2018 Annual Transit Report

Planning & Infrastructure – September 2019

Table of Contents

Introduction – Transit is important ...... 3

Current System Performance ...... 4

Comparisons with other Transit Systems ...... 9

Route Performance ...... 13

Customer Engagement ...... 18

Progress on Regional Transit Integration ...... 27

Going Forward ...... 29

Conclusions ...... 30

Appendix 1 – Glossary of Transit System Performance Terms ...... 31

Introduction – Transit is important

Why Public Transit? Public transportation transforms communities and the lives of the people living in them by spurring economic development, promoting sustainable lifestyles and providing a higher quality of life. Every segment of American society - individuals, families, communities, and businesses - benefits from public transportation. -American Public Transportation Association Quick Facts:  It is more affordable to take transit than driving.  Traveling by public transportation is 10 times safer per mile than traveling by automobile.  Providing transit makes communities more desirable place to live.  It serves people of all ages and social abilities (we have people in our municipalities that do not own a car).  There is an environmental benefit when a single bus at capacity removes about 21 cars from already congested highways. The purpose of this report is to provide information about Spruce Grove Transit’s recent operations and current plans for improvement and growth. This report will establish and may add additional key performance indicators for transit. Many of these indicators are based upon industry standards so that they are comparable to other transit systems across Canada. This report will contain the following sections: 1. Current System Performance: This section will provide historic and current data related to several Key performance indicators for transit. The information is supplied from Edmonton Transit Service (ETS) and some is based upon financial statements provided from ETS.

2. Comparisons with other Transit Systems: This section will compare the performance of Spruce Grove Transit with others from within the Metro Edmonton area and from transit operations of similar sized populations from Alberta and across Canada.

3. Route Performance: This section will examine some route specific performance indicators. These indicators will become more important and relevant to establish transit standards and eventually a transit master plan.

4. Customer engagement: This section will focus on key outcomes/findings of various kinds of customer engagement.

5. Conclusions: Some final conclusions based upon material presented as part of the report.

Current System Performance

The purpose of this section is to provide background information about the current system performance of the Spruce Grove Transit System. The information provided in Table 1 reflects common indicators used by other Canadian Transit systems as defined through the Canadian Urban Transit Association (CUTA). A definition and other information about each of the data items and key performance indicators listed in Table 1 is provided in Appendix A. Table 1: Spruce Grove Annual System Performance 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Population served (Spruce Grove only) 29,526 32,036 33,640 34,881 35,766 Revenue vehicle hours 4,964 6,384 6,528 7,483 10,826 Total vehicle hours 6,136 8,663 9,178 10,143 15,115 Passenger trips 83,392 87,091 90,183 107,277 129,477 Passenger trips (not including Acheson) 127,036 Total direct operating expenses $1,146,101 $1,232,969 $1,376,662 $1,932,795 $1,989.431 Total net direct operating expenses (not $1,533,231 incl. Acheson Total Revenues (including Acheson Fees $449,503 $450,419 $507,573 $903,606 $998,199 & Fares) Total Revenues (not including Acheson) $530,819 Revenue/Cost ratio (including Acheson 39% 37% 29% 26% 27% Service) Revenue/Cost ratio (not including 35% Acheson Service) Municipal operating contribution/Capita $16.33 $17.96 $16.80 $20.71 $28.03 Total Direct Operating Expenses $13.74 $14.16 $15.26 $13.37 $15.37 /Regular Service Passenger Total Direct Operating Expenses $12.07 /Regular Service Passenger (not incl. Acheson) Average Fare $5.32 $5.13 $4.43 $4.59 $4.19 Net Direct Operating Cost/Passenger $8.35 $8.99 $10.84 $13.37 $15.37 (including Acheson) Net Direct Operating Cost/Passenger $12.07 (not incl. Acheson) Ridership/Capita (including Acheson) 2.82 2.72 2.68 3.08 3.62 Revenue Vehicle Hours/Capita (incl. 0.17 0.20 0.19 0.21 0.30 Acheson) Passengers / Revenue Vehicle Hours 16.80 13.64 13.81 14.34 11.96 Total Direct & Auxiliary Operating $186.78 $142.31 $149.98 $190.55 $183.77 Expense / Revenue Vehicle Hours (incl. Acheson) Total Direct & Auxiliary Operating $131.62 Expense / Total Vehicle Hours (incl. Acheson

As detailed in Table 1, between 2014 and 2018, the population served by Spruce Grove Transit has grown by 21%. During the same period, transit boardings have grown by 55% to 129,477 passenger trips in 2018, resulting in an increase in boardings per capita. Fig. 1 Spruce Grove Transit – total transit boardings 2012 to 2018

Spruce Grove Transit has increased service since 2016 with the introduction of route 562 to West Edmonton Mall and South Campus LRT station. With the introduction of Upass in 2017 there has been additional peak hour service increases due to over-crowding. In 2018, the City introduced two hour interval mid-day service as part of the transit service plan. Figure 2 below highlights the revenue service hours from 2014 to 2018 which has increased by 118%. The primary measure of service productivity, ridership per revenue service hour, has moved between 16.8 in 2014 to 11.96 in 2018 the change reflects both increasing service hours and increasing ridership.

Fig. 2 Revenue Vehicle Hours – Hours in operation providing service to the public.

