following ran in last week’s Edmonton Examiner as part of our monthly ‘Councillor Connection’ column. It is reproduced here for reference.

Last week Council established 2011 budget guidelines for City Administration to work towards.

As with last year, Council set a target for an overall tax increase of 5% for 2011.

I recognize that very few Edmontonians’ incomes will increase that much in 2011, and that tax increases that exceed inflation are especially difficult for those on fixed incomes.

I wish that municipalities in Alberta had access to other forms of taxation, (such as the sales taxes US cities have, or a dedicated portion of the income tax like Winnipeg gets), which would be far more progressive, and would reduce our over-reliance on property taxes. In this vein, we will be looking at whether there are some user fees that could be increased to support certain services rather than taxes.

I should stress that the main drivers in the proposed increase are infrastructure related.

The guideline includes a 2% charge dedicated specifically to investments in neighbourhood roads, curbs, and sidewalks. This would be the third year of 2% increases in a row for this program, which altogether will increase investment in neighbourhood reconstruction and preventive maintenance by more than $50 million annually.

At this rate we’ll be able to tackle the backlog of work in mature neighbourhoods within 10-20 years instead of 50-100, while also preventing newer neighbourhoods from falling into the same disrepair.

There are also debt service costs associated with the major road and bridge projects we see unfolding around us, as well as the new recreation centres. These payments alone are equivalent to almost a 3% tax increase.

There are other costs under pressure from the growth of the city – i.e. the more we spread out the less efficient our emergency services, waste and transportation systems become. These operating costs are rising faster than the tax revenue we get from new development.

In other words, continued sprawl is pushing costs, and in turn taxes, up.

On the bright side, previous years’ larger increases were  also driven by a combination of increased infrastructure spending and labour market pressure. With the economic slowdown we can anticipate a more moderate cost of labour for the city, and better pricing on infrastructure, which is why we’re eager to push ahead with more LRT.

Earlier today I helped launch the City’s next big planning exercise, namely the new environmental strategic plan dubbed ‘The Way We Green‘. It’s picking up after the 2006 Environmental Strategic Plan, which was good but more internally focused on the city and not very high-profile.

The project is building on the widespread consultations in 2008 that led to the city’s 30 year vision and 10 year overall strategic plan, The Way Ahead. That same consultation work fed into the creation of the first three specific strategic plans: The Way We Move (our transportation plan, approved in the fall of 2009); The Way We Grow (our development plan, which should be finalised next month); and The Way We Live (our ‘people plan’ which will to council next month).

But now it’s time to drill down and focus specifically on the environment – the services we get from it, the impacts we have on it, and the value we place on it.

The City is inviting Edmontonians to learn more and participate by visiting the project website at www.edmonton.ca/thewaywegreen.  The city commissioned the Edmonton Sustainability Papers, a provocative set of 21 essays that cover virtually every imaginable topic from the how price signals can shift behaviours affecting our environment to the concept of an ecological footprint. It’s going to take me a while to get through them all but the ones I’ve read are just what we had in mind. There are also videos covering topics from peak oil/peak energy to ecological economics.

There are a few things I’m really proud to see as part of this project that I specifically pushed for:

• understanding that we need to come to a common and meaningful definition of sustainability, and recapture that word (or, alternately finding other language – see the inspiring paper on ‘resiliency‘);
• a big focus on energy, particularly in respect of depleting fossil fuels, transitions and alternatives;
• a honest look at what adapting to climate change may entail, since it’s looking pretty likely
• closely involving the city’s Next Gen Committee and Youth Council in this work;
• using social media to engage the public.

This is critical work. Indeed, I think it’s one of the most significant conversations our community will ever have.

What follows ran in today’s Edmonton Examiner as my monthly column. It follows up from this previous post.

I heard loud and clear that last week was challenging for many motorists encountering LRT on the south side, especially those who use 51 Avenue.

The transportation department remains focused on optimizing the performance of all intersections along 111 Street.

However, we all need to accept that these intersections will not operate like they did before the LRT opened.

The wait for left turns and east/west-bound traffic will be longer all up and down 111 Street. This was not a traffic engineering error.

The disruptions we saw at 51 Avenue last week were clearly the result of an error. Fortunately, last week’s traffic was moving better after a significant change to the signal timing.

I personally visited 51 Avenue several times during the first part of the week to see the problems for myself and understand the transportation department’s approach to the problem.

On the bright side, travelling north/south will be faster since that is the dominant flow of traffic and trains. In fact, a number of constituents have told me their commute by car up 111 Street is faster than before the train opened.

One way to think about this is that opening LRT is like building a six-lane freeway in terms of its capacity to move people, so when you’re crossing 111 Street in a sense it’s like crossing the equivalent of a 10-12 lane road.

