[positive1]

I was in Scotland this year and got on the bus and paid with my iPhone - this is not new technology and I can't understand what Edmonton is doing. There is also WiFi on the buses and trains there and has been for years.
If we can pay for food or coffee without cash in a food truck, we should be able to do it on a bus or LRT. We are so far behind other countries that it is embarrassing. Jeez.

 

[CplKlinger]

I am at a loss to understand what you mean that the operational budget hasn't increased, because clearly it has. ETS runs more kilometers in 2022 than it did in 2002, operates more service hours etc.
Are you talking more as long the lines of the ETS budget per capita? Or as a portion of he total city budget? or something along those lines?

While I wait for a response, the report on sustainable funding models provides some background. The stats only go back to 2014, but they help paint the picture at least.

 

[EdwardEdm]

While I wait for a response, the report on sustainable funding models provides some background. The stats only go back to 2014, but they help paint the picture at least.

Breakdown of these graphs:
Revenue hours/ Year- remained consistent
Revenue hours/ Capita- Decreased
Cost Recovery- Decreased

While is appears on the face that Transit isn't keeping up with growth, seeing a dip in cost recovery while maintaining revenue hours means that there was a ridership decrease.

What they didn't do was a graph on revenue hours per ridership
2014- 45.3 passengers/ service hour
2015- 43.8 passengers/ service hour
2016- 42.2 passengers/ service hour
2017- 42.7 passengers/ service hour
2018- 42.5 passengers/ service hour
2019- 42.3 passengers/ service hour

No surprise, these numbers align with the graph showing the decline in farebox recovery. So why did the population increase, but ETS ridership dropped? What was the root cause of that? Would tossing more money into more service get those riders back? Or would it just reduce the cost recovery ratio?

Over a longer timeframe of 2002-2019:

2002: 30.5 million revenue kilometers, 1.7 million vehicle hours, ridership 44.4 million
2019: 43.7 million revenue kilometers, 2.3 million vehicle hours, ridership 86.7 million

2002 population 700,000ish (data missing from CoE website)
2019 population 972,223

Population growth was 38.9%
Revenue kilometer growth 43.4%

Generally funding has kept pace with City growth over the long term. Certainly, service levels did stagnant in the 2014-2019 timeframe however, ridership did drop and importantly, service hours remained intact. I feel it is important to understand the root cause of that drop in ridership. Trust me. We did see lots of growth over the years. One particularly interesting time was 2007-2010 when Edmonton received 350ish new buses in a 3 year time span. The first 230 were supposed to replace the high floor buses, but into 2009 there were still upwards of 70-80 high floor buses. 2009's 121 new buses finally killed off the high floors plus expanded the fleet. On top of that the full length of the SLRT opened, and buses and service hours not used for LRT, remained with the bus network.

Additionally, this was under the old network. How will these metrics look under the BNR?

Already we have seen a increase in funding for Transit given that the BNR kept the same budget as the previous network had, so, when the money was put into On Demand that represented growth. It sounds like too that ETS might well get to keep the service hours from the 510x when the Valley Line SE LRT opens. That will represent further growth to Transit.
Theoretically, what would happen is that once TransEd is operating the Valley Line, ETS/ CoE would reduce the ETS budget by the 510x costs and allocate that towards the monthly payments to TransEd for operating the LRT line. The 510x costs wouldn't cover all of that, however, that means without it the City needs additional funding to pay TransEd.

 

[CplKlinger]

Breakdown of these graphs:
Revenue hours/ Year- remained consistent
Revenue hours/ Capita- Decreased
Cost Recovery- Decreased

While is appears on the face that Transit isn't keeping up with growth, seeing a dip in cost recovery while maintaining revenue hours means that there was a ridership decrease.

What they didn't do was a graph on revenue hours per ridership
2014- 45.3 passengers/ service hour
2015- 43.8 passengers/ service hour
2016- 42.2 passengers/ service hour
2017- 42.7 passengers/ service hour
2018- 42.5 passengers/ service hour
2019- 42.3 passengers/ service hour

No surprise, these numbers align with the graph showing the decline in farebox recovery. So why did the population increase, but ETS ridership dropped? What was the root cause of that? Would tossing more money into more service get those riders back? Or would it just reduce the cost recovery ratio?

