Spruce Grove - Expansion of Transit Services and …agenda.sprucegrove.org/docs/2014/RCM/20141124_334/2249...2014/11/24 · The City of Spruce Grove (City) has operated a public bus

City of Spruce Grove

Expansion of Transit Services and Park & Ride Development

Business Case to Support Application for GreenTRIP Funding

November 2014

The City of Spruce Grove | GreenTRIP Business Case 2014 i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This business case outlines how the City of Spruce Grove (City) plans to use GreenTRIP funding

for on-going transit services and facility upgrades. Since the introduction of the transit service

in 2006, the City has partnered with the Edmonton Transit System (ETS) for contracted services

for the inter-city commuter service. Over the years, ETS has been an excellent supplier of

services to the City, but as Edmonton has grown and expanded so has its demands for

increased transit service. This is a trend that is also expected to be seen and experienced within

the City.

As a result of the City of Edmonton’s growth and corresponding transit demands, there will be

no additional capacity to expand in order to accommodate the City’s transit needs with new

equipment. Based on this limitation, the City is preparing this GreenTRIP application with goals

of continuing to work with and utilize the resources of ETS for contracted services. The City will

however provide the needed capital required for buses and a contractual arrangement with ETS

for operation, maintenance and storage of the City buses; In order to meet City growth

expectations towards the end of this decade.

This GreenTRIP application and plan includes funding for:

Purchase of buses

Purchase of land for a park and ride facility

Construction of a park and ride facility

Construction of a bus storage facility

It is understood that the GreenTRIP Program will fund qualified capital infrastructure under the

grant formula of 2/3 funding from the Province and 1/3 funding from the City.

The City of Spruce Grove | GreenTRIP Business Case 2014 ii

Acknowledgements:

Charlie Stolte, Director Edmonton Transit

Bill Sabey, Director Customer Service Development

Oswald Fereira, Regional Service Planner, Customer Service Development

Cathy Ashton, Scheduler, Edmonton Transit

Kevin Wenzel, Manager of Public Transportation, City of Leduc

Matt Carpenter, Director Strathcona County Transit

Chris MacIsaac, Transit Coordinator, City of Airdrie

Robert McGowan, County of Parkland

Amber Nicol, City of Spruce Grove

The City of Spruce Grove | GreenTRIP Business Case 2014 iii

Contents _Toc404001684

1.0 Background ....................................................................................................................................... 1

Transportation Master Plan ...................................................................................................................... 1

Capital Region Board ................................................................................................................................. 3

CUTA (Canadian Urban Transit Association) ............................................................................................. 4

2.0 Why is this project needed? ............................................................................................................. 4

Current Service and Planning for Growth ................................................................................................. 5

The on-board survey results key findings: ............................................................................................ 6

On-going customer feedback: ............................................................................................................... 7

3.0 Proposed Transit Implementation Plan - Transit Service Review: .................................................... 8

Results of the Phase 1 Transit Review ...................................................................................................... 8

Stage 1 (Approved by Council in May 2014 and Implemented September 2014) ............................... 8

Stage 2 (Proposed local routing changes) Start 2015 ......................................................................... 10

Stage 3 (Proposed) September 2016 , Express Reduced Coverage WEM Route, Evenings................ 13

Stage 4 –September 2017 , Express Reduced Coverage WEM Route, Saturdays .............................. 13

Proposed Transit Park & Ride (Transit Centre) ....................................................................................... 14

Regional Service ...................................................................................................................................... 15

Stony Plain........................................................................................................................................... 15

Parkland County .................................................................................................................................. 15

Proposed Transit Implementation Plan Summary .................................................................................. 16

4.0 Costs and Benefits ........................................................................................................................... 21

Spruce Grove Transit Costs ..................................................................................................................... 23

Capital Costs: ....................................................................................................................................... 23

Summary of Statement of Operational Analysis Findings .................................................................. 25

Spruce Grove Transit Benefits ................................................................................................................ 26

Ridership Growth ................................................................................................................................ 26

Green House Gas Reduction ............................................................................................................... 26

5.0 On-going Benefits Monitoring Plan ................................................................................................ 27

The City of Spruce Grove | GreenTRIP Business Case 2014 iv

List of Figure: Figure 1. Population Trends City of Spruce Grove ........................................................................................ 4

Figure 2. Spruce Grove Ridership .................................................................................................................. 6

Figure 3. Current Service Spruce Grove ........................................................................................................ 9

Figure 4. Downtown Edmonton Service Phase 1 (current) ........................................................................... 9

Figure 5. Transit Review 2014: Option (A) Two local Routes within Spruce Grove .................................... 10

Figure 6. Transit Review 2014 Option C -Express reduced coverage route to WEM and South Campus LRT

– Spruce Grove Component ........................................................................................................................ 12

Figure 7. Transit Review 2014 Option C - Express reduced coverage route to WEM and South Campus

LRT – Edmonton component ...................................................................................................................... 12

Figure 8. Three identified Park and Ride ..................................................................................................... 15

Figure 9. Commuter Bus Concept ............................................................................................................... 19

Figure 10. Local Bus Concept ...................................................................................................................... 20

Figure 11. Transit Centre Shelter Concept .................................................................................................. 20

Figure 12. Ridership projections 2013 to 2024 ........................................................................................... 26

List of Tables: Table 1. Proposed plan and operational options ........................................................................................ 17

Table 2. Public Transport Benefits and Costs .............................................................................................. 22

Table 3. Capital Summary ........................................................................................................................... 23

The City of Spruce Grove | GreenTRIP Business Case 2014 1

Community sustainability is a holistic approach that works toward achieving long term prosperity and continued quality of life for the present and future residents of Spruce Grove...This perspective focuses on the connections between the economy, the environment and society. Decisions and actions take into account the links between these three elements.

