[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.

A quick follow up to a previous post about my Open Data inquiry. The inquiry response report came to Executive Committee yesterday and was well received by the mayor and other councillors who attended. In essence, the report says the City is working hard on opening up as much data as it can in keeping with the Open Data/Open Government trends that are taking hold.

Matthew Dance, a Grad Student in Geography at the University of Alberta spoke eloquently to the possibilities, academic and otherwise, that having more civic information readily available could lead to, especially using locational information. Blogger extraordinaire Mack Male was there too, blogging and live-tweeting away.

In my mind, Open Data fulfills some of what I called yesterday ‘our noblest democratic instincts’.

First, open Data is all about transparency; not simply putting information out, but making it truly accessible and barrier free. To this end, the City took the opportunity to launch its open data catalogue yesterday, which will grow as more data sets are adapted. What’s different about this data is that it’s in generic formats: think of the difference between a Word document (for which you would need Word) and a plain old text file that can be opened on any computer.

The other inspiring democratic opportunity is for collaboration. This kind of information can be used by industries like utility companies and developers, by groups who advocate to the city such as the Edmonton Federation of Community Leagues or the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. I mean collaboration with the city, and among users of data, all of which is quite empowering for the public.

Good facts are still the bedrock of good debate, and the more information that the public has, the better debate will be. Many people who have expressed frustration with government to me have felt in some way disempowered by a lack of information or barriers to information. I think only good can come from making government data as transparent as possible.

I want to acknowledge the leadership of Chris Moore, the City’s Chief Information Officer, who really gets it and is driving this initiative hard within the City, as well as his staff who’ve been instrumental. I should also thank David Edey, the General Manager of Corporate Services and Mr. Moore’s boss, for seeing the democratic potential in all this as well.

Today I submitted the following formal inquiry to city administration. It will likely come back to Council’s Executive Committee early next year. Mack Male and others connected to Change Camp and Bar/Demo Camp have been advocating for this and I’ve been reading about other Canadian projects, like Vancouver’s.

In local, national and sub-national governments around the world there is a trend toward making up-to-date government information freely available on-line in generically accessible data formats as so-called ‘Open Data’.

1) What level of awareness does the City Administration have regarding Open Data in municipal government?

2) What current initiatives are underway within City Administration that might qualify under the spirit of Open Data?

3) What further initiatives are under consideration within the city, and on what basis are they being evaluated?

4) Is Administration monitoring any successes and or challenges with this trend in other jurisdictions, especially large Canadian cities, and if so what can be shared with Council?

5) What would City Administration’s recommendation be on next steps regarding Open Data plans or strategies?

This inquiry process gets the issue on the agenda and we’ll go from there. Chris Moore with IT at the city has been very interested in this and I look forward to the report his group will provide.

[UPDATE Oct 19: Mack Male has posted further salient thoughts after a Change Camp session on this topic this past weekend.]

Councillor Anderson and I submitted a formal Administrative Inquiry this morning on the issues affecting the future of the pool as well as the proper process for dealing with a decision of this nature. We should receive it back to Council’s Community Services Committee in a few weeks.

The text is as follows:

Inquiry: Future of Scona Pool

1. Please provide a written report detailing the business case behind the recommendation to cease operation of Scona Pool. In doing so please confirm:

• How the $80,000 in savings for 2009 closure was determined;
• Attendance trends and comparatives with other Southside pools;
• The gross and net financial projections for 2010 with continued operation;
• Whether the pool owned by EPSB, and if so what are the details of the city’s lease or operating agreement?

2. If the pool is in fact EPSB owned, could the facility be leased and operated independent of the City of Edmonton?

3. Under what financial or operating scenarios might the city’s continued participation be justified?

4. Would the normal process for proposing closure of a city pool involve providing the answers to these kinds of questions in a report to Community Services Committee, and seeking permission to proceed on that basis?

5. If the best course of action is indeed to cease operations, please explain what steps will be taken to accommodate the user groups. Please identify these groups and what consultation has occurred with them and would occur as part of the relocation efforts.