Transit Service Review Phase 1 Project Report Draft

June 23, 2014 TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 3 PART 1 - OVERVIEW ...... 7

1.1 NEED FOR THE TRANSIT SERVICE REVIEW ...... 7 1.2 PROJECT APPROACH ...... 7 PART 2 – EXISTING SERVICE & CONTEXT ...... 8

2.1 SERVICE HISTORY & ROUTE STRUCTURE ...... 8 2.2 OPERATIONAL APPROACH ...... 9 2.3 CURRENT ROUTE & SCHEDULE ...... 9 2.4 RIDERSHIP TRENDS ...... 12 2.5 FARE STRUCTURE & ETS INTEGRATION ...... 14 2.6 POLICY CONTEXT ...... 15 2.7 SYSTEM FINANCIALS...... 17 2.8 MARKET POTENTIAL ...... 18 PART 3 – FEEDBACK AND SURVEY HIGHLIGHTS ...... 19

3.1 ON-BOARD RIDER SURVEY, SPRING 2014 (RIDERS ONLY) ...... 19 3.2 ON-LINE SURVEY, 2011 (MIX OF RIDERS/NON-RIDERS) ...... 20 3.3 ON-GOING CUSTOMER SERVICE FEEDBACK ...... 20 PART 4 – OPTIONS CONSIDERED ...... 21

4.1 PRELIMINARY PROPOSED CONCEPT, 2013 ...... 21 4.2 OTHER OPTIONS EXPLORED ...... 22 PART 5 - PROGRAM VISION & PROPOSED CONCEPT ...... 22

5.1 VISION AND GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR THE SYSTEM ...... 22 5.2 OVERVIEW OF PROPOSED CHANGES & OPTIONS ...... 23 5.3 STAGE 1 - APPROVED 2014 CHANGES, ROUTE AND FARE STRUCTURE ...... 24 5.4 STAGE 2 – SEPTEMBER 2015 OPTIONS ...... 28 5.5 STAGE 3 – SEPTEMBER 2016, EXPRESS REDUCED COVERAGE WEM ROUTE, EVENINGS ...... 35 5.6 STAGE 4 –SEPTEMBER 2017, EXPRESS REDUCED COVERAGE WEM ROUTE, SATURDAYS ...... 35 5.7 RECOMMENDED OPTION & FINANCIAL IMPACT ...... 36 PART 6 – OTHER PROJECT FACTORS ...... 40

6.1 REGIONAL COMPONENT ...... 40 6.2 GREENTRIP AND CAPITAL INITIATIVES ...... 40 6.3 CONNECTION WITH SPRUCE GROVE SPECIALIZED TRANSIT SERVICE ...... 40 PART 7 – MOVING FORWARD ...... 41

7.1 PROGRESS TOWARDS ADOPTED STRATEGIC PLAN TARGETS ...... 41 7.2 RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 41 7.3 IMPLEMENTATION & NEXT STEPS ...... 42

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1: EXISTING ROUTE 197 WITHIN SPRUCE GROVE AND EDMONTON ...... 10 FIGURE 2: BOARDING IN SPRUCE GROVE, FALL 2012...... 11 FIGURE 3: WHERE PEOPLE GET OFF THE BUS IN EDMONTON, FALL 2012 ...... 12 FIGURE 4: MONTHLY RIDERSHIP ON SPRUCE GROVE TRANSIT JANUARY 2006 - MARCH 2014 ...... 13 FIGURE 5: COMMUTER PASS REVENUE VS. CASH REVENUE ...... 17 FIGURE 6: MODIFIED ROUTE 197 WITHIN SPRUCE GROVE/MIDDAY ROUTING ...... 25 FIGURE 7: REVISED ROUTE IN DOWNTOWN EDMONTON ...... 26 FIGURE 8: OPTION A - TWO LOCAL ROUTES WITHIN SPRUCE GROVE ...... 30 FIGURE 9: EXPRESS REDUCED COVERAGE ROUTE TO WEM AND SOUTH CAMPUS LRT ...... 33 FIGURE 10: EDMONTON ROUTING OVERVIEW (OPTION C) ...... 34 FIGURE 11: ETS CONTRACT COSTS BY STAGE - OPTION A ...... 37 FIGURE 12: ETS CONTRACT COSTS BY STAGE – OPTION B ...... 38 FIGURE 13: ETS CONTRACT COSTS BY STAGE - OPTION C ...... 39

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1: POLICY INFLUENCES ON THE TRANSIT SERVICE REVIEW ...... 15 TABLE 2: PROPOSED HIGH LEVEL DIRECTION FOR SPRUCE GROVE TRANSIT ...... 23 TABLE 3: STAGE 1 – COST ESTIMATES, ROUTE AND FARE CHANGES ...... 28 TABLE 4: STAGE 2 – OPTION A COST ESTIMATES ...... 28 TABLE 5: STAGE 2 – OPTION B COST ESTIMATES ...... 31 TABLE 6: STAGE 2 – OPTION C COST ESTIMATES ...... 32 TABLE 7: STAGE 3 – EXPRESS REDUCED COVERAGE WEM ROUTE, EVENINGS ...... 35 TABLE 8: STAGE 4 – EXPRESS REDUCED COVERAGE WEM ROUTE, SATURDAYS ...... 35 TABLE 9: ETS CONTRACT COSTS BY STAGE – OPTION A...... 37 TABLE 10: ETS CONTRACT COSTS BY STAGE – OPTION B ...... 38 TABLE 11: ETS CONTRACT COSTS BY STAGE – OPTION C ...... 39

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: PUBLIC INPUT RESULTS APPENDIX B: PROPOSED ROUTE SCHEDULES

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Transit Review Overview

Spruce Grove’s commuter transit service has operated for over seven years now, first as a pilot project and then as a regular service. Since an initial route restructuring in 2007, only minor modifications and expansions to the service were made. Over the same period, the community grew significantly with several new neighbourhoods developing in areas not serviced. Demands for more coverage, frequency, and destinations within Edmonton and the Tri-Municipal Region were made by the public. Also during this time the City adopted a number of strategic policy and planning documents identifying transit as a priority for the future.

Project Approach

The City’s Transit Review was split into two phases to allow the City to begin moving forward with some service changes in the short-term while waiting for clearer regional direction level with regards to whether or not a transit commission will be developed.

1. Phase 1 focuses on short-term system changes within the existing ETS contract approach. It will be completed in 2014 with a staged implementation starting in the fall of 2014. 2. Phase 2 will be a 10-year business plan based on the outcomes of the regional governance study currently in progress. If required, Phase 2 will include a review of different operational models. It is slated to start in 2015.

Preliminary Vision and Core Principles

Prior discussions about route concepts have focused on technical details and schedules. As Council moves toward final decisions on its short-term service approach, it’s important to identify a vision and core program principles. The initial vision and principles were developed based on principles in four adopted strategic documents:  2015-2017 Strategic Plan  Municipal Development Plan  Transportation Master Plan  Capital Region Board Intermunicipal Transit Plan

Vision A comprehensive transit program that provides accessibility for all members of the community and is designed to keep up with growth.

Core Program Principles  Integrated with land use  Connected to other modes of transportation  Accessible  Viable alternative  Equitable  Fiscally prudent  Part of a regional transit network

Proposed Concept

Recommended changes to the Spruce Grove commuter service are outline below in a series of stages. Stage 1 was recently approved by Council; stages 2 through 4 will be reviewed as part of the corporate planning process. There are three different approaches considered for ‘Stage 2 – 2015’. While a recommended approach is suggested, all three options are viable and respond to different core principles. Additional options explored are discussed under the ‘Options’ section of this report.

Stage 1 - September 2014, Midday Trip, Fare Policy, Cut Direct Service to U of A

 Incorporate schedule adherence issues to improve on-time performance (required).  Continue service to downtown Edmonton but cut direct service to the University of Alberta  Add a midday route leaving Edmonton around 1:30-2:00pm and running express back to downtown Edmonton  Introduce two subsidized fare products: student pass ($95) and integrated pass ($165)

Stage 2 - September 2015

Option A - Two Local Routes, More Coverage, Both Travel to City Centre

 Split existing peak hour Route 197 into two routes. Offer four trips per route in both AM and PM directions, both of which service downtown Edmonton. Five AM trips may be needed to provide reasonably convenient service to riders. The midday afternoon trip helps alleviate the need for this in the PM.  Locally, the two routes will continue to service areas already covered by Route 197 and add service to Spruce Ridge, Harvest Ridge, Hilldowns, Stoneshire, Linkside, Aspenglen, Deer Park, and Greenbury.  The midday service will be maintained. This route however will run the same route as the modified ‘Route 197’ to reduce costs while still providing decent coverage throughout the City.

Option B - Existing Local Route, More Trips, Medium Coverage

 Maintain modified peak hour Route 197 (Stage 1) but add an eighth trip in each direction. This would respond to rider demand for later service in the morning and in the evening.  No new neighbourhoods would be added.  The midday service would be maintained.  Current riders are more likely to see this as a service improvement than Option A.  This route is the most affordable however offers limited ability to attract new ridership.

Option C - New Express Reduced Coverage Route to WEM/South Campus (RECOMMENDED)

 Run three peak hour trips on a reduced coverage route to WEM/South Campus LRT. This is in addition to the existing Route 197 service (7-trips) and midday trip.  Provides much shorter travel times to the University of Alberta and opens up new connections through the WEM transfer station.

 Route would be offered in addition to the existing Route 197 (7 peak trips plus midday).  Offers ability to attract new ridership and is a clear service enhancement.  Route cost is comparable to Option A (slightly higher) and has the greatest potential to generate more revenue

Stage 3 - September 2016, WEM Evenings

 Uses the same route discussed in Stage 2 - Option C but terminates at WEM and runs hourly between Spruce Grove and WEM between 5:30pm – 10:30pm Monday to Friday.  Service allows residents to travel to high demand destination in the evening. Enhances daytime service by increasing flexibility for riders and serves students with evening classes or workers looking to stay late (WEM is a major transfer station with excellent connections from most of Edmonton).  Service would operate on a 15-minute reduced coverage loop within Spruce Grove. This is a common practice for evening routes in Edmonton. This greatly reduces the cost as it allows the entire service to be operated by only one bus. After leaving Spruce Grove the bus would run express to WEM via HWY 16A and the Anthony Hendey.

Stage 4 - September 2017, WEM Saturdays

 Provide hourly Saturday reduce coverage service between Spruce Grove and WEM between 9:00am and 7:00pm.  Responds to demand for weekend service to Edmonton.  Service follows the same 15-minute reduced coverage loop within Spruce Grove as the Monday-Friday service.

Recommendations Route Design & Future Planning

1. The City’s existing commuter route has realized its potential. Ridership and revenue numbers have been roughly stable since 2010 and limited capacity exists. Many riders are unhappy with the current service while others try it but choose a different alternative. Some targeted changes to the service will allow for ridership growth, increase flexibility within the system, and demonstrate the City’s commitment to transit.

2. City administration needs to monitor any service changes carefully and seek operational efficiencies where possible. New service additions should be piloted for a minimum of six months to one year to give them the opportunity to get established; changes with low ridership should be discontinued and resources invested elsewhere. While an effort was made to incorporate some seasonal adjustments and interlining opportunities in the proposed concept, the potential to create cost savings through these tools was not maximized.

3. This Phase 1 report focused on short-term steps within the existing operational model. While useful for engaging riders and identifying small steps, the City needs to have a better sense of how this system will evolve in the future and what operational model it will use. Prior to Phase 2 work starting, significant effort should be placed on scoping out the project and determining the expectations of Council and the public. As part of this discussion, questions around the importance of a full transit system and the willingness to fund this system should be asked.

4. Funding constraints will continue to be a major barrier to improving the City’s transit system and realizing the adopted targets and strategic direction. As part of the Phase 2 work, different models for funding transit service should be explored. As the system grows, it is expected that costs will increase substantially and that the cost recovery ratio will decrease, particularly as local service is introduced.

Partnerships

5. Initiate a process to proactively engage Council and senior administration in Spruce Grove, Stony Plain and Parkland County. Rather than focusing on route design with a transit consultant, this process should take a business analysis approach and scope out what is feasible, what concerns/barriers to cooperation exist, and where joint interests exist for moving forward. Significant work on route concepts has already been completed in the past; once a clear scope and common areas of interest are identified, these concepts can then be revisited and updated. When considered together there is a core population base of 50,000 residents (Spruce Grove, Stony Plain, and Parkland Village) with additional residents in rural subdivisions surrounding this more compact core.

