Archive for May, 2009


Notes from Calgary

I’ve been in Calgary since Wednesday night for two reasons: first, the Gaining Ground Sustainable Urban Development Leadership Summit; the other, a friend’s wedding today.

Because of the wedding I haven’t had a chance to record all of my thoughts, but this is the second year I’ve attended the Gaining Ground event in Calgary, and for the second time it has proven provocative, enlightening and inspiring. For example:

  • Provocative: Economist Peter Tertzakian told us that almost anything said about the future of energy is speculative; question all assumptions except one: we are an ‘energy obese’ planet.
  • Enlightening: Daniel Lerch from the Post Carbon Institute told us about Portland’s Peak Oil Strategy and its connection with the Oil Depletion Protocol.
  • Inspiring: I intend to devote a separate post in the coming days to moving remarks delivered by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on the energy and pollution challenges and opportunities ahead, and our obligations to future generations.

Green Festivals

Council’s Executive Committee, which I sit on, received a report outlining a strategy for reducing the environmental footprint of festivals and major events held on city lands, which arose from a formal inquiry I initiated last year after discussing some of the possibilities in this regard with festival and event organizers.

I’m very pleased that the committee gave unanimous direction to move ahead with the strategy and to report back annually on progress.

waste-bin-webThe strategy suggests acquiring a shared set of triple-sort waste bins to be deployed at major events, like the example to the right.

There are related opportunities to better manage the significant waste streams associated with these events. Currently festival waste is processed by commercial handlers (at substantial cost); and while some have invested in composting and recycling initatives, the balance still winds up in private landfills. 

The city’s Waste Management Utility is in a position to see that all the waste streams are harvested for recycling, that the biodegradables are composted though our world-class industrial composter. In time the residual other waste products could be processed through the city’s forthcoming waste-to-energy biofuel facility. I am hopeful that event organizers and Waste Management can come to mutually beneficial arrangements to take advantage of our city’s superb residential waste handling infrastructure.

Longer term there is a push toward biodegradable serve ware (plates, cups, utensils as Heritage Festival did last year), and a reduction in use of supplies derived from non-renewable resources.

There is also work to be done to reduce the energy requirements and carbon footprint for these events through the use of more efficient lighting and renewable sources of energy (such as Folk Fest’s on-site solar).

The main idea is that each of the festivals is doing something, so if the city can coordinate best practices among them we can achieve efficiency and raise the bar. This work also sends the right message about our city’s environmental values to Edmontonians and visitors who attend our festivals and major events.

State of the City

Mayor Mandel presented his annual state of the city address to a packed house at the Chamber of Commerce luncheon at the the Shaw Conference Centre. The text of his remarks is posted here.

[UPDATE: video has been posted here.]

Some of the highlights from my point of view included:

The next generation puts a huge emphasis on the things a city offers outside of your day-job.  They value entertainment, recreation, culture and sports. They want Edmonton to look and feel like a green and global city, and many of them know exactly what this means.  They go to cities where you don’t have to own a car, and they wonder, why not here.   

They know that downtown living can be family-friendly.   They know that young families need space to play and be outside, and they find it in our river valley.  They understand being eco-friendly means changing how we live.

They are not scared of this change, they are impatient for it.  

They want to see Edmonton as a city that can grow upward instead of outward.  They want to use transit, or bikes as much as a car.

The flavour of this is all about investing in the core, and that’s deliberate. Because as much as we have great neighbourhoods all across Edmonton, future growth will focus on transforming and adding density to the footprint we have today. 

Because we can’t sustain our sprawl.  We can’t. 

We are already forecasting a population in our region of 1.7 million people by 2040 – that’s almost 70 per cent growth – can you see us taking-up 70 per cent more space in 30 years?  If we’re forward thinking, we’ll make better use of the space we have.  

The mayor’s focus on the long-term is appropriate and inspiring — and it’s very pleasing to see that he’s hearing our demographic loud and clear.

This focus on the future, and emphasis on our exceptional strengths as a city meshes superbly with the forthcoming Edmonton 2030 vision initiative and a soon-to-be unveiled campaign focusing on a genuine and earnest refresh of our city’s image.

He also dropped the gloves on the airport question with the following:

…the city centre airport and whether or not to change. It’s a fair question.  It has to be asked.   We will hear from those who value the status quo, and from those who think its time for these lands to play a different role. That’s the issue before us. 

I’m not here today to prescribe change, but I do want to issue a challenge. When those who value the status quo come to Council to promote their views, don’t tell us why we should not change. Don’t deny we will need the infill room over 30 years, when we are talking about 1.7 million residents. 