Boardings per capita has increased by 28% from 2014 to 2018. This can be attributed to overall population growth and the increase in the number of students taking transit (figures include Acheson service). (The service area only includes the City of Spruce Grove)

Fig. 3 Per Capita population utilizing Spruce Grove Transit

Revenue & Costs When combined with a general trend of increasing ridership, overall revenues have ranged between approximately $400,000 and $500,000, with fare revenue comprising the majority of this sum. In 2017, total revenue increased to $903,606 with the cost sharing for routes 561 and 562 for Acheson service for Parkland County. In 2017, the City saw consistent revenue related to Upass, which was higher than the sale of student passes in previous years. In addition to approximately $722,228 of municipal operating funding, Spruce Grove Transit also received approximately $241,000 from the Government of Alberta through its Municipal Sustainability Initiative (MSI) in 2017. The average fare collected by Spruce Grove Transit has fluctuated annually; in 2014, it stood at $5.32, but has declined since to $4.59 in 2017. A lower average fare reflects more local service which has not been the operating model for Spruce Grove Transit. The hourly expenses charged by ETS to operate Spruce Grove Transit have increased significantly between 2014 and 2018, due in part to increased labour and fuel costs, but also due to increased service hours. The total direct & auxiliary operating expense per vehicle hour peaked in 2017 at $190.55 and were at their lowest point in 2015 where it was $142.31. Operating costs did decrease in 2018 to $183.77. With the City of Spruce Grove acquiring six (6) commuter buses, the direct cost for maintenance, storage, fuel and insurance is charged directly to the City rather than incorporated into single fee. This allows the City to be transparent and track costs. In this period fuel costs were on a decline from 2015 to a low point in February 2016 increasing steadily through 2017 and 2018 back to the same level as 2014 approximately $1.28/Litre. Taking the lowest year (2015) to the highest year (2017), the rate of change is 34%. This reflects the growth of service as well as the direct costs of maintaining and operating service through ETS. It should also be noted that in 2018 Spruce Grove administrative costs related to operating the system are reflected in the total cost of operation for the first time.

The revenue/cost (R/C) ratio is a key metric for understanding the proportion of expenses recuperated by fare revenues generated. Spruce Grove Transit has historically recovered a significant portion of costs through fare revenues. Between 2012 and 2015, the ratio has remained relatively steady, varying between a high of 42% and 37%. In 2016, the ratio dropped to 29%, an 8% decline. This is a result of a reduced average fare and an increase in total direct operating expenses. The reduction in the average fare of approximately one dollar per passenger between 2014 and 2016 is likely the result of increased pass usage. Average revenue per passenger remained steady in 2017, this may fall further in 2018 with the increasing number of students using Upass. This is due to increased costs the increased volume of students have required us to add verses the amount of Upass revenue we receive. In addition, total direct operating cost per passenger has been variable between 2014 and 2018 from as high as $15.26 in 2018 to $13.37 in 2017. This reflects that the cost increases have been offset by increases in passenger boardings. Still operating and maintenance costs do increase generally higher than inflation. These two factors are the primary motives for a decrease in the revenue-to-cost ratio being reported by Spruce Grove Transit. Figure 4 illustrates the municipal contribution that each Spruce Grove resident pays for transit service. This statistic is a bit misleading in that it covers all the costs, such as the Acheson service but the area catchment is limited only to the population of Spruce Grove. If the service area was larger, the cost per capita would be lower. If the tri-municipal municipalities covered the cost of transit the service area would be expanded thus lowering the per capita cost. Parkland County does pay for the service into Acheson and in 2020 with the start of local transit service into Stony Plain and Parkland Village, they both are planning to cover the cost for their portion of local service and their portion of commuter transit costs. Figure 4 Municipal contribution to transit/per capita

Comparisons with other Transit Systems

Overall Comparisons For Spruce Grove, appropriate comparison communities are those operating similar services in and around the Edmonton capital region. These include Leduc, Fort Saskatchewan (Fort Sask), Strathcona County and St. Albert. Other communities within Alberta of similar size or that provide similar service include Airdrie and Bow Valley Transit. Beyond Alberta, the communities of Stratford, Ontario and Charlottetown, PEI are comparable in size but do have different funding regimes and their operations are considerably different (more local services rather than commuter for example), but they provide an interesting comparison of size and budget.

Table 2 provides system information for Spruce Grove and the communities within the Edmonton Region (except ETS) along with a column for the average of communities across Canada serving populations of under 50,000. Some Alberta and Canadian cities of comparable size are also included. The indicators are the same as those provided earlier in Table 1. Information provided is from the 2017 CUTA Fact Book. 2018 data will not be available until fall 2019.

Table 2: Transit System Comparison (2017 CUTA Fact Book)

under

Leduc

50,000

Airdrie

Transit

St Albert St

Bow Valley Bow

Spruce Grove Spruce

Stratford Ont. Stratford

Charlottetown PEI Charlottetown

Strathcona County Strathcona

Fort Saskatchewan Fort

Communities Communities

Population Served 35,766 - 31,130 25,533 99,097 65,589 64,922 22,463 32,000 49,000

Revenue Vehicle Hours 7,483 - 11,976 9,310 112,219 95,227 27,676 29,646 34,036 23,300

Total Vehicle Hours 10,143 - 12,224 9,310 129,224 104,692 30,060 29,646 37,643 23,300

Passenger Trips 107,277 - 90,504 91,619 1,624,806 1,105,820 297,350 926,780 600,728 535,549