6. Continue to sit as an active participant at the Regional Transit Commission governance discussions. While Spruce Grove is a small partner in a future commission, it is important to remain at the table and provide input where appropriate. The decision to move forward with a Commission or not will completely alter how the City evolves its transit system in the future.

7. Work to strengthen the lines of communication between STS and management/planning for the City’s transit system. As Spruce Grove Transit develops a local network and grows in the future it will be increasingly important for these two systems to be integrated and complementary.

PART 1 - OVERVIEW

1.1 Need for the Transit Service Review

Spruce Grove’s commuter transit service has operated for over seven years now, initially as a pilot project and then as a regular service. Since an initial route restructuring in 2007, only minor modifications and expansions to the service were made. Over the same period, the community grew significantly with several new neighbourhoods developing in areas not serviced. Demands for more coverage, frequency, and destinations within Edmonton and the Tri-Municipal Region were raised by the public. Also during this time the City adopted a number of strategic policy and planning documents identifying transit as a priority for the future. While these documents demonstrated a commitment to providing transit, the question then turned to what does this look like and how would any changes to the Spruce Grove service link in with regional and sub- regional transportation networks and transit initiatives.

Specific driving factors for the Transit Review include:  rapid population growth (54% since 2006);  increased regional cooperation and the adoption of the Capital Region Intermunicipal Transit Network Plan by municipalities in the region;  increased strategic focus on transit, including to integrate it with land use;  changing provincial regulations for transit operations;  crowding on buses during peak times;  increasing costs and declining grant funding;  stable or declining ridership over 2011 levels (depending on month);  interest in seeing the U-Pass program adopted, and;  demand for expansion of both local and commuter service.

1.2 Project Approach

While the City’s Transit Review started in 2011 with a focus on developing a comprehensive business plan for evolving the service, the pace and scope of the project were adapted to reflect a changing regional context. These changes were the result of discussions at the Capital Region Board about whether a regional transit commission should be implemented in the region for both local and intermunicipal service. The outcome of this decision has a major impact on the City’s future system planning in particular whether Spruce Grove should operate and manage its own transit system (opposed to contracting service from ETS). Given the uncertainty that exists at the regional level and anticipated timing of a decision regarding a commission, the City’s Transit Review was split into two phases to allow the City to begin moving forward with some service changes in the short-term.

1. Phase 1 focuses on short-term system changes within the existing ETS contract approach. It will be completed in 2014 with a staged implementation starting in the fall of 2014.

2. Phase 2 will be a 10-year business plan based on the outcomes of the regional governance study currently in progress. If required, Phase 2 will include a review of different operational models. It is tentatively scheduled for 2015 pending clear regional direction.

Several components of Phase 1 were completed in-house with Planning & Infrastructure- Sustainability as project lead. This approach provides added flexibility in the context of evolving regional discussions and funding opportunities. Also, it provides the City with more control over the project to ensure that the end result is both financially realistic and responsive to community needs. To supplement the work completed by City staff, a transit technical consultant (DanTech Associates) was contracted to propose and analyze some of the initial options explored.1 The technical work for the final concept was completed by ETS scheduling staff. The Phase 2 approach will be defined once its scope and timeline are clear. These are dependent on the regional governance discussion outcomes.

The objectives of this Phase 1 Project Report are to:  provide background on the existing service and policy/market context;  detail public input findings;  recommended short-term system changes, and;  identify next steps for the Transit Service Review.

PART 2 – EXISTING SERVICE & CONTEXT

2.1 Service History & Route Structure

The City’s transit service was introduced as a pilot project in January 2006 in response to public demand and to fulfill a strategic plan priority. Public input in the 2004 Citizen Satisfaction Survey demonstrated a higher level of support and ridership for a service that linked in with Edmonton’s system rather than a Spruce Grove-only service. The survey also found that 62% of respondents would be willing to pay an additional $50/annually to support a service. The intent was to create a system integrated with the full ETS network; the initial route design reflected this principle and the system launched with an integrated pass.

When it first started, the system operated two peak-hour commuter routes with the 197 travelling to NAIT and downtown Edmonton. Over the next couple of years the route went through a series of tweaks and adjustments, including:  extending the second route, the 196, to WEM;  adding a park and ride and reinforcing the transfer station so people could move between routes;  extending the 197 to the University of Alberta (U of A);  decreasing the number of trips on the 196 before cancelling it due to low ridership;  refining the routing within Spruce Grove to reflect the cancellation of 196 while still hitting areas with higher ridership, and;  increasing the number of trips on the 197.

The Spruce Grove & Stony Plain Transit Feasiblity Study was completed in July 2007 to evaluate existing and future service and fleet and management options. Much of this study was not implemented however it did provide a vision and costing information for how the service

1 DanTech Associates completed a comprehensive operations review of the existing service and outlined some route concepts for long-term future expansion. As the primary concept covered in this report was not pursued (discussion below) this report was not presented to Council/the public to avoid confusion. The report however was an important resource for Administration and where appropriate, this analysis was incorporated into this report (DanTech cited). The long-term routing concepts identified in the DanTech report will be explored further in the Phase 2 project work and are not included.

8 could develop over time. Proposed destinations included downtown Edmonton, WEM, major post-secondary institutions, Acheson Industrial Park, Parkland Village, and Stony Plain.

2.2 Operational Approach

The service has always been operated by ETS through a contract agreement. The City’s decision to use ETS rather than a private sector operator was to encourage faster ridership growth by using a proven professional operator and facilitate better connections to ETS routes in Edmonton. Also, at the time ETS was running similar services for Fort Saskatchewan and Sturgeon County and exploring options with Beaumont. While the initial contract was offered for a two-year period, subsequent contracts have been renewed on an annual basis on a September to August cycle (aligns with driver sign-up schedules). The contract costs are based on a ‘per service hour’ rate plus a capital cost based on the number of ETS buses used. Through the contract ETS provides regular data reporting and information on scheduling. ETS was involved in the initial route design and service adjustments and now provides support with service planning improvements as needed and as its staff capacity allows.

2.3 Current Route & Schedule

Route Description & Coverage

Spruce Grove Transit currently operates seven trips to Edmonton in the morning and seven return trips in the afternoon.2 All trips follow the same route, although the first bus in the morning and the afternoon do not serve the U of A. The first trip starts from Spruce Grove at 5:35 am, and the last morning trip begins its route at 7:25am, resulting in an average frequency of a bus approximately every 15 minutes. In the afternoon the service leaves Edmonton between 3:10pm and 5:47pm with a similar average frequency. The first trip from Edmonton to Spruce Grove in the afternoon is not offered during July and August due to lower demand.

Within Spruce Grove the route consists entirely of one way service. The total distance is about 14-kilometres and although a local fare is offered, the service is not designed to meet local travel needs. The service primarily operates in the older subdivisions with no service north of Grove Drive, west of Jennifer Heil Way or east of Lakeland Drive or Greystone Drive. There are many developed areas beyond 400 metres (i.e. industry standard estimate for a 5-minute walk) of the existing bus route in the north, east and west.

After leaving Spruce Grove the service runs express to NAIT and then travels into the downtown core via 101-Street before crossing the river to the U of A (reversed in the afternoon). Destinations on this route include the Royal Alexandera hospital area, the Victoria School of the Performing Arts, Centre High, Grant MacEwan, and several large office complexes. There are approximately fifty stops on the route concentrated within Spruce Grove and between NAIT and the U of A. The service does not pick up riders travelling locally within Edmonton.

Figure 1 illustrates the existing route, and within Spruce Grove, areas within a 5-minute walk of this route.

2 Section draws heavily on the DanTech report.

Figure 1: Existing Route 197 within Spruce Grove and Edmonton

While the dominate direction is from Spruce Grove to Edmonton in the morning and Edmonton to Spruce Grove in the afternoon, a few riders use the system to go in the reverse direction. Connections to ETS are poor however with riders having to get on and off the bus near the Mitchell Transit Garage in the west end industrial area.

Travel Time

The local portion within Spruce Grove is scheduled for 28 minutes, at an average speed of 30 km per hour. From Century and Grove it is scheduled for 27 minutes to reach NAIT, and then a further 8 minutes to 104th Street and 105th Avenue, 8 minutes to 99th street and 102nd Ave and 16 additional minutes to reach the University. Some passengers disembark when the bus arrives in downtown rather than riding on the circuitous routing through the city centre. The total travel time from the first pick up in Spruce Grove until arrival in downtown Edmonton is about 70 minutes and to reach the University of Alberta is 89 minutes. These are very long travel times, particularly for trips on urban style coaches designed for much shorter trips.

Park and Ride & Related Activity

Almost half of riders using the service either drive or catch a ride to a bus stop (2014 on-board rider survey). The City’s designated park and ride location is in the parking lot serving the Agrena/Central Park. Users of this lot are required to walk to a covered bus stop on King Street. This location is underutilized likely because of its location in the middle of the route/Spruce Grove combined with a lack of awareness it exists. While not sanctioned, a number of riders, particularly those from Stony Plain and Parkland County are using the Tri-Leisure Centre as a park and ride. Informal park and ride is also occurring and is concentrated near the intersection

10 of Century Road and Grove Drive. Kiss and ride, i.e. getting dropped off by a family member, is also occurring at Century Road and Grove Drive. While the majority of those using the park and ride are non-Spruce Grove residents, over one-third of these are residents who consider themselves too far away from a bus stop to walk or who dislike the circuitous/time consuming route.

Where People Get On and Off

While ridership is spread around Spruce Grove there is a high concentration of people getting on the bus at the TLC, near the intersection of King Street and Brookwood, and at the end of the route (this last trend is reversed in the afternoon). Within Edmonton, NAIT is the most popular stop followed by the downtown core in general. Grant MacEwan and the University of Alberta also are popular destinations and several riders get off near the Royal Alexandra hospital complex and the Victoria School of the Performing Arts. Figures 2 and 3 show the most common stops riders are using to board in Spruce Grove and get off the bus in Edmonton (analysis completed by DanTec Associates in Fall 2012).

Figure 2: Boarding in Spruce Grove, Fall 2012

Key Boardings per Stop Rte 197 0 1 - 5 6-10 11-20 21-30

>30

Fall 2012

N 0 0.125 0.25 0.5 1.0

Figure 3: Where people get off the bus in Edmonton, Fall 2012

Key Boardings per Stop Rte 197 0 1 - 5 6-10 11-20 21-30

>30 Fall 2012

N Route 197 Local Stops Route 197 Limited Stop

2.4 Ridership Trends

Between 2006 and 2011, ridership on Spruce Grove Transit grew steadily and additional runs were added to Route 197. Since this time ridership patterns have been relatively stable. Annual ridership in 2013 was around 83,000 trips, down slightly from a peak of 85,000 trips in 2011. Numbers for the first four months of 2014 however indicate a full rebound with total riders and daily averages at their highest-level since the system started.

Ridership levels on the service are seasonal in nature with the months of ‘September to November’ and ‘January to March’ having the highest ridership. Ridership in the shoulder winter and spring months also is strong however levels are greatly reduced during June, July and August due to the much lower levels of student ridership. Figure 4 shows the variations in monthly ridership since the service started.

Figure 4: Monthly Ridership on Spruce Grove Transit January 2006 - March 2014

10,000

9,000

8,000

7,000

6,000

5,000

4,000 Total RidersPer Total Month

3,000 Over 630,000 passenger trips have made taken since 2006. 2,000

1,000

0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Average peak month daily ridership has leveled off around 200-210 riders in the morning, 185- 195 in the afternoon. Riders concentrate in certain time slots and Route 197 has problems with standees and overcrowding on some trips. In recent years, this problem has been alleviated somewhat by the slightly lower ridership numbers and the tendency for the riders to choose trips with more seats available (i.e. riders have adapted to the crowding on peak trips by adjusting their schedule and/or or not using transit). At this point it is unclear whether riders are travelling during their preferred time slot which makes it challenging to adjust the schedule (future surveys should include a question to explore this behaviour). An estimate of the average number of unique people using the system on any given day is 180. This is derived from the annual daily average and assumes 90% of riders are travelling in both directions.

