[Update, May 10, 2011: the thorough and reassuring report responding to the Inquiry was discussed at Transportation committee. It can be downloaded here.]

As was widely reported earlier this week, I bore witness firsthand to a breakdown on the LRT that left hundreds stranded during rush hour, some for up to 50 minutes, on one of the coldest mornings of the year.

To be clear, I don’t expect the LRT or any other complex system to work perfectly. As a regular user of the system, I’ve waited patiently through occasional disruptions and been made late because of them, but no more than when I used to drive and get caught in an unexpected disruptions of the road system.

So my first concern was the absence of information about what the disruption was and how long it was expected to last.  This was the main issue I overheard among the people I was waiting with.

Once it became clear that it was going to be a long disruption, my next thought was for what could be done to provide shelter for people who were growing colder amidst the uncertainty, even the majority who were dressed for the conditions. (I was also worried for those who weren’t dressed for it but heartened to see the kindness of people making room for them in the shelter on the platform.)

One mechanism Edmonton City Councillors have to follow up on issues like this is a ‘Councillor Inquiry’ which is essentially a formal request for information (these are not common among municipalities, I’m told). We cannot direct new work be undertaken (that would require a proper motion to be made and voted on by Council or one of its committees) but if direction is needed when the report comes back Council can direct so at that time.

I made the inquiry at Council yesterday as follows:

Please describe our practices when there is an unexpected service disruptions on LRT, specifically:

1) What type of announcements are supposed to be made over the PA, and are there other methods currently available to provide information to passengers on expected timelines to restore service or advice for alternate travel options?

2) Is the corporation considering any other options for providing information to passengers in these situations?

3) In the case of mechanical failure of one train which congests one direction of travel, would it be possible to short-turn some trains moving in the opposite direction to keep service moving?

4) Are there any special contingencies for unexpected disruptions during severe weather?

5) Have there been an unusually large number of unexpected service disruptions in the last six months? If so please shed light as to why.

I received dozens of emails from citizens on this matter; most were pleased it was being looked into, but many also raised the matter of the unpredictability of bus service. Of course they are connected because reliability is a necessary part of the whole system, including bus and LRT, but the solutions are different. In my view ‘Smart Bus’ technology (consisting of GPS, digital communication with dispatch, and a variety of location-based systems) is needed so we can track the actual location and performance of our buses and re-route buses when service is disrupted. Knowing how the system is actually performing will increase accountability as well. Council finally approved moving ahead with a pilot last month (story here and council reports here) which lags behind many other cities, but represents progress.

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.

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.

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.

This follows up from a previous post of mine from last fall. Yesterday Council’s Transportation and Public Works Committee received this report and further debated the merits of transit service to the International Airport.

The City and County of Leduc are close to offering a commuter service to their citizens and employers that would connect to and/or through the airport. This service would most likely be operated by ETS as a charter, as is currently done for Spruce Grove and Ft. Saskatchewan, and would operate at peak hours only with a focus on moving commuters.

I argued that we have an narrow window of opportunity to leverage Leduc’s interest in providing transit for their citizens, and partner in a service which would also serve our citizens; this would compliment the Edmonton Regional Airport Authority’s interest in a relevant transit link from EIA to Century Park, which opens this week.

There was lengthy discussion about what the acceptable cost recovery would be for this service. Our ETS Advisory Board argued that while 100% cost recovery might be possible with only a 9% share of trips to and from the airport; capturing only 4% of those trips would match the usual cost recovery ratio of ETS service, which is around 43%. This assumes no contribution from the other municipalities or the airport authority, and a $2.50 charge each way. I’ve heard support for a higher cash fare as well, but pricing will be explored as part of any negotiations.

I believe we can effectively partner with the neighbouring municipalities and the Airport Authority, share any net cost of any service, establish a good precedent for regional collaboration, and make a stronger application for provincial Green Trip funding support. In that spirit, the motion which I proposed and was passed reads:

That the Transportation and Public Works Committee recommend to City Council that Administration approach the City of Leduc, the County of Leduc, the Edmonton Regional Airport Authority (and the Province as appropriate) to attempt to negotiate a partnership agreement and budget impacts for Council consideration that would implement peak and off-peak public transit service running direct from the Southern terminus of the LRT to the International Airport, building upon the potential ETS charter service serving the Capital Region Board partners and report back to the June 23, 2010, City Council meeting.

It’s not a done deal as this will doubtless get further debate at next week’s Council meeting, and then who knows how the negotiations will unfold.

Mack Male provided a nice summary here of some of the background. This is the Edmonton Journal story on the discussion. The Sun’s take is here.

I’ve been pushing on this issue for some time, and finally we got to discuss the matter today at the Transportation and Public Works Committee. There were two reports:

The first report was from the Edmonton Transit System Advisory Board advocating that an ETS pilot project commence with the opening of LRT to Century Park. Some very interesting passenger survey information about attitudes toward airport transit which provided food for thought for the committee.

The second report was in response to my motion subsequent to the City Centre Airport closure decision that directed the city to work towards airport service with our regional partners and the airport authority.