Total Direct Operating $1.93 M - $1.34 M $1.40 M $16.6 M $11.7 M $2.65 M $2.98 M $2.89 M $2.21 M Expenses

Total Revenues $903,606 - $297,915 $237,538 $4,746,171 $4,367,221 $1,465,393 $1,593,122 $824,650 $1,003,225

Revenue/Cost Ratio 26% 29% 22% 17% 29% 37% 55% 53% 28% 48%

Municipal Operating $20.71 $33.32 $40.66 $45.13 $165.11 $111.09 $18.38 $54.37 $56.89 $19.37 Contribution / Capita

Total Direct Operating $13.37 $3.85 $16.37 $15.17 $10.22 $10.55 $8.94 $3.21 $4.82 $3.93 Expense/Passenger

Average Fare $4.59 $1.52 $3.18 $2.40 $2.84 $3.69 $4.68 $1.66 $1.37 $1.68

Net Direct Operating $13.37 $5.44 $12.72 $12.58 $7.27 $6.61 $4.01 $1.50 $3.45 $2.05 Cost/Passenger

Ridership/Capita 3.08 13.53 2.62 3.59 22.71 16.86 4.58 41.26 18.77 10.93

Revenue Vehicle 0.21 0.74 0.39 0.36 1.57 1.45 0.43 1.32 1.06 0.48 Hours/Capita

Passengers/Vehicle 14.34 18.51 6.73 9.84 14.48 11.61 10.74 31.26 17.65 22.98 Hour

Total Direct & Auxiliary Operating Expense / $190.55 $96.03 $109.34 $149.28 $131.63 $111.39 $86.46 $85.91 $76.91 $90.25 Revenue Vehicle Hours

Edmonton Capital Region For transit systems within the Edmonton Capital Region, Spruce Grove Transit is most similar to Leduc Transit and Fort Sask Transit, due to comparable service area populations of approximately 30,000 residents. The transit systems in Leduc and Fort Saskatchewan have approximately a third less ridership than Spruce Grove Transit. Average fares in these communities are cheaper, ranging from $2.22 (Fort Saskatchewan) to $2.73 (Leduc), compared to the average Spruce Grove Transit fare of $4.43. The total annual revenue service hours provided by Fort Sask Transit are similar to those provided by Spruce Grove Transit. In Leduc, annual revenue service hours are almost double those provided by Spruce Grove Transit in part because they offer peak hour local service in addition to their commuter service. Despite the variability in service, all three transit systems have similar total direct operating expenses around $1.2 M (Leduc) and $1.43 M (Fort Sask). The most significant difference between the three transit systems is the operating cost per vehicle hour. As shown in table 2, the operating cost per vehicle hour is considerably higher in Fort Saskatchewan ($198.22) than in Spruce Grove ($149.98). Leduc Transit’s hourly vehicle operating cost is even lower, at $99.09. Moreover, in terms of R/C ratio, Spruce Grove Transit (29%) is out-performing Leduc Transit (18%) and Fort Sask Transit (10%) – both of these systems operate a local component to their transit operations in 2018.

Other comparable communities with larger populations in the Edmonton Capital Region include Strathcona County and St. Albert. These communities have a population greater than 50,000 residents and their transit services are generally more expansive, providing a mix of both commuter and local service. Ridership in these communities is significantly higher than in Spruce Grove, ranging from 1.1 M in St. Albert to 1.6 M in Strathcona County. In Spruce Grove, there were 2.68 trips per capita in 2016, compared to 17.7 in St. Albert and 22.91 in Strathcona County. Generally, once a system reaches a critical mass and is accepted by a larger segment of the population as a viable method of transportation (rather than simply a niche service), ridership can be expected to increase significantly. Spruce Grove Transit is 21% and 39% more expensive to operate per vehicle hour than Strathcona County Transit and St. Albert Transit, respectively. Furthermore, there are fewer passengers to cover the cost of these services. However, due to the higher average fares on Spruce Grove Transit, the revenue-to-cost ratios are only slightly higher in Strathcona (30%) and St. Albert (39%). Although Spruce Grove and Bow Valley have similar populations, the Bow Valley Regional Transit Services Commission operates their service for a more varied demographic. Specifically, the Bow Valley (which includes Banff, Canmore and Lake Louise) attracts a significant number of tourists, which increase the transit system’s ridership and cost-recovery metrics significantly (more cash fares than passes). As a result, it is not realistic to directly compare some of the Bow Valley statistics presented in Table 2 to Spruce Grove’s reported metrics.

Figure 5 below shows the number of transit boardings from 2014 to 2018 for Leduc, Fort Saskatchewan and Beaumont. Fort Saskatchewan added local service to its operation in January 2018 and Beaumont started their operations that same year. Fort Saskatchewan’s local service is currently outperforming the commuter service which runs from Fort Saskatchewan to Clareview LRT Station in Northeast Edmonton.

Figure 5 Transit boardings for comparable Capital Region Municipalities Regional Transit boarding data 140000

120000

100000

80000

60000

40000

20000

0 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Spruce Grove Leduc Ft. Sask Beaumont

With a service population of 35,766, Spruce Grove Transit falls into the CUTA category of transit systems serving communities with a population size of less than 50,000 residents. On the basis of cross Canadian

averages for communities 50,000 population or less there is some interesting data comparisons. Again it should be noted most of these municipal operations are running local service rather than commuter.