Ridership on Route 197 is regional in nature. On-board rider surveys have consistently demonstrated that between 30-35% of Spruce Grove Transit ridership is from people who self- identify as non-Spruce Grove residents.

2.5 Fare Structure & ETS Integration

Overview

The current fare system is completely separate from ETS.3 Spruce Grove offers a monthly Commuter pass of $130 allowing unlimited trips to and from Edmonton or a $6.00 single trip cash fare. No discounts are offered for students or seniors on the commuter route. Within Spruce Grove the cash fare for adults is $2.00 and seniors $1.75.

In terms of the distance passengers are being transported, the fare for the Spruce Grove Transit monthly pass is reasonably well priced. This finding is based on the outcomes of the CRB report on fare integration and an analysis of the number of riders per pass per month (25.4). The cash price was recently increased from $5.00 to $6.00, but remains below the $7.00 target suggested in the CRB report for this travel distance. Despite this, as discussed later in this report, many riders feel that they receive poor value for their pass. Recent rate increases saw a initial drop in ridership however the early trend points towards a rebound after the first few months following the increase.

Integration

Currently Spruce Grove Transit passengers are not able to use their passes on ETS or transfer to ETS after paying the cash fare. The lack of fare integration with Edmonton means that passengers who have purchased a monthly pass or paid the cash fare must also purchase a full price ETS monthly pass, or pay the full cash fare each time they ride ETS.

With a Spruce Grove pass price of $130 and an ETS pass price of $89, it would cost Spruce Grove riders looking to transfer into the ETS network $219. In comparison, Leduc riders have full access for $164 ($75 + $89) and Fort Saskatchewan riders have access for $185 ($96+$89). In both of these cases, the Leduc/Fort Saskatchewan operated portion of the service is offered at a lower pass rate which reflects the shorter travel time on these systems (and the need to use the LRT).

In spring 2013 the City worked with ETS to explore different options for transferability into the ETS network. These discussions included looking at opportunities to provide service to Edmonton residents between WEM/South Campus and/or NAIT/Downtown and determining a cost reflecting the actual use of the system by City riders. ETS however is not interested in pursuing a formal fare agreement that is not based on the City reimbursing ETS for the full price of its transit pass. This issue should be revisited in the future pending decisions about a regional smart card for transit fares and/or whether a regional transit commission will be pursued. Transferability into other systems within the region has not been explored.

Universal Transit Pass

Spruce Grove is the only municipality in the Capital Region that does not offer some form of student discount. St. Albert, Strathcona County, and ETS participate in the Universal Transit Pass program4. The City of Leduc/Leduc County and Fort Saskatchewan allow U-Pass holders

3 Content in this section was primarily written by DanTech Associates. 4 This program requires eligible post-secondary students to purchase a discounted transit pass as part of their student fees each semester. There is no option to opt out. The revenue is collected by the participating universities and distributed amongst ETS, Strathcona County Transit, and St. Albert Transit through a complex agreement. The

14 to ride for $1 cash fare each way. Due to the high risk and costs associated with U-Pass participation, Council direction to date has focused on providing a student discount of a similar value to the U-Pass price but not accepting the U-Pass.

As the U-Pass price increases annually any discount directly linked to the U-Pass would cause the Spruce Grove student pass price to decline annually (inverse relationship). The U-Pass price per four-month term for the 2013/2014 academic year is $147.50 or approximately $37/month. Survey and anecdotal information suggests that some students drive to the outer suburbs of Edmonton and park and ride on ETS with their U-Pass. The lack of participation in this program is a major concern amongst students and their parents.

2.6 Policy Context

At the local level the City has strong policy support for transit. The main themes in key documents are:  community members should have well connected mobility options;  transit is a component of a complete community  transit should be integrated with land use, and;  transit provides environmental benefits.

At the regional level, the Capital Region Board (CRB) was created by the Province with four primary work areas: transit, land use, affordable housing, and GIS. The CRB Growth Plan is the guiding document with the Intermuncipal Transit Network Plan as the transit sub-component. Subsequent aspects have been studied in further detail. Of significance, the governance structure of regional transit is under review with a focus on the feasibility of a regional transit commission. While Provincial regulations result in additional trip inspection time (i.e. more money) and paper-work, to-date policy at this level has had limited influence on Spruce Grove’s service. Table 1 identifies significant policy influences guiding the Transit Service Review.

Table 1: Policy Influences on the Transit Service Review

City of Spruce Grove 2015-2035  Complete community with exceptional quality of life. Strategic Plan  Mobility and connectivity. (2014)  Comprehensive transit program with accessibility for all members of the community and designed to keep up with growth by 2035. Municipal  Community-sustainability foundation. Development Plan  Integrate transit with land use. (2010)  Multi-modal transportation connections.  Network with stops within 400-m of 90% of homes. Connections focused at gathering places, higher density residential developments, major parks and sport fields, major employment areas and shopping areas.  Monitor ridership and respond to evolving needs as feasible.

program is renewed every three years following a student vote to continue participation. Additional information on the U-Pass program and the risk to Spruce Grove’s transit system is available at www.sprucegrove.org/transit.

Transportation  Guiding document for transportation development, offers a new vision for Master Plan travel behaviour in 2040 based on four modes of transportation (2012) (vehicular, public transit, bicycles, pedestrians).  Modal-split targets to move from 1% of transit-based work-trips to 3% by 2020, 5% by 2030, and 7% by 2040.  Transit requires supportive infrastructure, includes transit expressways, arterials, collectors, and dedicated transit centres/park and ride facilities. Environmental  One of five environmental priorities. Sustainability  Increase ridership and service levels. Action Plan (2011)  Reduce greenhouse gas emissions and meet adopted GHG targets. Capital Region Board Capital Region  Overarching growth plan comprised of four sub-plans. Growth Plan/  The land use plan identified priority growth areas which require higher Integrated Transit density levels but will receive greater infrastructure investments. Spruce Network Plan Grove is included in PGA A with Stony Plain and a segment of Parkland (2009) County (including Acheson).  The transit component, the Intermunicipal Transit Service Plan, included a vision/guiding principles, a high-level network, a governance model and a cost-sharing funding formula. Governance –  Designed to explore different governance options and address concerns Options Review about the limitations of the adopted model. (2013)  A regional transit commission model was viewed as the strongest to achieve the goals/vision in the integrated network plan. Governance -  A business case to assess the feasibility of a commission governance Business Case model was completed in April 2014. The study looked at two options: one (2014) with all existing operators and contracted systems and one with only two of the three current operators and all contracted systems.  The report recommended the region continue to move towards a commission model of governance.  The outcomes of this work will have a significant impact on the future of the Spruce Grove system.  Member municipalities are currently responding to this plan. 30-Year Service  Detailed look at the long-term regional transit network. Included three Plan (2011) scenarios based on low, medium, and high funding formulas. Fare Strategy  Proposed a regional approach to transit fares. Implementation of the (2013) recommended model would most likely require a commission. Regional Service  Outlines service standards to guide the development of service in the Standards (2010) Capital Region. Addresses variety of topics including frequency, span of service, ridership targets, crowding, coverage, and emissions.  These standards were used loosely when making decisions about future changes to the Spruce Grove system. Government of Alberta GreenTRIP  Provincial grant program designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions program by providing capital investment in transit in Alberta. Requires CRB support for municipalities applying within its jurisdiction. The program utilizes a two-thirds Province/one-third local authority funding formula.  Spruce Grove has $7.3-million tentatively allocated within the CRB’s share of the funding available for the program’s second call (deadline is November 2014) to fund bus purchases and park and ride development.

Bus  Policy review focused on intermunicipal bus travel. Implications for Modernization municipalities relate to bus weight on provincial highways (impacts ability to have standees).  While the outcome of this project was for less provincial involvement in transit, a resurfacing of the bus weight concern could create problems for Spruce Grove Transit in the future.

2.7 System Financials

In 2013, the total cost of the ETS contract to run Spruce Grove’s transit service was approximately $1.1 million. The ETS contract is composed of capital costs associated with the number of buses used on the service (per day charge, just under one-quarter of total costs), operating costs by service hour, and to a lesser extent, inspection and administrative support charges. In addition to these costs, a significant portion of staff time is required to manage the ETS contract, respond to customer service issues, participate in regional transit discussions, and recently, to complete the Transit Service Review project.

The cost of providing the service has increased significantly since it was first introduced. While an initial component of this is from service additions, since 2010 this is solely from increases to the ETS contract costs (e.g. 2012 saw a 6.9% increase while it was 4.8% in 2013). The Status Quo service model, i.e. no changes, is projected to increase to $1.3 million by 2018 with limited potential for new revenue without higher pass rates.

With regards to revenue, monthly pass sales and ETS cash fares recover slightly less than 40% of the costs of the ETS contract ($412,000 in 2012, $423,000 in 2013). Three-quarters of the revenue is from commuter bus pass sales. Recent years have seen an increase in cash revenue. Figure 5 illustrates this split over time.

Figure 5: Commuter Pass Revenue vs. Cash Revenue

Sale of Services - Commuter Passes Only ETS Fare Box Revenue $350,000

$300,000

$250,000

$200,000

$150,000

$100,000

$50,000

$- 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

The potential to increase revenue with no changes to the service are minimal. The system is operating at or near capacity during peak months and analysis suggests that the monthly pass rate is priced within the appropriate range based on the average number of times it is used per month. While the number of unique riders using the system is much higher, it is estimated that the daily average over the course of the year is 180-riders5; this translates into an average subsidy of $3,800 per year.

Another factor to consider is the City has directed its Municipal Services Initiative (MSI) operating grant to subsidize its transit service since 2008. A significant funding source ($360,000 in 2013) this program is getting phased out incrementally by one-third until it is eliminated in 2016. This change will have a major impact on the operating deficit covered through tax dollars.6

Despite the high levels of regional ridership on Spruce Grove Transit, the system is only funded by the City of Spruce Grove. While Council has directed Administration to consider a differential fare structure for residents/non-residents, to-date this has not been implemented. Council has repeatedly expressed frustration over the lack of progress to bring Stony Plain and Parkland County into the system. The high cost and subsidy rate combined with this dynamic pose a major challenge to future system growth; Council is hesitant to direct greater tax dollars to expanding the system when the benefits are shared regionally.

2.8 Market Potential

The City of Spruce Grove has a population of 30,000 however the nearby population centres (e.g. Stony Plain, Parkland Village) create a potential system base of approximately 50,000 people. If expanded to the full primary trading area around Spruce Grove this population grows to 70,000. While the current route only provides direct service to Spruce Grove, the strong regional nature of the ridership highlights the potential for future system growth and the willingness of residents living outside the primary ‘urban core’ to park and ride as part of their Edmonton commute.

Building on this, the City of Spruce Grove is growing rapidly at an average of 5-6% per year with the surrounding region also experiencing strong residential growth. Despite this, transit ridership has remained relatively stable since 2009. While no research was conducted specifically on this question, potential explanations include the limited capacity of the existing system (no additional trips added since 2009) and poor or no coverage in fast growing new neighbourhoods. These factors are compounded by other constraints such as no local service, limited commuter options/system flexibility, and the perception that the current pass rate offers poor value. The high ridership peaks in September and October suggests new riders try the system for a few months but stop riding over time. While this timeline points towards the new riders being predominantly students, this is not necessarily the full story, as the lower ridership experienced between May to August means new residents may start riding the buses when its not crowded.

Although the current commuter service provides some limited opportunity to travel around Spruce Grove locally, the times are not well linked with start-times and destinations of employers within the city. Serving Spruce Grove’s industrial parks is particularly difficult as the

5 It was assumed that 90% of the riders travel round trip, i.e. the same person travels in an out. 6 The annual per rider subsidy was calculated without the MSI funding includes since this funding could have been allocated elsewhere.

18 transit service must cross the CN rail line creating scheduling challenges and system inefficiencies/cost increases.

While opportunities to improve connections to employers in Spruce Grove exist, Acheson Industrial Park is a major regional employer that should be considered for future service expansion. This finding was reflected in the CRB Intermunicipal Transit Plan and in the 2007 Spruce Grove/Stony Plain Transit Feasibility Study. Serving this area in the peak commuter direction is problematic but the potential exists to bring riders to/from Edmonton in the off-peak direction on the current route. Further potential exists for a different transit option that brings workers from the west to Acheson. The Acheson Business Association is currently exploring options for transit in this area with the support of Parkland County.