Over a longer timeframe of 2002-2019:

2002: 30.5 million revenue kilometers, 1.7 million vehicle hours, ridership 44.4 million
2019: 43.7 million revenue kilometers, 2.3 million vehicle hours, ridership 86.7 million

2002 population 700,000ish (data missing from CoE website)
2019 population 972,223

Population growth was 38.9%
Revenue kilometer growth 43.4%

Generally funding has kept pace with City growth over the long term. Certainly, service levels did stagnant in the 2014-2019 timeframe however, ridership did drop and importantly, service hours remained intact. I feel it is important to understand the root cause of that drop in ridership. Trust me. We did see lots of growth over the years. One particularly interesting time was 2007-2010 when Edmonton received 350ish new buses in a 3 year time span. The first 230 were supposed to replace the high floor buses, but into 2009 there were still upwards of 70-80 high floor buses. 2009's 121 new buses finally killed off the high floors plus expanded the fleet. On top of that the full length of the SLRT opened, and buses and service hours not used for LRT, remained with the bus network.

Additionally, this was under the old network. How will these metrics look under the BNR?

Already we have seen a increase in funding for Transit given that the BNR kept the same budget as the previous network had, so, when the money was put into On Demand that represented growth. It sounds like too that ETS might well get to keep the service hours from the 510x when the Valley Line SE LRT opens. That will represent further growth to Transit.
Theoretically, what would happen is that once TransEd is operating the Valley Line, ETS/ CoE would reduce the ETS budget by the 510x costs and allocate that towards the monthly payments to TransEd for operating the LRT line. The 510x costs wouldn't cover all of that, however, that means without it the City needs additional funding to pay TransEd.

Thanks for the well researched reply, it paints a very different picture than Paquette's comments did. It's nice to have some numbers associated with the longer time-frame. I hope he will be willing to explain why his views differ to this.

 

[_urbanite]

Thanks for the video. The payment system is so archaic, i agree with her statement that nobody carries cash or coins these days. Can't this be resolved by a simple app where users can pay on their phones instead?

Even throughout Covid with all other businesses going to a "no cash" payment system, there seems to be no attempt by ETS to adapt.

I just spent the past 4 days using contactless cards on the Tube in London. I will never use a transit system again that doesn't have this option.

 

[_urbanite]

I was in Scotland this year and got on the bus and paid with my iPhone - this is not new technology and I can't understand what Edmonton is doing. There is also WiFi on the buses and trains there and has been for years.
If we can pay for food or coffee without cash in a food truck, we should be able to do it on a bus or LRT. We are so far behind other countries that it is embarrassing. Jeez.

I'm in Edinburgh as I speak and know exactly what you're taking about.

We're so stuck in the 20th century in Edmonton it's sad

 

[dkazzed]

I've been beta testing Arc since January and it works fairly well. It's convenient being able to add funds online or better yet auto reload although I don't have that set very high because I can't get a replacement card if I were to lose my Arc card until it's released to the public. The biggest issue is forgetting to tap off at LRT stations. I'd almost prefer if they installed fare gates to force me to remember to tap off.

What I like vs. the other transit systems is the capped daily/monthly rates rather than having to buy a monthly pass at the beginning of the month, although I haven't come close for either yet and frankly don't know if I ever will with permanent hybrid WFH. May was my biggest month since the pandemic started, $54 spend on transit fares. Forgetting to tap off doesn't come with any financial penalties for those who commute enough to reach the monthly cap but they want to know anyway to monitor transit usage and optimize routes.

 

[occidentalcapital]

ETS is weak on fare revenue. Other cities our size fund a larger portion of operations through fares.

To address this, you have to go back to transit basics. Clean, bright spaces, punctual service, schedules without excessive waiting at timing points, on time service, quick routes, direct routes, ease of use (e.g. fare options, contactless), secure environment (e.g. fare gates, active enforcement of bylaws), amenities (e.g. activation of all retail spaces, even if have to lease space for a dollar), pleasant bus drivers (e.g. customer service training), clear audio announcements in the LRT, clear wayfinding, comfortable heated shelters, no vandalism, next bus arrival signs, functional apps and useful call centre. You have to get the basics right to entice people to travel on the train/bus.

 

[David A]

ETS is weak on fare revenue. Other cities our size fund a larger portion of operations through fares.

To address this, you have to go back to transit basics. Clean, bright spaces, punctual service, schedules without excessive waiting at timing points, on time service, quick routes, direct routes, ease of use (e.g. fare options, contactless), secure environment (e.g. fare gates, active enforcement of bylaws), amenities (e.g. activation of all retail spaces, even if have to lease space for a dollar), pleasant bus drivers (e.g. customer service training), clear audio announcements in the LRT, clear wayfinding, comfortable heated shelters, no vandalism, next bus arrival signs, functional apps and useful call centre. You have to get the basics right to entice people to travel on the train/bus.

I agree with the part about basics. There are a lots of things they need to work on and you have listed a number of them. I think you have to initially focus on three really basic ones - punctual service, decent routes/service frequency, safe environment and go from there.

Once people feel they are getting value for money, it is easier to look at the fares, but initially you probably need to increase revenue by getting back more (paying) users. I suspect a number of people are shying away from using transit because of safety issues and concerns, so getting that improved is very important now.