The average fare for communities this size ($1.59) is noticeably lower than Spruce Grove Transit’s relatively high average fare ($4.59). This significant discrepancy is due to the nature of the service, with Spruce Grove Transit primarily focusing on longer-distance commuter service to Edmonton. When Spruce Grove Transit adds additional locally-oriented service that is attractive to residents looking to travel within the community itself (including service to/into Stony Plain), the average fare is likely to drop significantly compared to current values. The average revenue service hour per capita metric is 0.71 for a typical community this size. In comparison, Spruce Grove Transit provides significantly less service, with only 0.19 revenue service hours per capita. This is primarily due to the fact that Spruce Grove Transit services only operate during peak periods, while most other transit agencies operate throughout the day on weekdays, and sometimes on weekends as well. For cross Canada communities with fewer than 50,000 inhabitants, the average hourly vehicle operating cost was $92.40 in 2016. In comparison, Spruce Grove Transit’s hourly vehicle operating costs were significantly higher, at $149.98. This is due to the fact that Spruce Grove Transit operations are contracted out to ETS, which charges the City of Spruce Grove on a full cost-recovery basis. Many smaller transit systems across Canada are able to benefit from lower hourly operating costs due to decreased overhead, non-unionized labour pools, smaller vehicles, and lower local wage rates. Despite the increased hourly operating, the revenue-to-cost ratio achieved by Spruce Grove Transit (29%) is consistent with the Canadian average for communities of its size (30%).

Route Performance

The City of Spruce Grove will continue to examine additional available data on route to identify route specific performance. They are particularly useful to inform service adjustments. Currently, Spruce Grove Transit tracks total passenger boardings on each trip operated but has not established specific performance indicators for its routes. Part of the challenge for data collection is that most data is collected by ETS, but easy access to this data is not readily available. The specific data sets must be requested. We will continue to work with ETS to request data that helps to support understanding of route specific information.

Passenger occupancy

A running net total calculating the passenger occupancy on the bus will provide insights into vehicle crowding; the busiest point on the route is likely to be along the highway portion. Over the past year tracking of passenger loads on route 560 in the morning and afternoon for the months of September and October indicated that standing loads were occurring. In some cases, standing loads were very excessive. The seating bus capacity for the Spruce Grove Commuter bus is 38. In some cases, there were up to 25 standing. These are reflected in tables 3 and 4 that follow. (The areas in pink show there were standees, the deep red show 12 or more standing).

Table 3 Passenger loads on route 560 morning – September 4 to October 31, 2018

Route 560 Passenger Loads - AM

AM Trips from Spruce Grove to Edmonton Day Date 5:13 Trip 5:54 Trip 6:14 Trip 6:22 Trip 6:33 Trip 6:48 Trip 7:03 Trip 7:27 Trip 8:16 Trip

Tuesday 4-Sep-18 19 22 24 13 17 34 25 22 18 Wednesday 5-Sep-18 18 36 36 13 31 35 45 22 23 Thursday 6-Sep-18 21 29 37 22 27 31 36 31 28 Friday 7-Sep-18 19 30 22 26 33 29 30 26 24 Monday 10-Sep-18 23 27 54 13 35 54 29 45 37 Tuesday 11-Sep-18 26 33 50 40 46 36 28 46 40 Wednesday 12-Sep-18 23 32 50 40 48 31 36 44 35 Thursday 13-Sep-18 26 30 42 43 48 27 37 41 34 Friday 14-Sep-18 21 27 33 26 32 37 34 52 32 Monday 17-Sep-18 22 31 36 39 55 36 30 63 41 Tuesday 18-Sep-18 25 36 46 30 40 30 29 50 40 Wednesday 19-Sep-18 18 28 45 25 55 34 40 50 42 Thursday 20-Sep-18 18 31 43 59 51 26 29 51 27 Friday 21-Sep-18 15 27 25 29 36 33 37 40 24 Monday 24-Sep-18 14 28 37 29 46 34 34 47 31 Tuesday 25-Sep-18 22 28 47 38 49 33 24 46 33 Wednesday 26-Sep-18 17 30 43 32 46 45 34 40 39 Thursday 27-Sep-18 22 32 47 37 51 21 32 40 29 Friday 28-Sep-18 29 29 35 24 30 23 30 19 32 Monday 1-Oct-18 25 34 35 28 52 34 36 45 37 Tuesday 2-Oct-18 30 35 43 29 51 28 32 53 32 Wednesday 3-Oct-18 26 33 35 36 44 41 45 40 42 Thursday 4-Oct-18 26 32 40 29 47 28 29 42 32 Friday 5-Oct-18 19 21 29 21 40 26 36 24 27 Tuesday 9-Oct-18 29 27 40 38 39 33 32 45 39 Wednesday 10-Oct-18 24 24 47 39 43 34 40 33 37 Thursday 11-Oct-18 28 29 40 38 40 28 48 32 34 Friday 12-Oct-18 17 26 26 23 32 30 28 36 25 Monday 15-Oct-18 31 32 17 28 45 42 40 36 45 Tuesday 16-Oct-18 31 30 45 37 40 27 33 45 37 Wednesday 17-Oct-18 24 35 33 40 39 36 31 40 40 Thursday 18-Oct-18 29 27 36 36 42 27 24 53 29 Friday 19-Oct-18 20 31 23 25 35 31 22 29 23 Monday 22-Oct-18 21 23 35 37 36 35 29 43 40 Tuesday 23-Oct-18 26 27 41 35 41 32 26 50 30 Wednesday 24-Oct-18 34 29 34 31 40 37 29 28 39 Thursday 25-Oct-18 28 30 39 37 40 29 32 50 37 Friday 26-Oct-18 27 28 24 21 36 31 40 26 19 Monday 29-Oct-18 30 30 36 33 37 40 31 41 44 Tuesday 30-Oct-18 32 34 35 39 39 33 21 36 38 Wednesday 31-Oct-18 36 23 18 33 45 32 41 34 20