In conclusion, ridership data and population growth suggest there is a strong market for future transit development in Spruce Grove, particularly if linked into a sub-regional and regional network. The main challenges to realizing this potential are the high cost of transit provision and the ability of sub-regional and regional municipalities to work together to provide this service.

PART 3 – FEEDBACK AND SURVEY HIGHLIGHTS

The outcomes for the Phase 1 work are based on the input collected from the online survey completed in spring 2011 and an on-board rider survey completed in March 2014. This input was supplemented by an analysis of ongoing customer service feedback and input collected as part of the Transportation Master Plan process. In most cases, the input obtained through these different processes generated similar themes. Key findings are included below with additional results in Appendix A.

3.1 On-Board Rider Survey, Spring 2014 (riders only)

The on-board survey was conducted on March 26, 2014 (Wednesday) on all morning trips between Spruce Grove and Edmonton. In total, 237 people completed the survey.  A large majority of riders use the service every day or 5-8 times per week.  Riders are typically commuting to work or attending a post-secondary institution. A number of regular riders are using the system to access K-12 schools (~10%).  Approximately 10% of riders transfer to ETS currently. A desire to see an integrated pass was a common theme in the open ended question responses.  Forty-five (45%) of riders said they either drive or get a ride to their bus stop. Over one- third of these (41 riders) live in Spruce Grove and prefer this option because the bus stop is too far away or the route is too circuitous/time consuming. This is a significant increase from past surveys.  A little over a quarter of riders have a U-Pass. Approximately two-thirds of riders use a commuter-pass while the other one-third uses a cash fare.  The most common reason riders cited for riding is ‘it’s cheaper than driving/parking a car’. The next highest responses were ‘environmentally friendly’ and ‘prefer riding the bus’.  As in past surveys, approximately thirty-percent of riders come from outside the City.  When asked what factors would make riders use the bus more, the most common responses were ‘able to transfer to ETS with the same pass’, ‘more frequently service’ and ‘new midday service’. Strong support also existed for WEM service and evening service.

 Highest areas of dissatisfaction were crowding and the time of the last trip in the afternoon. Other areas of concern were the time of the last trip in the morning and first trip in the afternoon, the value for money of the passes, and the frequency of the service.  Other findings include (1) less ‘choice riders’ (i.e. people who could take a car or catch a ride instead of riding) are using the system than in previous surveys, and (2) more riders are accessing the system initially by vehicle (driving and parking, getting dropped off) than historical data.

3.2 On-Line Survey, 2011 (mix of riders/non-riders)

The online survey held in spring 2011 was heavily promoted through local media and City channels. It was reliant on people self-selecting to participate. Over four hundred people responded, split roughly evenly between non-users/former-users of the system and current- users.  Survey participants overwhelming are supportive of public transit and view it as an essential municipal service and component of an effective local economy.  The majority of riders have access to a personal vehicle and choose to use the service.  Over three-quarters of non-users/former-users indicated they would consider using the service if it better met their needs.  The most dominant theme in the results was the need for greater flexibility. This includes additional hours of operation and route destinations. Targeted expansion opposed to widespread expansion of service will address most concerns raised.  Destinations identified most frequently as priorities for future service were West Edmonton Mall and to a lesser extent Stony Plain. Respondents also would like better access to the LRT network.  While results suggest higher demand exists for a strong regional service with connections mid-day, weekends and evenings to/from Edmonton, a core group of respondents is interested in seeing improved local service.  Options for participating in the U-Pass program in a way that does not result in cost increases for other riders need to be considered.  The outcomes of the City’s transit review should seek to reinforce its current rider base while building on the potential that exists to expand this base.

3.3 On-Going Customer Service Feedback

While feedback received through customer service processes tends to be quite specific, some themes are apparent.  Issues with schedule adherence, i.e. bus showing up late (most common) or early.  Concern about City’s non-participation in the U-Pass program.  Specific suggestions for service improvements, i.e. modified routing and an expanded schedule.  Concern about crowding and buses passing up riders at the stops, and to a lesser extent, the use of the system by non-Spruce Grove residents.  Concern about the value of the system, i.e. high cost but limited service when compared with systems such as St. Albert and Strathcona County which both offer cheaper passes and much higher levels of service.

PART 4 – OPTIONS CONSIDERED

4.1 Preliminary Proposed Concept, 2013

Council was presented with a preliminary three-stage concept to restructure the City’s transit system in 2013 as part of the budget process. This concept was developed by Dan Levy of DanTech Associates based on extensive input from the City of Spruce Grove and Edmonton Transit Service (ETS) and was designed to respond to the input received from riders.

In this concept, the existing route was to be split into two routes, one serving NAIT and downtown and the other serving WEM and the South Campus LRT station, with a timed transfer point in Spruce Grove to allow people to switch between routes. The routes were to be expanded within Spruce Grove in 2015 with a midday route added to WEM in 2016. The initial route changes were accompanied by two new pass options: an ETS/Spruce Grove integrated pass and a discounted student pass. The preliminary concept received funding for its first stage with implementation for 2014 pending public input and Council approval of the final concept.

Despite the initial work with ETS on the preliminary concept, a number of new issues were raised during implementation planning.  The existing schedule does not have enough room in it for the current service. All buses on average are running eight- minutes late (i.e. early ones are mostly on time, peak ones are even later). Timings used from this schedule to build the draft initial concept schedules are problematic. The City had received no prior indication from ETS that Route 197 was experiencing this issue.  Having three buses complete a second trip on both the morning and afternoon schedule is also problematic. Potential issues included whether enough recovery time was built into the schedule for the buses to make the second trip (given the concern about schedule adherence) and whether this option is reasonable given the frequent back-ups on the Yellowhead.  Operating two routes with a timed transfer point in Spruce Grove will be an issue given the challenges the buses might experience in adhering to the schedule (the City’s consultant had flagged this as a potential issue however it was deemed manageable given that other communities in the region are able to make similar models work). Concern was expressed about residents either getting stranded at the transfer point or experiencing significant wait times.  The even split between the two routes is unlikely to work, i.e. the 197 (NAIT, downtown) will be crowded while the 196 (WEM, South Campus LRT) will have lots of space.  Even if the City decides to maintain its current operations in place of making changes for fall of 2014, it will experience a cost increase when the schedule is adjusted to deal with the current adherence issues.

From the City’s perspectives, many of these issues identified by ETS were fundamental to the proposed concept and targeted base assumptions related to route design and cost decisions. While some aspects of the initial concept are still relevant major revisions were required with cost implications. The City has worked with ETS scheduling and regional planning staff to identify new concepts while recognizing budget constraints and rider input.

4.2 Other Options Explored

In addition to the preliminary concept proposed, three other options were explored in detail within the existing ETS-based contract approach. All options were based on splitting the local Route 197 into two separate peak hour routes to expand coverage into neighbourhoods currently not serviced directly. The options considered in addition to the concept discussed above were:  5 trips one route to NAIT LRT, 5 trips one route to WEM-South Campus LRT;  5 trips per route to WEM-South Campus LRT, and;  4 trips per route to NAIT LRT (lower number of trips due to lower anticipated rider demand).

While the costing and scheduling assumptions in this analysis do not incorporate the scheduling issues identified in Section 4.1, some key findings from this analysis are still relevant:  service not travelling directly to downtown will see lower ridership and revenue levels as it will inconvenience the downtown worker market (i.e. riders who pay full price and ride year round);  ending all trips at South Campus or NAIT will require major fare policy revisions as all riders will now be required to transfer to ETS, and;  directing all trips to South Campus will essentially require the City to rebuild its ridership base.

Recent discussions with ETS staff reinforced DanTech’s findings; ETS staff stressed that the reason the City’s current system is the most successful in terms of ridership numbers of all the suburban contract systems is because it directly serves key destinations and is relatively affordable and convenient. The recommendation was for the City to continue serving its core market, downtown, while providing connections to other destinations through LRT transfer points.

PART 5 - PROGRAM VISION & PROPOSED CONCEPT

5.1 Vision and Guiding Principles for the System

Prior discussions about route concepts have focused on technical details and schedules. As Council moves towards final decisions on its short-term service approach, it’s important to identify a vision and core program principles. Based on historical records, the transit system was initially introduced as an environmental program to get cars off the road and reduce congestion and greenhouse gas emissions. This focus combined with higher demand resulted in the service being introduced as a commuter program rather than a local service. Overtime the service has rounded out with a greater focus placed on helping students remain at home while attending school in Edmonton and providing a more affordable option for people needing to travel into the City.

Related to this, in larger systems, service standards based on the program vision and core principles determine when new routes or trips should be added. While the Capital Region Board Transit Service Standards for Inter-Municipal Transit were used as a rough guide for this project, adhering to them completely could have major cost implications in some areas (e.g. no standees on trips longer than 20-minutes).

The table below proposes some initial ideas for these three areas for discussion. These were developed based on principles in four adopted strategic documents:  2015-2017 Strategic Plan  Municipal Development Plan  Transportation Master Plan  Capital Region Board Intermunicipal Transit Plan

Table 2: Proposed High Level Direction for Spruce Grove Transit

Vision A comprehensive transit program that provides accessibility for all members of the community and is designed to keep up with growth. Core Program  Integrated with land use Principles  Connected to other modes of transportation  Accessible  Viable alternative  Equitable  Fiscally prudent  Part of a regional transit network

Service It is preliminary for the City to introduce service standards/targets into its Standards/ transit system planning. This is something that should be considered further Targets as the system develops and resident demand grows. Potential categories that could be included are:  Ridership growth  Bus accessibility  Coverage  Recovery cost ratio  Trip length  Frequency  Number of transfers required to reach major destinations

In the absence of these targets, the annual Canadian Urban Transit Association (CUTA) data reporting process will provide a good base for monitoring system efficiency and effectiveness.

5.2 Overview of Proposed Changes & Options

A suite of recommended system changes is proposed in the following sections. In all stages, the changes would be rolled out in year one in September7 and then run for the full twelve months in year two. While a schedule is proposed, decisions to implement any changes will occur as part of the City’s budget planning and prioritization process. Also, the different components could be combined into one year or delayed into subsequent years (determined based on funding and rider demand). Three different options are presented for Stage 2. It is recommended that any changes be monitored closely for a period of six months to one year before adjustments are made; this provides the service changes the opportunity to get established. Transit schedules for each of the routes proposed is included as Appendix B.

Cost estimate notes

7 ETS tends to direct its major service changes to the September sign-up.

 These are preliminary and derived by Administration based on scheduling information and contract costing formulas provided by ETS.  Each stage includes estimates for its ‘Year 1’ and ‘Year 2’ with Year 1 prorated based on a September start and Year 2 based on the full year of service. The cost for future years would be the Year 2 value plus inflation.  A 4.5% annual increase is included in the calculations for operating costs while 3.0% is used for capital costs.  Preliminary work on revenue and ridership projections was inconclusive, especially when compared across options. Historic trends do not provide enough information to project future revenue changes with reasonable accuracy given the proposed changes to the bus pass fare structure and route design.

Public input on the proposed changes, with the exception of September 2015 – Option C, was presented at two open houses (May 20 and 21) and over a two-week public input period (May 13-25). The feedback received is incorporated into the sections below as appropriate and also included in Appendix A. In total fifty people attended the open houses and two people commented via email.

5.3 Stage 1 - Approved 2014 Changes, Route and Fare Structure

Overview

The Stage 1 changes, scheduled for September 2014 were approved by Council in May 2014. These changes address on-time schedule issues, create operational efficiencies by cutting direct service to the U of A and relying on the LRT network, adding a midday trip, and increasing the bus pass options available to Spruce Grove residents. The existing route is maintained within Spruce Grove. While a small extension into Harvest Ridge/Spruce Ridge was considered this was delayed until after a final decision on Stage 2 changes is made (Figure 6).

Route and Schedule Changes

The existing schedule does not have enough time in it to account for increased travel times and congestion on the route. This makes it challenging for the bus to keep its schedule and arrive on time. Also, as ETS bills the City based on the approved schedule, incorporating schedule adherence adjustments is required by ETS. Making these changes will increase the reliability of the service for riders.

After leaving Spruce Grove the service will continue to travel to downtown Edmonton but will no longer continue to the University of Alberta (Figure 7). Making this change creates system efficiencies by reducing the number of buses required (the shorter route makes it easier for buses to run a second trip) and total service hours. This destination can be accessed conveniently from the Churchill LRT and future NAIT LRT stations. There are significant cost savings from taking this step which can be reinvested in the system. Of note, the first morning and afternoon trips do not currently serve U of A.