 

[thommyjo]

Yeah, I think where leadership has broken down is not investing in the highest ROI projects. So the transition form cash to contactless should have been a 2010-2014 timeframe. Ridership is lower, I guarantee, because of this inconvenience. That should have been a priority and routes and other expenses should have been cut, just to prioritize that. Wifi on buses is another key one.

I know it’s easy to criticize, so I don’t want to be unfair. But all these other cities have figured it out. And honestly, I think it’s the government mindset of “just keep it going” since it’s already a loss leader vs “let’s make this the best product we can with our limited funding.” They should blow like 500k on bringing in an awesome ceo, and let that person revamp the whole thing.

To clarify, once Arc is official, will we be able to do contactless payments with credit cards as well?

 

[EdwardEdm]

To clarify, once Arc is official, will we be able to do contactless payments with credit cards as well?

Eventually. I don't think that is being turned on immediately. They need to get the basic system rolled out first. Last time I checked I still cannot reload my Arc card on an Arc vending machine.

Ridership is lower, I guarantee, because of this inconvenience. That should have been a priority and routes and other expenses should have been cut, just to prioritize that. Wifi on buses is another key one.

I don't think ETS has lost $47 Million worth of riders to justify cutting service to pay for Arc and Smart Bus (which was an underlying component needed for Arc). Besides. Different budgets. Arc is a capital budget item. Service hours is an operating budget item.

 

[IanO]

I really hope that the new transit loitering bylaw finds balance between fair treatment and greater assurance/protection for the general public and actual transit users.

These are public spaces, but we would NEVER let this kind of stuff happen in a rec centre, library or other civic building. Why do we permit it in our transit stations?

 

[Greenspace]

Motion by Rutherford to refer bylaw back to admin failed 6-7. It seems that the new bylaw will pass.

 

[Greenspace]

Bylaw passed 8-4. Councillor Paquette left the meeting before the final vote (I assume in protest).

 

[CplKlinger]

Motion by Rutherford to refer bylaw back to admin failed 6-7. It seems that the new bylaw will pass.

I'm torn on that debate, they all rose good points. On the one hand, Paquette and the other supporters of the amendment argued that there is nothing in the current bylaw that inhibits enforcement of safety concerns. Peace Officers and police are perfectly allowed to remove people if they make others "feel" unsafe. In fact, I texted the help line after a guy at Clareview TC made my friend and I feel quite unsafe due to some threatening things he was saying on the phone (He was 'ready to kill someone' etc), and I got a response almost immediately that they'd dispatch peace officers ASAP.

They also rose concerns about how expanding this even more, even though the status quo is already enough for officers to do more than they are, could lead to racist enforcement, and they wanted administration to report back on this concern in a couple months. Rutherford argued that "good governance" means taking the time to make informed decisions - especially when amending or creating laws, and she opposed rushing something just because "it feels good and sounds good." Another concern was that, much like with the old loitering bylaw, fines won't really do much in the way of enforcement since houseless people can't afford to pay fines whether they're $50, $250, or $2,500.

HOWEVER, with all that being said, Sohi pointed out that according to officers working on the frontlines, they'd appreciate something like this to make it clearer for them what they're allowed to do; those perspectives based on "real world experience" were important to Sohi. As well, he argued that a lot of marginalized peoples have no choice but to take transit, including persons of colour and Indigenous Peoples, and they deserve to feel safe too. I didn't catch the whole debate, but I imagine that the other opponents to the amendment had similar views. I didn't spend as much time listening to the opponents since the argument for the bylaw change is pretty clear, if you haven't been living under a rock for the past couple of years haha.

So, I dunno I guess. Paquette is absolutely adamant, and has been since the loitering bylaw was revoked, that EPS assured him enforcement would not be impacted by that revocation since they could still remove anyone who made others feel unsafe. So why did that not end up happening? Was the post-loitering bylaw set of rules not as tolerable for enforcement as they thought? Were peace and police officers just not communicated their rights and responsibilities enough? Was it more a matter of having the right set of rules, but inadequate resourcing for enforcement? Maybe it was a little bit of each. This is a tough situation for everyone to be in; residents are clearly feeling unsafe for a reason, and that shows something has to be done. But it's going to be tough finding the right set of solutions when the situation is both highly urgent, and emotionally charged.

It's not like this discussion just started; this comment and this comment from Paquette show how long it has taken to get to this point. So maybe it's high time that something be rushed a bit, instead of kicking off more studying. Studies help produce higher quality legislation, but maybe this has already been studied to death. This is quite a long post, and it's all to say: I just don't know what the right decision here is, but I hope the outcome we got helps lead us toward a safe and accessible transit service.