Table 4 – Passenger Loads Route 560 afternoon – September 4 to October 31, 2018

Route 560 Passenger Loads - PM PM Trips from Edmonton to Spruce Grove Day Date 13:32 Trip 14:43 Trip15:08 Trip15:32 Trip15:52 Trip 16:12 Trip 16:32 Trip16:57 Trip 17:37 Trip

Tuesday 4-Sep-18 12 25 28 25 26 30 26 16 27 Wednesday 5-Sep-18 9 40 29 32 27 23 33 13 29 Thursday 6-Sep-18 15 32 24 42 48 38 42 10 31 Friday 7-Sep-18 9 27 30 44 18 29 20 12 14 Monday 10-Sep-18 29 48 37 58 39 44 34 18 15 Tuesday 11-Sep-18 49 39 32 47 49 34 34 27 7 Wednesday 12-Sep-18 51 44 37 54 47 27 39 29 9 Thursday 13-Sep-18 29 36 29 60 44 37 30 34 7 Friday 14-Sep-18 41 45 41 39 21 34 23 22 9 Monday 17-Sep-18 43 50 30 56 46 31 30 34 17 Tuesday 18-Sep-18 42 39 30 42 48 36 30 29 9 Wednesday 19-Sep-18 46 41 33 46 57 31 34 29 15 Thursday 20-Sep-18 44 36 29 49 34 25 21 23 18 Friday 21-Sep-18 37 38 36 42 28 16 24 18 6 Monday 24-Sep-18 33 48 34 37 27 38 28 30 16 Tuesday 25-Sep-18 48 33 24 49 35 19 37 24 16 Wednesday 26-Sep-18 42 46 47 56 35 21 39 22 11 Thursday 27-Sep-18 41 34 25 51 38 32 27 35 13 Friday 28-Sep-18 44 33 30 33 33 17 19 12 12 Monday 1-Oct-18 50 51 32 45 26 35 31 28 19 Tuesday 2-Oct-18 39 44 29 59 40 29 35 27 15 Wednesday 3-Oct-18 33 52 33 41 37 28 49 26 18 Thursday 4-Oct-18 29 40 31 42 28 37 32 15 11 Friday 5-Oct-18 31 35 38 29 26 16 24 19 3 Tuesday 9-Oct-18 40 31 34 59 43 34 29 28 18 Wednesday 10-Oct-18 49 38 41 35 43 38 37 26 17 Thursday 11-Oct-18 40 36 35 41 32 37 27 27 19 Friday 12-Oct-18 30 37 34 44 16 23 18 22 5 Monday 15-Oct-18 45 52 40 43 35 26 33 40 15 Tuesday 16-Oct-18 45 27 31 50 47 40 33 29 13 Wednesday 17-Oct-18 45 39 43 3 48 55 35 22 11 Thursday 18-Oct-18 51 26 38 37 33 29 36 21 7 Friday 19-Oct-18 37 39 28 33 21 34 19 16 11 Monday 22-Oct-18 37 37 42 26 39 27 36 24 18 Tuesday 23-Oct-18 33 32 38 42 45 49 25 3 15 Wednesday 24-Oct-18 39 39 41 42 39 33 29 31 9 Thursday 25-Oct-18 41 31 36 38 31 26 38 33 20 Friday 26-Oct-18 28 37 44 25 18 30 24 26 4 Monday 29-Oct-18 50 37 47 46 36 30 35 30 16 Tuesday 30-Oct-18 40 32 40 34 34 20 37 26 17 Wednesday 31-Oct-18 38 35 40 42 35 25 37 24 13

Bus Passenger Safety Since the Humbolt Saskatchewan bus crash on April 6, 2018 there has been concerns raised about installing seatbealts on both school buses and buses that utilize highways. Transit buses that utilize highways and freeways are being grouped into the same situation as dedicated highway buses. This still does not mean that the transit bus is exempt from being involved in a crash as they can be and are involved in road collisions. However, according to the Victoria Transportation Policy Institute (VTPI) passengers on public transit experience fewer than one in ten of the per-kilometer collisions that automobile occupants do1.

The City of Spruce Grove receives its authority to operate through Alberta Transportation under Edmonton Transit’s approval who is operating our bus service. That approval includes the provision of not providing seat belts and that people are permitted to stand given that safety devices such as grab rails and stanchions are provided. It is also granted on the basis that driver traning is provided. All transit authorities stress that passenger safety is very important and the most critical aspect in providing transit service.

BUS PASSENGER SAFETY BRIEFING 2 Transit bus The standing-room feature of transit buses is an important component of capacity management and route planning for transit operators. Seating is usually preferable to standing from a rider experience standpoint, however the carrying capacity of buses increases with standing-room at no detrimental impact to passenger safety. Existing features such as stanchions, hand straps, slip-resistant flooring and secure emplacements for mobility-restricted passengers provide significant additional safety for riders on transit buses of all types. In addition to these features, bus operator training, speed limitations and defensive driving techniques all enhance overall safety for passengers.