The final route changes approved for September is the addition of one midday trip leaving downtown at around 1:30pm and returning express from Spruce Grove to downtown at 2:45pm. This route will increase flexibility for riders and prevents others from ‘feeling trapped in the City’ when unexpected circumstances arise. The slightly later time period for this trip is to create efficiencies by linking in with the first trip in the peak afternoon period.

Figure 6: Modified Route 197 within Spruce Grove/Midday Routing

Expansion Delayed

Figure 7: Revised Route in Downtown Edmonton

Fare Structure

The City’s existing fare structure charges everyone the same price, i.e. $6 one-way cash fare or $130 for a monthly pass. This will change to a three-fare model for commuter passes in September. The base commuter fare will remain at $130 in 2014 and be available to all riders of Spruce Grove Transit. Two subsidized passes, the integrated and student passes will be available to Spruce Grove residents only and are discussed in more detail below. The details on how this program change will be implemented were not finalized at time of writing.

a) Student Fare (Spruce Grove residents only) - $95

While concerns about the U-Pass is an important driver behind the student discount, the student pass is available to all full-time students attending school in Edmonton presenting with a valid Student I.D. card. The $95 pass cost is a 27% discount on the full pass price. Estimated lost revenue is $35,000 however this may be offset either in part or in full through increased student ridership due to better service and cheaper rates. Another factor behind the new student pass is the route changes now require Spruce Grove U-Pass holders to use their U-Pass to reach the U of A where previously they could access the U of A using the Spruce Grove system only.

b) Integrated Fare (Spruce Grove residents only) - $165, 1-Year Pilot

The integrated bus pass provides riders with access to the full ETS system. This pass responds to concerns from existing riders who currently ride Route 197 to the U of A area and will now be forced to transfer to ETS. It also responds to public input asking for an integrated fare system and should help attract new riders.

To reduce the total cost of purchasing both an ETS pass and a Spruce Grove pass ($219), the integrated pass rate was set at $165 per month with a City subsidy of $54 per pass. In this model, the City’s integrated rate is comparable to Leduc’s rate and lower than Fort Saskatchewan’s rate. However, for riders who will now be required to transfer to ETS to reach destinations previously served by Spruce Grove’s system they will be experiencing a 27% fare increase (i.e. $130 to $165).

The main risk to this option is system growth. While the costs are should be manageable in the short-term, as ridership grows and more users opt for the integrated pass, the City’s costs will increase. Conservative budget estimate based on existing ridership data is that fifty passes will be sold per month. It is recommended this pass be introduced as 1-year pilot in case it is more popular (i.e. expensive) than anticipated.

In a future regional transit commission model, the issue of fare integration is no longer an issue as the full regional transit network would operate as one system. In the absence of a commission, the City may still be able to negotiate a fare agreement based on actual use in the future if a regional smart card fare system is introduced (in planning stages).

Public Feedback

The feedback received on Stage 1 was mixed.  People working at U of A or in the adjacent area were concerned that their direct service was being cut. They were also concerned about the higher pass rate but did acknowledge the effort the City was making to reduce this impact.

 People not travelling to the U of A were supportive of this service change noting that the ridership is often low and the destination is easily accessible by bus.  Overall people were supportive of the fare policy changes. Some students would have liked to see the U-Pass implemented still however others felt this was a fair approach.  Residents of Spruce Grove were supportive of the ‘Spruce Grove’ only condition on the subsidized student and integrated passes but had questions about process.

Table 3: Stage 1 – Cost Estimates, Route and Fare Changes

Factor 2014 (4 months) 2015 (12 months) Schedule adherence ~$10,000-$11,000 ~$30,000-$35,000 Mandatory (ETS contract) Drop UofA/Redirect to Midday ($5,406) ($11,696) Student pass $17,500 $35,000 Integrated pass $10,800 $32,400

5.4 Stage 2 – September 2015 Options

Overview

Three different options are under consideration for September 2015 implementation. The first two options were presented at the May 2014 open houses and included in the public input period. The third option was generated as a result of discussions at the open houses.  Option A – Two Local Routes, More Coverage, Both Travel to City Centre  Option B – Existing Route, More Trips  Option C – Two Local Routes, One to City Centre, One to WEM-South Campus

Option A -Two Local Routes, More Coverage, Both Travel to City Centre

In Option A, the existing peak hour route is split into two routes as identified in the DanTech 2013 concept. The two routes will continue to service areas already covered by Route 197 and add service to Spruce Ridge, Harvest Ridge, Hilldowns, Stoneshire, Linkside, Aspenglen, Deer Park, and Greenbury. Figure 8 illustrates the two routes within Spruce Grove and areas with access to these routes within a five minute walk (400-meter buffer). These initial changes increase the percentage of residential parcels within a five minute walk from 76% to 96%. In this scenario five trips will be provided on each route for the AM peak period and four trips in the PM peak period. The midday trip running the existing Route 197 will still be offered to provide riders with additional flexibility for getting home and alleviate peak period crowding. The fifth trip in the morning provides additional flexibility to riders travelling to work/schools and is more cost effective than a fifth trip in the PM as less busses are required. High ridership levels would be required before adding an additional PM trip on each route.

Table 4: Stage 2 – Option A Cost Estimates

Factor 2015 (4 months) 2016 (12 months) 5 Trips AM/4 Trips PM $99,000 $300,000 OR* 5 Trips AM/5 Trips PM $166,000 $474,000 *If demand and scheduling warrant it. Running 5 Trips in the PM will require both extra operating hours and an additional bus (AM trip does not have additional capital requirements). The cost of 4 Trips AM/PM per route is $78,000 in 2015 and $246,000 in 2016.

Strengths  New areas are provided with direct service, i.e. more equitable coverage.  City is responding to growth.  Increased number of trips (10 AM peak, 1 midday, 8 PM peak) to reduce crowding  Potential to attract new riders.  Should help to reduce the high proportion of riders currently driving to the system.

Weaknesses  Existing passengers have less time options available to them, i.e. 5 trips AM/4 trips PM instead of 7 trips in each peak period. This may be perceived as a decline in service by existing riders and it will be a challenge to maintain the same span of service.  Previous consultant expressed concern about only offering 4-trips per route however ridership levels may not be high enough to justify costs of 5-trips per route.  More bus stops and transit infrastructure is required, increasing maintenance requirements.  Travel times within Spruce Grove on the two routes are similar to the times for the existing route.

Public Feedback  Current riders are concerned about the reduced frequency of the service. Many liked the additional coverage but did not want to see the number of trips drop significantly.  When open house attendees were asked to choose between the two local routes or more trips on the existing routes, the responses were mixed; riders choosing the two local route option however tended to say ‘I like this option but with more trips’.  While the concept at the open house recommended 4-trips per route, this has been amended to add one extra trip in the AM-period.

Figure 8: Option A - Two Local Routes within Spruce Grove

Both routes travel to Edmonton’s Downtown

Option B – Existing Local Route, More Trips, Medium Coverage

In Option B, the existing Route 197 would remain the same however an additional trip would be added in each direction. This would respond to rider demand for later service in the morning and in the evening. The midday service would be maintained. In this scenario, no new neighbourhoods would be added and coverage would remain at 76% within a 5-minute walk.

Table 5: Stage 2 – Option B Cost Estimates

Factor 2015 (4 months) 2016 (12 months) 8 Trips AM/PM per route $42,000 $110,000 *Increasing the number of trips to 10 total per peak hour period would be comparable financially to Options A and C. Demand may not warrant this expansion however.

Strengths  One strong route that is reinforced by higher service frequency providing more flexibility to riders.  Reduced crowding (although to a lesser degree than Option A in the AM period)  Significantly lower costs from less service hours and reduced capital requirements, i.e. 6 buses instead of 8 required.  Good option to improve existing service while exploring different operational models (e.g. local feeder routes to express Edmonton service, non-ETS contractor, bus purchase).  Less confusion because midday and peak hour routing are the same.  Less costs for infrastructure and snow removal, i.e. less stops.  Easier to add more trips in the future due to the overall lower operating costs and capital requirements than Option A.

Weaknesses  Less coverage within Spruce Grove  Less equitable for/accessible to all residents.  Does not address the issue with long travel times.  Fewer additional trips/less capacity than other options.  Less value for investment, i.e. increasing this route to the same capacity as other options would be comparable price wise but offers less new revenue/ridership generation potential and fewer destinations.

Public Feedback  Existing riders for the most part like the times available to them and are using the service because it works for their schedule. They were supportive of an additional trip to reduce crowding and increase flexibility.  The general feeling amongst those who supported this option over two local routes was if the travel times were not going to be reduced, then keep working with what we already have and do not make major changes.

Option C – New Local Express Route to WEM and South Campus (RECOMMENDED)

Option C emerged out of the open house input and was refined through further analysis. In this option a second route would be added travelling an express reduced coverage route within Spruce Grove and then running to the WEM and South Campus LRT (~60% of households

31 within a 5-minute walk). Three trips each peak period would be provided. The WEM transfer station provides convenient connections to a number of other areas within Edmonton while the South Campus LRT significantly reduces travel time to the U of A campus and adjacent health centre. Upgrades will be required at some bus stops on this route to ensure each location has a shelter. With the exception of Century Road this will benefit both this route and Route 197. Lower ridership levels may warrant this route terminating at WEM between May and August. Figure 9 and 10 illustrate the proposed route (next page).

A downtown express reduced coverage option was explored as an alternative to the existing Route 197 (in addition to the WEM-South Campus route). Further analysis demonstrated that the anticipated time savings were not realized to the degree expected with total daily service hours only reduced by one hour and the number of buses required remaining the same. While the small service hour reduction is about a $30,000 cost savings over the course of the year, this is not enough to justify the inconvenience to residents having to walk further combined with the risk of potential ridership declines from disrupting the existing route. In the case of the new route to WEM and South Campus, this would be primarily targeting new ridership and would be viewed as a service enhancement rather than a decline.

Table 6: Stage 2 – Option C Cost Estimates

Factor 2015 (4 months) 2016 (12 months) 3 AM/PM Trips $42,000 $110,000 *Recommended to explore terminating service at WEM between May – August. Will require discussions with ETS due to capacity restrictions at the WEM terminal.

Strengths  Efficient and relatively cost effective option with reasonable coverage.  Open up new high demand destinations in Edmonton.  Significantly reduces the travel time to the U of A (10-15 minutes)  Encourages new ridership.  Doubles as a downtown option for riders looking to park and ride and travel express.  Introduces an express reduced coverage option.  Feeds into the proposed 2016 and 2017 changes and reduces the costs of evening WEM service (cost for first evening trip incorporated into Stage 2 changes).  Directs additional service to transit arterials.

Weaknesses  Less convenient for some riders than running routes with more coverage.  May increase the demand for the integrated pass above the anticipated levels, especially if large numbers of riders start using this route to access downtown. Will need to monitor this closely if this pass is continued past the pilot period.  Increased levels of downtown ridership map require service to be shifted from Route 197 to this route (e.g. 6 trips Route 197, 4 trips WEM-South Campus)  Limited additional infrastructure investment.

Public Feedback

This option emerged from discussions with the public and Council and builds on the findings in the public input received earlier in this project. It responds to demand for: an express route option, service to WEM, better option to reach U of A, and reduced travel times.

Figure 9: Express Reduced Coverage Route to WEM and South Campus LRT

Figure 10: Edmonton Routing Overview (Option C)

5.5 Stage 3 – September 2016, Express Reduced Coverage WEM Route, Evenings

Stage 3 changes in September 2016 would see expanding the services hours of the express reduced coverage, i.e. Stage 2 – Option C, to a service that runs hourly between Spruce Grove and WEM between 5:30pm – 10:30pm Monday to Friday (note: does not extend South Campus LRT). While not depending on the implementation of Option C, this addition would reinforce the peak service on this route and on Route 197. Evening service enhances the daytime service by increasing flexibility for riders and serving students with evening classes or workers looking to stay late (WEM is a major transfer station with excellent connections from most of Edmonton). The express nature of this route within Spruce Grove and terminating at WEM, makes the route efficient and allows it be operated by only one bus. Public feedback at the open houses was very supportive of this route addition. Riders were excited by the increased flexibility it offers to the daytime service.