Much has already been said about why this is important, so I’ll just say that this is one of those litmus tests of whether we’re a city or a town.

The following motion was passed, which should keep with idea moving with our regional partners, which is the preferred way of achieving this service, but provides for a Plan-B the regional plans stall or prove less than ideal for Edmontonians:

That Administration bring a report to TPW March 16 of 2010 providing:

1) known and proposed implementation details of the Capital Region Board inter-municipal transit plan, including specific details of how Edmontonians might connect to the International Airport

2) a commentary on the ETSAB report 2009CATR01 with an assessment of feasibility of the ETSAB proposal and recommendations for implementation of transit service to the airport in the event that the Capital Region Board initiative either won’t adequately serve Edmontonians or is delayed indefinitely.

The infamous ETS Platinum has a smart card reader onboard.

Tomorrow council’s Transportation and Public Works (TPW) Committee will discuss a report on the prospects for implementing a ‘smart card’ system for paying fares on ETS. These are typically ‘contactless’ or ‘proximity’ systems where you simply wave the card past the reader.

The report responds to an inquiry I initiated a couple of months ago in anticipation of my rotation on to TPW for the next year.

I’ve been keen on this since having a great experience in London with the ‘Oyster Card‘ system on my honeymoon three years ago, and since working on the U-Pass negotiations and implementation in my former role working for students at the U of A.

These systems have much broader application as well, such as the ability to integrate with other civic and partner cards, for example Edmonton Public Library card, City rec facility access, parking access. In Asia many smart card systems also function as debit cards.

ETS has been conducting a pilot project with the U of A, who are also evaluation smart card systems for their One-Card, which illustrates some of the potential for partnerships with other institutions.

From the report:

A key benefit of smart cards is the improved operational efficiency due to simplified fare product and financial distribution channels. Agencies report better revenues due to re-designed fare strategies, value-added service features and convenience.   Other benefits include:

• Better able to forecast service and market adjustments with real time travel and usage data
• Improve use of all transit modes due to easier transfers
• Deliver immediate benefits and changes to fares, etc. to users
• Provide access to other municipal services
• Accept other smart cards from banks, etc.

There are positive operating budget impacts outlined in the report as well:

reduce financial losses due to fare evasion

sell advertisement on the card (logos, etc.)

reduce costs associated with printing fare media and distribution

enable immediate changes to create a more efficient transit service based on real time commuter travel history

reduce some of the support needed for other fare systems (ie cash, tickets, etc.).

I would add the following as well:

• Customer ease of use in terms of being able to recharge the card on-line or automatically.
• Ability to manage zone fares easily, which will be more important as intermunicipal transit develops in the Capital Region.
• Ability to deactivate if lost or stolen.

The report indicates a four year rollout with a $24 million price tag. The city’s auditor recommended in 2006 that the city persue this as the financial and operational benefits were strong. I’m hoping to give it a push forward tomorrow and get the formal business case prepared.

I’d like to see us get started on implementation soon. This isn’t leading edge stuff anymore. This is now an established practice.

  

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.

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.

As part of finalizing the tax rates (the last step in our annual budget cycle) Council debated the merits of charging for parking at the city’s LRT lots. The Journal has posted a good synopsis here. The short version is we decided not to for now.

I think most members of council, myself included, realized that more information was needed before we shift away from our free parking policy.

To that end, council directed City Administration to bring us an analysis of: potential impacts on ridership (and fare revenues); the logistics of collecting the fees and managing access to the lots; and the state of the bus feeder service to LRT, particularly in the Northeast.

It was also noted by the mayor and others that there is significant value tied up in this land, and that eventual transit-oriented development could actually yield more riders than any parking lot over time, so we asked for information about the land value and development opportunities as well. (Many cities assemble land around transit hubs, supply parking, and then phase it out over time to replace it with development.) 

I supported putting the question off until we get all these details, but I’m still inclined to recover some revenue to offset the costs of the land and maintenance. Whether $3/day is fair also merits study.

I can’t forget, however, that many of the people who use these lots come from outside Edmonton (15-25%, according to a 2008 survey) and have not paid to build or maintain our transit system through their property taxes.

Honestly, many of our citizens who park and ride now could either walk or use bus service but don’t because the easy parking is entirely subsidized by the tax base.

Much was also made of the poor quality of bus feeder service in the North East, which is debatable. If it’s the case that the bus service needs improvements I am all for directing the proceeds of any parking fees into improving the bus service.

Thanks to the urging and enthusiasm of active citizens and local Twitter personalities @camlinke and @mastermaq, my office is helping to organize Edmonton’s first ever TransitCamp next month.

As with most “unconferences” there will be opportunities for attendees to present and the sessions will be very dialogue oriented. ETS and Tranportation Department Planners will make some presentations, but this is a community-led event and they are as much there to listen.  I appreciate the open-mindedness City Administration has shown and think it will be a great afternoon for both the public and our civil servants.

Below are the preliminary details; more to follow as we nail down some really neat pending presentations.

Saturday, May 30, 2009
Noon until 4:30pm
World Trade Centre (map)