The final report of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities – Bus Passenger Safety was completed in June 2019. The conclusion of their findings was that there is “no silver bullet”, that more work is required from bus design and crash worthiness, to the use of guardrails and signage on roadways to the possiblity of improved seat design and airbags. One point was made clear that more and better data on bus related crashes is required including the utilization of the Transportation Safety Board to investigate fatal crashes. In total the committee made nine recommendations to the Government of Canada to improve bus safety3.

1 Litman, T., Safer Than You Think! Revising the Transit Safety Narrative, Victoria Transport Policy Institute, published on July 24, 2018. 2 Canadian Urban Transit Association, House of Commons’ Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities; Bus Passenger safety Briefing, May 1, 2019. https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/421/TRAN/Brief/BR10487861/br- external/CanadianUrbanTransitAssociation-e.pdf accessed May 2019. 3 Bus Passenger Safety, Report of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities

On-Time Performance

Number of Buses Departing or Arriving on-Time/Total Number of Buses This metric can be calculated in two ways: “on-time” departures from the origin or “on-time” arrivals at the destination. Generally, a trip is considered to be “on-time” if it departs/arrives between 1 minute early and 5 minutes late (or some other range determined as part of a service guideline development process), compared to its scheduled departure/arrival time. Other metrics Some potentially valuable route-specific performance indicators that will be considered include:  Boardings per Revenue Vehicle Hour  Number of Boardings/Vehicle Hour The above formula is valid regardless of the period being analyzed, which can vary depending on the data needs; it can be calculated per run, per hour, per peak period, per day, etc.  Number of People on the Bus at the Busiest Point on the Route  Net Boardings – Net Alighting’s

As the operator of transit services in Spruce Grove, ETS already provides Spruce Grove Transit an assortment of key operating data by route for analysis and reporting. It should be possible to develop appropriate route-specific performance indicators from this data.

 Fare Revenue/Operating Cost  The above formula is valid regardless of the period being analyzed, which can vary depending on the data needs; it can be calculated per run, per hour, per peak period, per day, etc.

Customer Engagement

Calls/ Complaints Under Spruce Grove’s contract with ETS passenger complaints regarding service performance, bus operational issues are to be directed to the Edmonton 311 operators for resolution. Calls directed to the City of Spruce Grove are to be related to bus stop locations, route design, service frequency and amenities such as bus shelters located within the City of Spruce Grove limits.

Some of the themes of calls the Transit Department receives include the following:  Buses not waiting (leaving too early or arriving late)  Air Conditioning not working and bus uncomfortable  New bus stops  Where to purchase fare products  Lost or destroyed bus pass replacement

Honourable Judy A. Sgro, Chair. House of Commons. June 2019. http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2019/parl/xc27-1/XC27-1-1-421-31-eng.pdf Accessed June 2019

 Time delay at 118th Ave traffic circle in Edmonton  Specific directions for stops both in Edmonton and Spruce Grove

Calls and emails received and responded from the Spruce Grove Transit phone line and email 2018 = 103

Consultation In November and December the transit team conducted two days of public open houses in Spruce Grove at the Border Paving Athletic Centre to get public input on local (Spruce Grove) transit routes and adjustments to routes in Edmonton being planned for fall 2019. One open house took place in the late afternoon and evening, the other took place over a Saturday morning and early afternoon. In total approximately 60 people dropped in and discussed the plans. We received some excellent feedback from transit riders.

Special Events Clean Air Day – The City of Spruce Grove coordinated with municipalities in the Capital Region to promote Clean Air Day (The first Monday of June) starting in 2017 and the event has continued ever since. On that day Spruce Grove Transit promotes through the not for profit organization the Alberta Capital Airshed, not driving the car, but taking transit to reduce local air pollution. Spruce Grove and our partner Parkland County do not accept cash fares to encourage sustainable active transportation.

Canada Day – Since 2016 the City of Spruce Grove has proudly displayed the City transit bus at Jubilee Park. Having the bus on site helps to promote transit and make it feel approachable to residents that may not consider taking transit. Staff are onsite to answer any questions from Canada Day event attendees. In 2018 there was a draw for a monthly bus pass.

Survey data The following data is from Spruce Grove’s annual transit survey as key indicators that are important as part of the annual report. The information below focuses on data from the on-board spring survey and a supplemental survey conducted in November 2018 reflecting who uses Spruce Grove Transit and on which route.

Table 5 – Place of origin by route (2018 Spring Survey)

Place Route Spruce Grove Stony Plain Parkland County Edmonton Other 562 68% 7% 2% 22% 0% 560 71% 13% 13% 1% 3%

Table 6 – Place of origin (November 2018 supplemental survey) Primary residence of Passengers Commuting to Edmonton (all routes) Responses % Spruce Grove 247 66.8% Stony Plain 57 15.4% Parkland County 50 13.5% Edmonton 9 2.4% Other/No Response 7 1.9%

The map that follows illustrates the distribution of transit riders across the region. Taken from the November 2018 on-board survey, the location is based upon postal code data. There is a concentration of riders in Spruce Grove and Stony Plain, but some riders are coming from as far away as east of Entwistle and some from the east side of Edmonton. Figure 6 show the distribution of riders within Spruce Grove and Stony Plain.