Table 7: Stage 3 – Express Reduced Coverage WEM Route, Evenings

Factor 2016 (4 months) 2017 (12 months) 5 evening ‘reduce coverage’ $55,000 (Option A) $172,000 (Option A) trips between Spruce Grove $67,500 (Options B) $212,000 (Options B) and WEM, Monday to Friday $42,000 (Option C) $139,000 (Option C) Stage 2 - Option A and Option C have reduced capital requirements for Stage 3 than Option B. Option C overlaps with the first trip of Stage 3 also reducing the operating cost. Further analysis may allow for Option B to also reduce capital requirements but it is less likely.

5.6 Stage 4 –September 2017, Express Reduced Coverage WEM Route, Saturdays

Stage 4, proposed for September 2017, extends the route discussed in Stage 3 and Stage 2 – Option C, to Saturdays. This service would run between Spruce Grove and WEM on an hourly basis between 9:00am and 7:00pm. This service is not dependent on the implementation of Stage 2 – Option C or Stage 3 however it would reinforce these two options. Surveys suggest there is some demand for weekend service to Edmonton currently. By travelling to WEM, riders can conveniently reach other locations in the city. Demand for this service should be verified prior to implementing; it may make sense to delay this service addition. As with the Stage 3 proposal, public feedback at the open houses was very supportive of this addition

Table 8: Stage 4 – Express Reduced Coverage WEM Route, Saturdays

Factor 2017 (4 months) 2018 (12 months) 11 daytime trips between $24,000 $76,000 Spruce Grove and WEM, Saturday only

5.7 Recommended Option & Financial Impact

Stage 2 Recommendation

Stage 2 – Option C “Two local routes, one to City Centre, one to WEM-South Campus” is recommended as it presents the best opportunity to increase ridership, is a clear service enhancement, and provides strong value for the investment. While Option A “Two local routes, more coverage, both travel to City Centre” meets a number of the principles outlined above (e.g. integration with land use, accessible, equitable) making it convenient for riders will be expensive and it will be challenging to accommodate additional demand. While Option C also has comparable costs associated with it, it is anticipated that there is greater opportunity to realize new revenue by serving new destinations. In comparison, Option B “Existing route, more trips, medium coverage” is an affordable short-term solution to make minor improvements to the service while waiting for greater clarity on the future regional direction and how local service fits in. Option B however carries some risks as riders come to rely on the larger number of trip options available to them. In this case, it makes it harder to move to a model such as Option A and/or create efficiencies by reducing the number of trips and operating high capacity buses. Of note, Option B will likely be preferred by many existing riders as it will be a clear service enhancement for them.

Financial Impact by Stage

The total projected project expenses for Stages 1 - 4 are outlined below for each of the three different Stage 2 options. Status quo service is projected to grow from $1.1 million in 2014 to $1.3 million in 2018 based on a 3% inflation rate for the capital component of the contract and 4.5% for the operating component. These costs focus on ETS contract costs and do not factor in administrative time spent on transit or costs associated with the approved discounted student and integrated passes.

Revenue data is not factored into the analysis at this time. Initial work suggests there is not strong enough historic data to identify clear ridership or revenue trends to use for future projections. Complicating the analysis is the City’s move to a three-tier pass structure in September 2014. Further work will continue on this moving forward with rough revenue numbers generated based on assumptions related to capacity and pass sales. It is anticipated revenue will remain above $400,000 but preliminary analysis suggests it is unlikely to surpass $500,000 - $550,000 over the next five years without larger than average increases to rates. Based on the increasing costs of the system and the moderately stable revenue, the cost recovery ratio is expected to decrease. Ridership growth has the potential to stabilize the annual subsidy per rider.

Figure 11: ETS Contract Costs by Stage - Option A

$2,500

$1,933 $2,000 Stage 4 Stage 3 $1,500 Stage 2 - Option A

$1,140 Stage 1 (Savings)

Status Quo $1,000 Status Quo '000s Misc. ETS

$500

$- 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Table 9: ETS Contract Costs by Stage – Option A

‘000s Factor 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Misc. ETS Admin/Inspections $50 $50 $50 $50 $50 Status Quo (Adherence) $1,096 $1,163 $1,211 $1,262 $1,315 Phase 1 (Cost Decline) ($5) ($12) ($12) ($12) ($12) Phase 2 – Option A $0 $99 $300 $312 $325 Phase 3 $0 $0 $55 $172 $180 Phase 4 $0 $0 $0 $24 $76 Total ETS Contract Costs $1,140 $1,300 $1,604 $1,808 $1,933

Figure 12: ETS Contract Costs by Stage – Option B

$2,500

$2,000 $1,769

Stage 4

$1,500 Stage 3

$1,140 Stage 2 - One Route '000s Stage 1 (Savings) $1,000 Status Quo Status Quo Misc. ETS $500

$- 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Table 10: ETS Contract Costs by Stage – Option B

‘000s Factor 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Misc. ETS Admin/Inspections $50 $50 $50 $50 $50 Status Quo (Adherence) $1,096 $1,163 $1,211 $1,262 $1,315 Phase 1 (Cost Decline) ($5) ($12) ($12) ($12) ($12) Phase 2 – Option B $0 $42 $110 $115 $120 Phase 3 $0 $0 $67 $212 $221 Phase 4 $0 $0 $0 $24 $76 Total ETS Costs $1,140 $1,243 $1,427 $1,651 $1,769

Figure 13: ETS Contract Costs by Stage - Option C

$2,500

$1,984 $2,000

Stage 4 $1,500

Stage 3

$1,140 Stage 2 - Option C '000s $1,000 Stage 1 (Savings) Status Quo Status Quo Misc. ETS $500

$- 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Table 11: ETS Contract Costs by Stage – Option C

‘000s Factor 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Misc. ETS Admin/Inspections $50 $50 $50 $50 $50 Status Quo (Adherence) $1,096 $1,163 $1,211 $1,262 $1,315 Phase 1 (Cost Decline) ($5) ($12) ($12) ($12) ($12) Phase 2 – Option C $0 $123 $377 $393 $410 Phase 3 $0 $0 $42 $139 $146 Phase 4 $0 $0 $0 $24 $76 Total ETS Costs $1,140 $1,324 $1,669 $1,857 $1,984 * Seasonal service reductions to WEM-South Campus route should be considered (not included).

PART 6 – OTHER PROJECT FACTORS

6.1 Regional Component

In addition to the discussions planned with Council and the public, Administration is providing input into the Acheson Transit Committee’s work as appropriate and is looking at linkages for a future service to Acheson with the deadhead direction of Spruce Grove’s service. Initial discussions with ETS suggest that this will be problematic due to the challenge of aligning the City’s service with Acheson shift times and the lack of early morning connections in Edmonton to the Spruce Grove system; these issues are still being explored. Administration is also keeping the Town of Stony Plain informed on this project.

At the Capital Region Board level, the draft business case exploring the viability of a regional transit commission was tabled at the Regional Transit Committee’s (RTC) April meeting. The report found the commission was viable and would improve ridership and service levels; it was recommended discussions continue in this direction. While many questions still exist at this stage, and is uncertain whether the RTC/CRB will implement the report’s recommendations, this is a positive step towards a regional commission. The impact of the CRB decisions and/or future operational approaches outside the existing ETS contract structure will be considered in Phase 2 of the Transit Service Review (2015).

6.2 GreenTRIP and Capital Initiatives

While the City submitted an initial concept to the Capital Region Board to secure its support for Provincial GreenTRIP grant funding, it did not apply to the Province’s first funding cycle. The second call for this funding was recently announced so Administration will be working to finalize its draft concept by the November 30, 2014 deadline. Council support for the one-third funding component will be submitted for consideration through the City’s corporate and capital planning budget processes. A proposal for high capacity buses and a basic park and ride/transfer station were included in the 2014-2016 cycle.

6.3 Connection with Spruce Grove Specialized Transit Service

The City of Spruce Grove does not directly operate specialized transit service but instead provides funding and fleet support/maintenance to the non-profit Specialized Transit Service (STS). For the purposes of the Phase 1 project, connections with STS were not focused on. The appropriate time to develop strong linkages between STS and Spruce Grove Transit are when the City makes plans to develop and implement local full-schedule transit operations. Building towards this however, the City should ensure that any fleet decisions it makes or commuter trips it operates now and in the future are based on the full accessibility principle, i.e. low-floor buses (these are the only buses operated by ETS for its standard system).

PART 7 – MOVING FORWARD

7.1 Progress towards Adopted Strategic Plan Targets

The City’s Municipal Development Plan, Transportation Master Plan, and Strategic Plan all include a strategic focus on developing transit within the community. If implemented, the proposed concept moves the City in the right direction by demonstrating a commitment to transit. At the same time, the steps proposed are systematic and focused on making targeted changes while minimizing costs. Many gaps exist however in terms of coverage and system flexibility; to meet the adopted modal-split targets more aggressive expansion of the transit system and related infrastructure will be required. The Phase 2 report will be better positioned to tackle the structural changes and cost implications of this type of expansion. The Phase 1 concepts and recommendations however are a solid first step to moving forward while minimizing the impact on the tax base.

7.2 Recommendations

Consultation with the public, council, administration, and ETS and the research and analysis that went into the Transit Review Project – Phase 1 work brought a number of ideas to the surface for moving forward.

Route Design & Future Planning

Partnerships

7.3 Implementation & Next Steps

The Phase 1 Project Report will be brought to Council for formal approval in the fall. Over the course of the summer it will be available in draft form for public comment and additional feedback. An additional open house is tentatively scheduled for early October to provide opportunities to discuss Option C with the public and collect feedback on the September changes. While a timeline and clear stages are identified in this report, decisions to proceed with each stage are made as part of the City’s corporate planning and budget process. Final approval for changes in a subsequent year will be made in November. While on-going monitoring may require changes to new service options mid-planning cycle, an effort will be made to avoid this where feasible. While moving forward with Phase 1 changes, the City will continue to participate in regional governance discussions and plan for Phase 2 project work.

APPENDIX A PUBLIC INPUT RESULTS

Transit Review Public Input - May 2014

Highlights from 26 May 2014 Council presentation Open House & Input Overview

• Attendance: – 50 people total – 14 people from outside Spruce Grove (i.e. Stony Plain, Parkland County and Edmonton) – 1 email response

• Majority riders or parents of riders

• Lots of diversity in responses

Transit Service Review – Phase 1 Themes – 2014 Changes

• Concerns over service cuts to UofA – Connecting with the bus from LRT – Timing of the last bus – Cost of Integrated Pass – Potential to add time to commute

• Mid-day Route – Overall satisfaction

• Edmonton downtown service – Overall satisfaction

Transit Service Review – Phase 1 Themes – 2015

• Split on Option A vs. Option B • New option emerged – ‘C’

Option A

Option C Option B

Transit Service Review – Phase 1 Other Comments

• 2016/2017 Changes - Supportive of WEM service – Agreed evening service would support day service – No concern about coverage

• Additional points – Trips are too long  Option ‘C’ emerged from this – Supportive of the service – Concern about Park and ride location

Transit Service Review – Phase 1 On-Board Survey Findings

• More service – Evening and midday highest demand – Evening problematic to target, larger time period – WEM most requested Edmonton destination

• Concerns with fares – U-Pass, transferability, value

• Split: route too long vs. more local coverage – Some local riders from areas with poor or no service now

Transit Service Review – Phase 1

On-Board Survey Findings

• Concern about customer service issues – Crowding – Buses not following the schedule – Problems with drivers – Uncomfortable buses/safety concerns – Better local transit infrastructure

Background Concept Next Steps Route 197 On-Board Rider Survey Results N= 237 ~ 30% non-SG residents Conducted March 26, 2014 Do you transfer to ETS?

250

200

150

100

0 yes no

4 out of 23 transfers has a U-Pass (18%) How often do you ride?

Several times per year

Several times per month

3- 4 times per week

5 - 8 times per week

9 - 10 times per week (every day)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Primary purpose of trip

Other

Shopping

K-12 School

Personal

Post-secondary instituion

Social/ Recreation

Commute to Work

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

38% Students (including K-12), 50% commuters Main Source of Information

Other

Other passengers

Ask bus driver

Internet Web Page

Call transit information

Schedule Pamphlet

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Fare Information

• What fare product? • Do you have a U-Pass?