Many have contacted me to ask why the major intersections were not tunneled under or bridged over, and the decision was made during the planning phase based on computer modeling of each intersection. Each grade separation costs millions to implement, and cause more serious disruption so they are used very sparingly.

Other citizens have asked whether the experience at these intersections will change the city’s intentions to run the new southeast-to-west line on the surface, including through downtown.

This is a fair question that we will have to explore. The initial plans involve limiting many of the left turns, which wasn’t done on the South LRT.

Feel free to contact me if you have any questions at 780-496- 8132 or at don.iveson@edmonton.ca.

This post is a follow up from my Snow Policy Must Change post.

Yesterday at Transportation and Public Works committee we debated the proposed new Snow Policy. My comment to the head of Transportation was “I couldn’t have written this better myself.” It calls for just what I called for back in January, specifically: a 5cm snow pack instead of the 10cm pack maintenance, which hasn’t worked. The full report is here.

This appendix entitled Cost Summary of Residential Plowing indicating that we’re budgeting $2.4 million to maintain the 10cm pack under current policy. The proposed 5cm snow pack standard would cost $800,000 more annually, which is pretty reasonable.

Plowing to bare pavement without removal (i.e. with large windrows) would cost $6.6 million more per year than what we spend now, or $8 million per year. Plowing to bare pavement and removing the windrows would cost more than ten times what we’re spending annually ($8M for plowing, $15M for trucking, $2M for snow site operation), plus the development of an additional four snow storage sites at $25 million a pop. Not so reasonable.

City staff also undertook extensive public consultation work confirming there is little support for a bare-pavement policy, and broad support for maintaining a snow pack and limiting windrows.

The new policy clarifies that windrows less than 30cm high on driveways will be the adjacent property owner’s responsibility to clear, while windrows 30cm and above higher than this will be cleared by the city.

The policy was recommended to Council and will likely be confirmed next week. We’ll need to find the $800,000 in resources, but Council should be able to find this in the 2011 budget without much, if any, impact upon the tax levy.

The most relevant text in the new policy reads as follows:

In any given snow event , a city-wide residential plowing program will be initiated (including Alleys ) immediately after the Arterial and Collector road network has been plowed and considered to be in safe condition. Residential Roads will be bladed to a 5 cm snow pack condition.

When rutting or snow drifting occurs residential roadways will be bladed to maintain a level snow pack condition.

Service level will only involve the blading of snow. Windrows ( less than 30 cm in height) left behind blocking driveways will be the responsibility of the adjacent property owner. Windrows (more than 30cm in height) left behind will be cleared as to not block driveways.

Snow will not be hauled away.

Notification of residential blading or plowing will be announced through the media. A parking ban will not be used.

Plowing to bare pavement on residential roads may be initiated at the discretion of the City Manager. Bare pavement shall include:

• All driveways, crosswalks and corners will be opened.
• Where windrows of snow are created they will not be hauled away.
• In cul de sacs snow will be stacked in the centre and hauled away.
• Alleys are not covered under city-wide bare pavement policy.

The committee asked for more information about the terms under which the last clause about plowing to bare pavement would cause the City Manager to exercise that discretion.

Though the new extension of the South LRT has otherwise gotten off to a smooth start, there were significant problems at 51 Ave yesterday and again today. I’ve been in touch with the senior staff at the Transportation Department and they are keeping us apprised of their work and I visited the intersection twice during evening rush hour yesterday. I spoke to one bus driver who was delayed 21 minutes turning from westbound to southbound.

I received the following update from the Manager of Transportation Operations this afternoon which outlines significant changes that changes are being implemented and the timelines:

- signal phase structure is being modified – rather than separate eastbound and westbound phases, the east/west movements will occur at the same time, and then in turn east/west left turns will occur at the same time

- this change in phase structure will allow a reduction in the overall signal cycle from over 3 minutes to less than 2 minutes due to combining movements on the two pedestrian crossings, in combination with other signal phase duration changes

- in combination, these changes will minimize the risk of a signal phase being skipped more than once, however additional work needs to be done to further optimize the operation

- we are working with LRT to see if we can have a more regularized arrival pattern at the intersection – the current LRT train operation is highly random which affects phase skipping

- with the replacement of the central control computer later this summer, additional flexibility will be provided through the ability to more directly intervene in signal timings in the field

Instructions have been sent to EPCOR regarding the required changes with direction to implement as quickly as possible – worst case scenario will be some time tomorrow, but we will keep you posted once we have more information.

We did observe delays of up to 15 minutes in worst case for eastbound and also observed pedestrians crossing 111 St without waiting for the signals, both factors which are not acceptable and risky.

I can assure all those who have been impacted by this problem that resolving this is a top priority.