Fig. 6 Home postal codes of transit riders (November 2018)

Fig. 7 Distribution of transit riders within Spruce Grove and Stony Plain (November 2018)

An important statistic that reflects the background of the transit user is whether or not they have access to a car. This may be adults or students that do not own a car or have access to a car. The number of vehicles per household in the Province of Alberta is at 1.874 and is the highest in Canada. We make take for granted that some people do not have access to a vehicle and do rely on public transit and other forms of transportation to go to school, work or other locations.

4 2009 Canadian Vehicle Survey Summary Report, Natural Resources Canada. Accessed 31 July 2019 at URL: http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/publications/statistics/cvs/2009/chapter2.cfm

Fig. 8 Access to a vehicle – Transit riders and on-line respondents (2018 Spring Survey) 60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% Unlimited access to a vehicle Occasional access to a vehicle No access to a vehicle

On Board Online

Very important to the operation of transit is how transit users perceive the service. Many of the factors listed in table 7 below do determine if riders will continue to use the service or opt to use other modes of transportation. In future Spruce Grove will trend this factors over the years. Most of the indictors in this table have been trending up.

Table 7 – On board perceptions of service (Survey Spring 2018) % Who Agree or Strongly Service Areas Agree I feel safe while I ride the bus 94% Bus drivers are courteous 93% I feel safe at bus stops I use most often 92% Bus drivers are helpful 89% Access to route information is convenient 88% I am comfortable on the bus 87% Access to my bus stop in Spruce Grove is convenient 81% I find value in the cost of Spruce Grove Transit 76% I prefer to ride the bus rather than drive 67% Purchasing passes/tickets is convenient 63% Buses are on time 63% The level of service has improved from previous years 61%

Table 8 below reflects additional service aspects related to service. Although not as important as previous set of service elements, these are factors that support and can assist in adding to the overall transit experience. In this set of indicators the trending has also been up. The low satisfaction for transit assistance is that the City of Spruce Grove does not have a formal call centre or administrative support to monitor the email/phone line. Transit staff will respond within an hour of the call being made, although challenges do occur when a member of the team is away at meetings, on vacation or sick.

Table 8 - On board perception regarding service (spring 2018 Survey)

% Satisfied or Very Service Areas Satisfied Bus cleanliness 89% Travel time 79% Seat comfort 77% Route layout 77% ETS schedule information on the ETS website 75% Bus comfort heat/cold 74% Bus stop/shelter cleanliness 67% Route information on the City of Spruce Grove website 59% Bus frequency 58% Route information from Edmonton 311 (Outside Edmonton 780-442- 40% 5311) Transit assistance from Spruce Grove email or phone line. 33%

Considering the various reasons why residents do not take transit is very important as well. The objective is to get residents out of their single occupant cars and take transit. With the information from Table 9, the City will seek to find ways in which some of these reasons can be alleviated at least to some extent. For some people, transit is not a viable option, especially with the hectic lifestyles of growing families. Even still, some of this information can help to formulate marketing opportunities to have some residents take the bus once in a while.

Factors such as consistent service reliability, trips that are available through the course of the day will help to build that “transit momentum”. The increased service levels are showing considerable success.

Table 9 - Reasons Why On Board Survey Respondents Do Not Use Spruce Grove Transit (Survey Spring 2018)

% who Agree or Reasons Provided Strongly Agree The bus doesn’t run at the times I need it 64% Bus routes don’t go to my destination 57% My travel needs (e.g. daycare, groceries, multiple errands, bringing 56% children on the bus) are not convenient via Spruce Grove transit The bus does not stop close enough to my final destination 48% Waiting outside for the bus in poor weather is too uncomfortable 48% The bus stop is too far from my house 39% The bus fare is too expensive 30% Bus schedules are too confusing 28% The buses are too slow; travel by transit takes too long 26% Bus routes are too confusing 22% Buses are too crowded 20% Buses are uncomfortable 14% I do not use Spruce Grove transit because other modes of transportation (e.g. bicycling, walking) better support my health and 11% wellness The bus is unreliable; it does not arrive on schedule 10% I’m concerned about my safety and security walking to or waiting at the 9% bus stop Other passengers make me feel uncomfortable 9% I’m concerned about my safety and security on the bus 7%

Progress on Regional Transit Integration

Regional Transit Services Commission Spruce Grove, together with Parkland County and the Town of Stony Plain and eight other municipalities signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to work on the formation of aRegion al Transit Services Commission. Work regarding the RTSC started in January/February 2019. Extensive regional consultation led by Ernst & Young has taken place since then. Edmonton Region Councils are expected to decide on joining a commission after October 2019.

Tri-Region Transit Work on the Tri-Region Transit Plan concluded in May/June 2018 with presentation of the Regional Transit Plan by the Intermunicipal Collaboration Committee (ICC)– subcommittee on Transit. The regional transit plan was presented to each of the three Councils. Although there was a recommendation for the formation of a regional transit commission, it was agreed that the discussions regarding the Edmonton Regional Transit Services Commission will overtake the costs and efforts to create a Tri-Region Commission. Spruce Grove will proceed with an updated terms of reference and MOU to cooperate and specific agreements for service delivery will be developed.

In preparation for the 2019 budget the Town of Stony Plain requested estimates for planned service as defined in the Tri-Region plan. Spruce Grove provided these estimates as well as proportion cost (based upon surveyed ridership) for the existing commuter service into Edmonton.