200 180 160

160 140

140 120 120 100 100 80 80 60 60 40 40 20 20 0 0 Adult Cash Adult Pass Local Cash Local Yes No Senior Cash Main reason for riding today

Other

Taxi too expensive

Environmentally friendly

Bus more convenient than car

Convenient bus schedules

Prefer riding the bus

Do not have a driver’s license

Do not own a car

Car not available for this trip

Lower cost than driving or parking a car

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Bus Stop Location

• Spruce Grove • Edmonton

90 140 80 120 70 100 60 80 50

40 60

30 40

20 20

10 0 Less than 2 blocks 2 – 5 blocks More than 5 0 blocks Less than 2 2 – 5 blocks 6 – 10 blocks More than 10 blocks blocks Would you use the service between 9am-3pm?

No Daily Occasionally Rarely How did you get to your stop?

140

120

100

0 Walked or biked Drive own vehicle Received ride

45% came by vehicle If your drive to SG stop, why?

0 Live outside Spruce Grove Live in Spruce Grove but Bus stop is close enough to Faster or more convenient bus stop is too far to walk walk but bus is too slow to drive to bus stop and through neighbourhoods wait in car 28% total come from outside SG in this question Has service changed in past year?

120

100

0 No, service is the same Yes, service is better Yes, service is worse Don’t know/No Opinion/New Rider Rider Demographics

– 76% Single Family – 31% professionals, 32% students – 61% female, 39% male – Household income • 14% Under $35K, 47% $25-100K, 39% over 100K • Younger riders may not have answered as ‘household’ – Riders younger: • 30% ‘20-29’, 20% ‘16-19’, 17% ‘30-39’ Could you have used vehicle today?

180

160

140

120

100

0 Yes No

28% of riders are ‘choice’ riders, lower than expected Ride More Factors (high-low)

• Able to transfer to ETS with same pass • More frequent service • New midday service • New peak hour service to/from WEM • New off peak hours service to/from WEM • Early evening return trip from Edm. (~7pm) • Later evening return service from Edmonton Levels of dissatisfaction

• Highest – Crowding – Time of last trip in afternoon • Weaker – Time of last trip in morning – Time of first trip in afternoon – Value for money – passes – Service frequency

Spruce Grove Transit Survey 2014 Good Morning! This on-board passenger survey is being conducted as part of a review of Spruce Grove’s Transit service. The study will identify changes that are needed to improve the transit system and help the City prioritize short-term and medium-term options. Please take a few moments to answer these questions about your travel patterns and level of satisfaction with the service now being provided.

Please complete the survey and return it the facilitator on the bus before getting off. Thank-you for your time and input!

1. Please indicate the intersection, major landmark or bus stop number nearest to where you boarded the bus:

2. Please provide your postal code:

3. Please indicate the intersection or major landmark (i.e. building name) or the bus stop number nearest to your final destination:

4. If you transfer to or from ETS in order to complete your journey please indicate which ETS routes you use

First ETS Route Second ETS Route

5. How often do you ride Spruce Grove Transit? Please count each one way trip, and check the appropriate box. For example to and from work, 5 days per week = 10 trips per week.

1  9 - 10 times per week (every day) 3  3- 4 times per week 5  Several times per year 2  5 - 8 times per week 4  Several times per month 6. Please indicate in the space provided the primary purpose of this trip. Please check only one box.

6  Commute to Work 9  Personal Business (i.e. medical, banking, etc.) 11  Shopping 7  Social or Recreational 10  Travel to Elementary, Junior or High School 12  Other 8  Travel to NAIT/MacEwan/U of A or other post secondary school 7. What is your main source of information about bus routes and schedules? (check one)

13  Schedule Pamphlet 15  Internet Web Page 17  Other passengers 14  Call transit information 16  Ask bus driver 18  Other______8. Which fare did you pay when you boarded Spruce Grove Transit today

19  Adult Cash 21  Local Cash 20  Adult Pass 22  Local Senior Cash 9. Do you have a Universal Transit Pass (U-Pass)

23  Yes 24  No

1 10. What are your 2 main reasons for riding transit today? (Check 1 or 2 boxes)

25 Lower cost than driving or parking a car 30 Convenient bus schedules 26 Car not available for this trip 31 Bus more convenient than car 27 Do not own a car 32 Environmentally friendly 28 Do not have a driver’s license 33 Taxi too expensive 29 Prefer riding the bus 34 Other______11. About how far is the closest Spruce Grove bus stop to your home? (Check one box)

35  Less than 2 blocks 36  2 – 5 blocks 37  6 – 10 blocks 38  More than 10 blocks 12. About how far is the closest bus stop to your final destination? (Check one box).

39  Less than 2 blocks 40  2 – 5 blocks 41  More than 5 blocks 13. How would the following changes impact your use of Spruce Grove Transit?

Ride No Ride Description of Change More Change Less 42 43 44 Higher parking prices in Edmonton 45 46 47 More frequent service 48 49 50 Bus shelter at the stop closest to your house 51 52 53 Longer walking distances to bus stops, but more frequent service 54 55 56 Shorter walking distances to bus stops but less frequent services 57 58 59 Able to transfer to ETS with same pass 60 61 62 Earlier start to transit service in the morning 63 64 65 Early evening return trip from Edmonton (~7pm) 66 67 68 Later evening return trip from Edmonton (~9:30-10pm) 69 70 71 New midday service to/from Edmonton 72 73 74 New service to/from South Campus LRT Station 75 76 77 New peak hour service to/from West Edmonton Mall 78 79 80 New off peak hours service to/from West Edmonton Mall 81 82 83 Higher gasoline prices 84 85 86 Getting a driver’s license 87 88 89 Changing job or school locations 90 91 92 Shorter travel times or more direct routings 93 94 95 Bus stops closer to home 96 97 98 Bus stop closer to most frequent destination 99 100 101 Better Park and Ride in Spruce Grove 102 103 104 Service to Stony Plain 105 106 107 Service to Parkland Village 108 109 110 Better local service in Spruce Grove 14. If transit service were offered between 9 am and 3 pm, would you use the service?

111  No 112  Yes, If Yes how often? 113  Daily 114  Occasionally 115  Rarely

15. How did you get to the Spruce Grove Transit Stop today?

116  Walked or biked 117  Drive own vehicle 118  Received ride If you drive, or get a ride please tell us why

119  Live outside Spruce Grove 120  Live in Spruce Grove but bus stop is too far to walk 121  Bus stop is close enough to walk but bus is too slow through neighbourhoods 122  Faster or more convenient to drive to bus stop and wait in car 16. How do you feel about these aspects of Spruce Grove Transit?

Very Satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied Courteous & helpful drivers 129  130  131  132  133  Being on time 134  135  136  137  138  Cleanliness 139  140  141  142  143  Not being overcrowded 144  145  146  147  148  Service Frequency 149  150  151  152  153  Length of travel time 154  155  156  157  158  Route layout 159  160  161  162  163  Ability to connect to ETS 164  165  166  167  168  Comfort of seats 169  170  171  172  173  Convenience of purchasing passes 174  175  176  177  178  Safe operation of the buses 179  180  181  182  183  Personal security at bus stops 184  185  186  187  188  Availability of schedule information 189  190  191  192  193  Ease of use of schedules and maps 194  195  196  197  198  Internet information 199  200  201  202  203  Telephone information 204  205  206  207  208  Cleanliness of bus stops/shelters 209  210  211  212  213  Availability of bus shelters 214  215  216  217  218  Time of first trip in morning 219  220  221  222  223  Time of last trip in morning 224  225  226  227  228  Time of first trip in afternoon 229  230  231  232  233  Time of last trip in afternoon 234  235  236  237  238  Value for Money – Cash Fares 239  240  241  242  243  Value for Money - Passes 244  245  246  247  248  Safety at Park and Ride 249  250  251  252  253  Location of Park & Ride 254  255  256  257  258  Availability of Park and Ride 259  260  261  262  263 

17. Overall, would you say that service during the past year has changed compared with previous years?

123  No, service is the same 125  Yes, service is worse 124  Yes, service is better 126  Don’t know/No Opinion/New Rider 3 18. Was there a vehicle that you could have used instead of Spruce Grove Transit to make this trip today?

127  No 128  Yes

19. Are you? 264 Male 265 Female

20. Where do you live?

267 Spruce Village 268 Deer Park 269 McLauglin 270 Parkland Village 271 Pioneer Land 272 Harvest Ridge 273 Mobile City 274 Stony Plain 275 Hill Downs 276 Spruce Ride 277 Woodside 278 Alberta Beach 279 Stoneshire 280 Legacy Park 281 Woodhaven 282 Wabamum/Entwhistle 283 Fieldstone 284 Sprucewoods Village 285 City Centre 286 Parkland Co North of 16 287 Linkside 288 Grove Seniors Village 289 Broxton Park 290 Parkland Co South of 16 291 Aspen Glen 292 Heather Glen 293 Lakewood 294 Edmonton 295 Creekside 296 West Grove 297 Grove Meadows 298 Other 21. What type of home do you live in?

299  Single Family House 300  Mobile Home 301  Seniors Residence 302  Apartment 303  Semi-detached 304  Townhouse 305  Suite in a house 306  Other 22. What is your occupation?

307  Professional 308  Homemaker 309  Sales 310  Retired 311  Clerical/Office worker 312  Unemployed 313  Skilled Trade 314  Other 315  Self Employed 316  Management 317  Student 23. What is your household income?

318  Under $35,000 319  $35,000 - $100,000 320  More than $100,000 24. How old are you?

321  Under 15 322  20 – 29 323  40 – 49 324  60 – 69 325  16 – 19 326  30 – 39 327  50 – 59 328  70 or older 25. Please list any additional comments or changes you would like to see at Spruce Grove Transit:

Please complete the survey and return it the facilitator on the bus before getting off. Thank-you for your time and input!

Transit Survey Results August 2011

Transit Service Review Table of Contents

PART 1 - BACKGROUND ...... 3

SURVEY OVERVIEW ...... 3 RESPONDENTS ...... 3 PART 2 – SURVEY RESULTS ...... 4

CURRENT USERS ...... 4 NON-USERS AND FORMER-USERS...... 5 PART 3 - MOVING FORWARD ...... 6

REINFORCING AND EXPANDING THE RIDER BASE ...... 6 EMERGING PRIORITIES ...... 7 NEXT STEPS ...... 7

2 | City of Spruce Grove Transit Survey, August 2011

Part 1 - Background

Survey Overview

The City is engaged in a multi-year process to develop a long-term plan for its transit service. The objective of this survey was to collect input from both users and non-users of Route 197 to inform this process. Specifically the City was looking for information on:  why people use or don’t use the service;  how the service is used, and;  ways the service could be improved.

The survey was open from mid-March until early May and was completed online through the City’s website. People self-identified to participate and the results will likely indicate a higher level of support for the service than may be present in the community at large.1 While the survey is not scientifically based, it provides useful data for planning purposes in a cost efficient manner. This survey is designed to complement data collected by Edmonton Transit Service (ETS) on a regular basis, the on-board Transit Rider Origin Survey conducted by City employees in November 2010, and the findings of the 2011 Customer Satisfaction Survey.

Questions were developed by administration in conjunction with ETS. The survey was promoted using a number of methods including signage in bus shelters and places selling bus passes, advertisements in the Spruce Grove and Stony Plain newspapers, through the internet (website, facebook, twitter), and on the reader boards. While it was targeted at all those who use the system and/or are interested in using the system, the promotion methods likely resulted in a higher proportion of users/potential users in Spruce Grove hearing about the survey than those in neighbouring communities.

The initial question split respondents into one of two categories: people who regularly or occasionally use the service (herein referred to as ‘users’), and people who have never used the service or previously used it (herein referred to as ‘non-users/former users’). Depending on how the participant responded, he/she was directed to a separate grouping of questions; in essence two surveys were conducted.