Please understand that environmental costs will have to be paid either way.  Don’t tell us that your business status entitles you to special consideration, and that treating you like every other Edmontonian is somehow an affront.   

Don’t scare people with health issues that are taken out of context by not looking at the whole time it takes to initiate and complete a medical transfer.  

Don’t act like the 1995 decision was just a “maybe”. 

Tell us about your vision.  Tell us that you understand what kind of city Edmonton wants to be in 30 years, and how the status quo enhances and supports that vision. Explain where the future is going, and how the status quo enables it. Explain what you know better, what you see for the future and why we have to listen, and I know that we will. 

And if you can’t do this, then maybe, just maybe, it’s time to let go of the past and move forward.

You could hear a pin drop as this was being said.

My only complaint about today is I think the mayor’s state of the city should be publicly accessible via streaming webcast. I hope this can be made possible for next year’s speech.

Last Run for Edmonton Trolleys

This vintage Brill T-44 trolley is seen running in Belgravia in May of 1974 about two blocks from where I now live. (Courtesy of Angus McIntyre of Vancouver.)  

This vintage Brill T-44 trolley is seen running in Belgravia in May of 1974 about two blocks from where I now live. (Courtesy of Angus McIntyre of Vancouver.)

Trolleys will be taken out of service for good at 5pm tomorrow under the auspices of a cost cutting measure approved by Council as part of our 2009 deficit fighting measures. Details of the last day of service, including a last run of the vintage Brill trolley, have been posted on the city’s website.

I did not support decommissioning the trolley system when Council voted on it in 2008, and I did not support the accelerated decommissioning either.

Cities around the world are taking a fresh look at electrifying portions of their rubber-tire transit systems. Under the right circumstances they are worth the premium cost. Clearly the way ETS had been operating trolleys for the past decade was not optimal, but the only option that was presented to council was to buy new low-floor buses to replace the aging high-floor models; this would merely have recreated a fundamentally inefficient system featuring improved reliability and accessibility.

Frustratingly, city administration never considered changing some of the other parameters that would affect the cost effectiveness and utility of the system, for instance most effective trolley systems maintain a ratio of around one bus per kilometer of overhead wire.

Vancouver has over 270 trolleys for just over 300km of wire, while Philadelphia has 38 trolley buses running under less than 50km of line. Edmonton was maintaining 127 km of line while proposing to run only 30-40 new buses. Running at a third the efficiency of industry best practice accounts for much of the exaggeration of the alleged cost premium. I argued then and maintain now that more buses or less wire might have yielded a cost effective system.

A modern low-floor trolley in service in Vancouver. Same chassis as diesel New Flyer ETS buses.

A modern low-floor trolley in service in Vancouver. Same chassis as diesel New Flyer ETS buses.

The key benefits of electrification are substantially lower noise on the street, and no street level emissions, which are both key to nurturing pedestrian friendly streetscapes. Having a trolley line on the street alse gives a higher measure of certainty about continued service, which is positive for businesses and encourages redevelopment.

There are still emissions associated with our electricity (unlike Europe where nuclear is more prevalent, or Vancouver where hydro largely powers the trolley system) and it was said more than once that the tailpipe for electric transit is just an hour west of the city near the coal beds of Lake Wabamun. However, the life of a new trolley bus is 20-25 years, and if our electricity generation is still dominated by conventional coal in 2030 that’s a big problem. I have hope that our electricity blend will shift over this period toward low and no carbon sources. City administration’s case against trolleys assumed no change in the emissions profile of our electricity over time.

Electricity prices have been more stable historically than oil, which of course will power the replacement diesels over their 15-18 year lifespan. I should also note that administration did not allow for the longer projected lifespan of electric propulsion, nor account for the volatility over time of oil prices in preparing their case against electric propulsion.

I generally give the benefit of the doubt to our civil servants, but this is one instance where I have to confess that they clearly started with a firm position against trolleys, and worked backwards to construct an argument around that conclusion.

A thorough and open-minded analysis (a fair fight) might ultimately have convinced me that a trolley system was the wrong fit for Edmonton’s future, but we didn’t get that. This sad failure is why trolley supporters, including a number of us on council, will mourn the decommissioning of this remarkable aspect of Edmonton history.

The only solace I can take is that this now clears the way to focus on developing LRT as the electric element of our transit system. Diesel buses are more flexible in terms of routing as well, compared to a trolley system with fixed routes, so the city is now free to engage in a long overdue redesign of the bus system to move people faster and better feed LRT.