In the fall 2018, Stony Plain collaborated with Spruce Grove and other regional transit operations on applying for the Alberta Community Transit Fund (ACT) and Federal Transit funding. They included cost sharing on Smart Fare, the purchase of two additional Transit buses to supplement the Spruce Grove Fleet to support service into Stony Plain and funding to support bus stop infrastructure. All projects were approved. Plans are progressing on route design with Stony Plain and Parkland County for a planned launch in fall 2020.

Work is also underway on developing an agreement for merging of Spruce Grove Specialized Transit Service (STS) and Handibus services to support the Spruce Grove, Stony Plain and Parkland County Service Area. Paramount to the success of this project, a new service model is required as the two systems differ significantly.

Going Forward

The following items are being planned for implementation in 2019:  Purchase of 3 ARBOC - 22 passenger community shuttle buses for Local service  Purchase of 14,000 sq. foot Transit Storage and operations Building  Installation of 21 bus stops for local service (12 which will be paved plus installation of two bus shelters with solar powered lighting)  Continue work with Edmonton Transit, St. Albert Transit and Strathcona Transit on advancing Transit Smart Fare  Initiate work on final design for the Park and Ride Facility  Successfully initiate and complete an RFP and contract for local service operations and maintenance  Continue to work with our Tri-Municipal partners on advancing an integrated inter-municipal transit service that is cost effective for all partners  Continue to participate in the Edmonton Regional Transit Services Commission.

Conclusions

The information in the previous sections of this report indicate that Spruce Grove’s commuter transit service performs in a manner that is typical of similar systems in similarly sized communities. There are, however, some areas where further work and consideration would be appropriate:  In 2016, the average cost for each hour of revenue service operated was $149.98 in 2018 this number was $183.77. This is expensive compared to most transit systems in Canada. Using the Edmonton Transit Service as a contractor to provide service has advantages such as administration and reporting, service redundancy, and a large, nearby, dedicated team. However, this comes with large city costs – Edmonton’s own reported 2016 operating costs were $134.22 per hour plus the $15.00 plus per hour additional amount charged to Spruce Grove for additional services. Other service delivery and contracting options should be explored and compared with the current arrangement with Edmonton to determine if Spruce Grove is receiving the best overall value.  The performance indicators that are currently developed for the CUTA Fact Book are appropriate for use by Spruce Grove. Undertaking more detailed data analysis and calculating appropriate performance indicators for each route will enhance Spruce Grove’s understanding of its transit service, and provide input for periodic service level and modification decisions.  Both system and route level service performance guidelines (service standards) should be developed in order to better manage the system and balance the costs and revenues of the service in a way that reflects the values of the community.  In 2020/21 the City needs to develop a Transit Operational Plan to plan for the next 5 years and project for the next 15 years. This will provide Council with a longer term plan for transit, and a projected longer term budget.

Appendix 1 – Glossary of Transit System Performance Terms

Term Definition Purpose Population Served The number of people in the Needed as input for performance community served by the public transit measures and to guide comparison service with other transit systems

Revenue Vehicle Number of hours of service that Needed as input for performance Hours passengers are being or can be carried measures (includes layover/recovery time between revenue trips, if applicable)

Total Vehicle Hours Revenue Vehicle Hours plus all other Needed as input for performance hours for charter, out of service measures (deadhead) trips to and from the garage or trips between revenue trips

Passenger Trips Total number of transit users taking a Needed as input for performance trip. A trip is defined as being from an measures origin to a final destination (a transit user whose trip involves transferring from one vehicle to another is counted only once)

Total Direct The total of all operations, fuel, vehicle Needed as input for performance Operating Expenses maintenance, facility and infrastructure measures maintenance and administrative expenses

Total Revenues The total of all revenue from transit Needed as input for performance users, charters, concession fare measures supplements, and non-transit revenue such as services, advertising and rentals

Revenue/Cost Ratio Total Revenues divided by Total Direct Allows understanding of the Operating Expenses proportion of operating cost being recovered from fares

Term Definition Purpose Municipal Operating Amount of operating funding provided Allows understanding of how much Contribution/Capita by the local municipality divided by the funding per person is being spent Population Served by a local municipality to support transit operations in a community

Total Direct Total Direct Operating Expenses Allows understanding of the total Operating divided by number of Passenger Trips – cost of operation for each Expenses/Regular can also be called Total Operating Cost passenger carried Service Passenger per Passenger Average Fare Total Revenues from fares divided by Allows understanding of the actual number of Passenger Trips fare being paid by an average customer, taking into account all of the different fare types

Net Direct Operating Total Direct Operating Expenses minus Allows understanding of the actual Cost/Passenger Total Revenues from fares and then cost to the municipality of each divide the result by the number of passenger carried Passenger Trips – this is the portion of the operating cost that is not recovered from the fares

Ridership/Capita Number of Passenger Trips divided by Allows understanding of ridership the Population Served relative to population changes and whether or not there are real ridership gains or losses

Revenue Vehicle Number of Revenue Vehicle Hours Allows understanding of the Hours/Capita divided by the Population Served amount of transit service being offered in a community and whether or not there are real service increase or decreases

Passengers/Revenue Number of Passengers Trips divided by Allows understanding of Vehicle Hour the number of Revenue Vehicles Hours productivity of transit services

Total Direct & Total Expenses divided by the number Allows understanding of the cost of Auxiliary Operating of Revenue Vehicle Hours transit service for each hour of Expense/Revenue transit service operated Vehicle Hour