Respondents

In total, 396 people participated in the survey. Of these 47% identified as users of the system, 39% were non-users, and 13% were former users. Approximately two-thirds of the respondents were female (both survey categories). For users of the system, the most represented age groups in descending order were ‘35 to 49’, ‘50 to 64’, and ‘25-34’. For non-users/former –users they were ‘35 to 49’, ‘25 to 34’, and ‘50 to 64’. Approximately two-thirds of users have regular access to a personal vehicle while 88% of non-users/former users do. Seventy-five per cent (75%) of respondents live in Spruce Grove, 11% in Parkland County, 7% in Stony Plain, and 7% in Edmonton or ‘Other’. This breakdown does not necessarily reflect actual users of the system

1A useful tool for comparison purposes is the City of Spruce Grove 2011 Customer Satisfaction Survey which was a scientific survey of 400 randomly selected residents. The results of this survey identified the commuter transit service as a secondary priority for improvement (primary priorities were summer/winter road maintenance, economic development, FCSS, and Specialized Transit Service). Ten per cent (10%) of participants identified commuter transit service as the most important service the City should improve (winter road maintenance was the highest with 32%). Customer satisfaction with the commuter transit service has declined since 2006 (on a scale of one to five it was rated 3.7 in 2006 and 3.3 in 2011).

3 | City of Spruce Grove Transit Survey, August 2011 however as the on-board rider survey completed in November 2010 identified one-third of riders as non-Spruce Grove residents.

Part 2 – Survey Results

Current Users

 Support for Transit

Users of the transit service provided a high level of support for the service. Ninety-six per cent (96%) of respondents either ‘agreed’ or ‘strongly agreed’ with the statement ‘Public transit is an essential municipal service’ while the other 4% ‘strongly disagreed’. Ninety per cent (90%) indicated that public transit is an ‘essential municipal service’ and also that it is not ‘just for those who can afford a car’.

 Use of the System

When provided with a list of reasons for using the service, the most common responses were ‘Costs less than driving’ (75%), ‘Avoids stress of driving on congested roads’ (72%), and ‘Is better for the environment’ (69.9%). Other common responses with more than 50% support were ‘I can do something else while driving’ and ‘It is the most convenient for me’.

When asked what they typically used the bus as transportation for, ‘work’ was identified by 80%, ‘school’ by 26%, ‘appointments’ by 13% and ‘shopping’ by 11% (check all that apply). The majority of respondents use the service frequently: 70% identified using it on a daily basis while another 10% said they use it four days a week. Almost all respondents use the service both mornings and afternoons (96%). If the service was not available, two-thirds indicated they would use their car, 17% that they would ride with a friend or family, and 8% that they would not make the trip. The service captures both new and long-term riders: 41% began using the service within the past year while 59% have used it for over a year, including 36% who have used the service for over three years.

Respondents primary reach their bus stop in Spruce Grove through walking (63%) or by vehicle (19% drive their car while 15% get dropped off/picked up by someone). For those who do park and ride, the most common location is the Tri Leisure Centre followed by local streets. Very few people actually use the designated park and ride facility at the Agrena. Once in Edmonton, 57% of respondents walk to their final destination while another 12% connect with the ETS system (either bus or LRT). Approximately 30% indicated the bus drops them off at their final destination. Close to 90% considered both their bus stops in Spruce Grove and in Edmonton convenient.

The most popular destinations in Edmonton are various major centres in the downtown core (e.g. Government Centre, Canada Place, Commerce Place, City Centre, the YMCA). Approximately one-third of respondents go to one of the post-secondary institutions with the University of Alberta the most popular, followed by Grant MacEwan and NAIT.

 Satisfaction with Existing Service

Participants were asked how satisfied they were with different elements of the service. Factors looked at were ‘Hours of operation’, ‘Level of comfort’, ‘Where the route goes’, ‘Cost’,

4 | City of Spruce Grove Transit Survey, August 2011

‘Shelters/bus stop infrastructure’, and ‘Overall performance’. The highest levels of satisfaction (i.e. very satisfied or satisfied) were with ‘Where the route goes’ (73%), ‘Overall performance’ (71%), and ‘Level of comfort’ (66%). The highest levels of dissatisfaction (i.e. unsatisfied or very unsatisfied) were with ‘Hours of operation’ (40%), ‘Cost’ (31%), and ‘Shelters/bus stop infrastructure’ (26%). Approximately 15% were unsatisfied with the ‘Overall performance’ of the service. The range of ‘Neither satisfied or unsatisfied’ responses was from a low of 9.4% for ‘Where the route goes’ to a high of 16% for ‘Level of comfort’.

 Service Changes and Ideas for Improvement

When respondents were asked which additional destinations they would like to see offered, the most popular response was West Edmonton Mall (60%) followed by Stony Plain (35%). Approximately 10% were interested in seeing the service go to the Spruce Grove industrial area and Acheson Industrial Park and 8% to Parkland Village. A number of additional destinations not provided on the survey were included in respondents’ comments. The most common response was more local service followed by the government transit centre. Of note, 18% of respondents indicated that the service provides enough coverage now.

In terms of expanding hours of operation, responses indicated greater demand exists for service to/from Edmonton. The highest levels of agreement with the statement ‘If hours of operation were expanded, I would be likely to use the bus:’ were for mid-day service to/from Edmonton (80%) followed by evening service and weekend service to/from Edmonton (both at 71%). Levels of support for expanded hours of operation within Spruce Grove was approximately 40% for mid-day and weekend service and then slightly lower for evening service. Seventy-per cent (70%) disagreed with the statement ‘The hours of operation do not need to be expanded’ while only 11% agreed.

Respondents also were asked to provide their ideas for improving the service as well as to provide additional comments. Overwhelming the most common theme in responses was the need for greater flexibility and expanded hours, particularly with respect to service to/from Edmonton. Other common themes in the responses were:  connect with West Edmonton Mall and/or a transfer station in the west end;  participate in the U-Pass program;  offer more local service (routes and hours of operation) and connect to Stony Plain;  address crowding on peak times;  operate more direct service to major destinations  offer transferability to the ETS system, and;  provide more comfortable buses and better infrastructure (i.e. shelters, bus pads).

In addition to these broader themes, a number of specific suggestions were provided to the City. These will be essential to revisit when considering any changes to the route.

Non-Users and Former-Users

 Support for Transit

Similar to transit-users, non-users/former users of the service indicated a high level of support for the service. Ninety two per cent (92%) of respondents either ‘strongly agreed’ or ‘agreed’ with the statements ‘Public transit is an essential municipal service’ and ‘An effective public transit system is important for the local economy’. When questioned directly, 90% of

5 | City of Spruce Grove Transit Survey, August 2011 respondents also disagreed that public transit is just for those who cannot afford a vehicle. The same proportion of respondents as the user survey group indicated that they ‘strongly disagree’ with public transit being considered an essential service (4%).

 Reason for Not Riding

When provided with a list of options for why respondents do not take the bus and asked to check all that apply, the top three responses were clear. The highest level of agreement was with the statement ‘Hours of operations are too limited’ (78%) followed by ‘Service is not frequent enough’ (72%) and ‘The route does not take me where I need to go’ (67%). The next highest grouping of factors were ‘I prefer driving’ (40%), ‘Travel times are too long’ (33%), and ‘Service is too expensive (31%).

 Changes to Encourage Riding

Non-users/former-users indicated they would be more likely to use the service if ‘Additional routes options existed’ (89% agreement) and if ‘Service was more frequent’ (80%). Lower prices, the next highest, was cited by 45% of respondents. Of significance, only 8% indicated that nothing would make them use the service.

As with the transit users group results, the destination respondents would most like to see service offered to is West Edmonton Mall (77%) followed by Stony Plain (47%), Acheson Industrial Park and Spruce Grove Industrial Area (both reported 21%), and Parkland Village (13%). A higher proportion of non-users/former users proposed other destinations than users. This list was quite extensive with the most common responses being more local service, a major transit terminal, and south Edmonton.

Non-users/former-users also indicated that they would be more likely to use transit if additional times were available to/from Edmonton than within Spruce Grove. Seventy per cent (70%) identified weekends to/from Edmonton, followed by 68%for mid-day, and 66% for weekends. The proportion of those responding they would be more likely to use expanded service within Spruce Grove was slightly higher than for users: 50% for mid-day, followed by 47% for weekends, and 44% for evenings.

When respondents were asked the open ended question “What factors would be most likely to encourage you to try using transit or consider using it again?” as well as provided with the opportunity to make additional comments, responses reinforced themes already identified. The most common themes overwhelmingly related to the limited hours of operation and route coverage. Weaker themes were the service is too slow and too expensive and that the tri- municipal nature of the service should be recognized. Also, identified by a number of respondents was a concern about the City’s non-participation in the U-Pass program.

Part 3 - Moving Forward

Reinforcing and Expanding the Rider Base

Despite the survey targeting two different groups, users and non-users/former-users, the input received was similar. As is logical, the current service structure works better for users than non- users/former-users. Results indicated however that a high level of support exists for transit service amongst both groups. Also significant is that a high proportion of respondents have

6 | City of Spruce Grove Transit Survey, August 2011 access to personal vehicles, including current users of the system who are choosing to ride the bus. Declines in service quality or increases in cost or travel time could tip the balance for these users towards personal vehicles. At this same time, over three-quarters of non-users/former- users indicated that they would consider using the service if it better met their needs. Combined these factors demonstrate that the outcomes of the City’s transit review should seek to reinforce its rider base while building on the potential that exists to expand this base.

Emerging Priorities

Emerging priorities from the results focus on introducing more flexibility into the transit system. This includes looking at expanded hours of operation and routes. Nuances in the open-ended question results suggest that this flexibility does not necessarily need to be ‘everywhere all the time’ but that targeted expansions will meet the needs of most users and potential users. While results suggest higher demand exists for a strong regional service with connections midday, weekends, and evenings to/from Edmonton, a core group of respondents is interested in seeing improved local service. Destinations identified most frequently as priorities for future service were West Edmonton Mall and to a lesser extent Stony Plain. Having formerly operated an unsuccessful pilot service to West Edmonton Mall, any reintroduction of this destination would require careful planning to ensure it meets the needs of users. In addition, options for U- Pass participation in a way that does not result in cost increases for other riders should also be considered.

Next Steps

The input received through this survey will be incorporated into the on-going transit review process. This process began in early 2011 and is expected to finish in 2013. Other steps include preparing a business case for the service, working with other Capital Region municipalities, responding to potential legislative changes at the provincial level, and exploring funding opportunities. The results of the Transportation Master Plan due in 2012 will be incorporated into the review process also.

Spruce Grove’s transit service is supported by a small population. Improvements to this service need to be carefully planned and budgeted for to ensure the system remains financially viable. Survey input helps the City understand what is working with the service, what issues exist, and what potential changes our riders consider the most important. The City is committed to transit service however evolving this service will take time, significant resources, and a collaborative relationship with other municipalities in the Capital Region.

7 | City of Spruce Grove Transit Survey, August 2011

APPENDIX B PROPOSED ROUTE SCHEDULES

Schedule: Route 197, Existing Local Route, Service to Downtown Edmtonon/U of A Current Schedule (Winter)

Main Features  Peak, Monday to Friday  Serves downtown and University of Alberta  7 trips each direction (first PM trip does not run in July and August)  6 buses in the AM, 7 buses in the PM

Schedule: Route 197, Existing Local Route, Service to Downtown Edmonton Approved: Sept 2014

Main Features  Peak, Monday to Friday  7 trips each direction, plus midday trip  6 buses per peak period

Schedule: Route 560 and Route 561, Two Local Routes, Service to Downtown Edmonton Proposed: Sept 2015, Option A

Main Features  Peak, Monday to Friday  5 trips morning peak period, 4 peak trips afternoon (plus midday running existing 197 route)  8 buses per peak period, i.e. 4 buses per route

Route 560: North and West Spruce Grove

Route 561: East Spruce Grove

Schedule: Route 197 – Addtional Trips Proposed: Sept 2015, Option B

Main Features  Peak, Monday to Friday  8 trips each direction, i.e. one more each way (midday service will continue)  6 buses per peak period

Route 562 – Spruce Grove Express to WEM and South Campus Proposed: Sept 2015 (Option C)  Recommended

Main Features  Peak Monday – Friday  3 trips each direction  2 buses in the morning, 3 in the afternoon  Does not run between WEM and South Campus between May – August

Winter Schedule

Schedule: Route 562 – Spruce Grove Express to WEM, Weekday Evening Proposed: Sept 2016

Main Features  Evenings, Monday to Friday  5 trips (4 trips is South Campus route implemented)  0 new buses (1 bus interlined from afternoon peak schedule)

Schedule: Route 562 – Spruce Grove Express to WEM and South Campus Proposed: Sept 2017

Main Features  Saturday only  11 trips  1 bus