Your Bright Future – Municipal Development Plan 2010-2020

1.0 BACKGROUND The City of Spruce Grove (City) has operated a public bus service since 2006. Over that period a

total of 480,400 passenger trips have been taken (up to September 2014). In July, 2007 the City

engaged Stantec Engineering to conduct a feasibility study based on the early operations of the

commuter services between Spruce Grove and Edmonton. The objective of this study was to

examine the growth of service and the development of a possible regional service. Although

discussions for a regional service were not successful, this early work served as a solid

foundation for continued discussion for regional service.

TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN

In May 2012 the City commissioned Urban Systems to develop a Transportation Master Plan.

The primary focus of this report was to assist with long term planning to construct the best

network of roads to support all forms of commuter travel; vehicles, public transit, cycling, and

walking. The Transportation Master Plan has been the foundation of the transit growth strategy

for the City.

Key findings from the development of this plan show the following:

a) Work trip travel behaviour

o 77% Drove alone

o 18% Carpooled

o 4% Walked

o 1% Transit

b) In 2010 Daily Road Volumes (Vehicles per day)

o Hwy 16 East of Spruce Grove = 36,000


o Hwy 16 West of Spruce Grove = 28,000

o Hwy 16A West of Spruce Grove = 31,000

o Hwy 16A East of Spruce Grove = 27,000

o Jennifer Heil Way = 17,000

o Century Rd. = 12,000

o Calihoo Rd. = 8,000

o Golden Spike Rd. = 10,000

c) Peak Hour Travel Behaviour Targets:

Mode of Travel for Commuters Year 2010

Year 2020

Year 2030

Year 2040

Drive Alone or Single Occupant Vehicle (SOV) 77% 73% 69% 65%

Carpool or High Occupant Vehicle 18% 19% 20% 21%

Public Transit 1% 3% 5% 7%

Walking & Cycling 4% 5% 6% 7%

100% 100% 100% 100%

d) Trends and Possible Future Demands:

o Based on (2010) existing travel and population/employment projections growth

by mode.

Mode 2010 2040

Drive Alone (SOV) 73,600 (77%) 178,500 (77%)

Carpool (HOV) 17,100 (18%) 41,500 (18%)

Transit 700 (1%) 1,600 (1%)

Walk 2,900 (3%) 7,200 (3%)

Bicycle 1,000 (1%) 2,400 (1%)

o Based on a 30 year plan to encourage all other modes of transport other than

single occupancy vehicles.

Mode 2040 (Population Growth Scenario)

2040 Vision Model

Drive Alone (SOV) 178,500 (77%) 150,300 (65%)

Carpool (HOV) 41,500 (18%) 48,600 (21%)

Transit 1,600 (1%) 16,200 (7%)

Walk 7,200 (3%) 9,300 (4%)

Bicycle 2,400 (1%) 6,900 (3%)


The Transportation Master Plan established the following Transportation Goals, which were

adopted by the City’s Council on May 28, 2012:

Connect residential, business and industrial communities effectively and efficiently.

Enhance mobility and economic vitality by providing reasonable transportation choices

to all residents and businesses.

Promote the safety and security of the transit system.

Reduce vehicular travel with higher degree of mixed land uses.

Promote healthy and environmentally responsible transportation choices.

CAPITAL REGION BOARD

The City has been a member of the Capital Region Board (Board) since its inception in 2008 and

has actively participated in the Transit Committee. The objective of the Transit Committee has

been to seek out quick win’s related to supporting an Inter-municipal Network Plan. The Board

has also provided some excellent policy and operational direction documents to support

regional transit.

Capital Region Board supporting documents:

2012 Inter-municipal Transit Governance Study and Implementation Plan.

2013 Regional Fare Strategy and Implementation Plan

30 Year Transit Plan and Priority System for the GreenTRIP Program

2014 Inter-municipal Transit Governance Study Report

The City believes that because of the economies of scale and the complexity involved in the

operation and administration of the modern transit system. A regional model such as a

commission for the Greater Capital Region is the desired ultimate goal. The City will continue to

support and plan accordingly to be complimentary to a regional system. A regional based

transit system will help meet the needs of City residents, but also the regional neighbours of

the Town of Stony Plain and Parkland County.


CUTA (CANADIAN URBAN TRANSIT ASSOCIATION)

The City has been a member of CUTA since 2012 and has found the association to be wealth of

support and information regarding transit planning. In particular transit operations and

administration of educational resources. The annual Transit Fact Book provides a benchmarking

of transit system performance both operationally and financially. The most recent Fact book

covers the 2012 operational year.

2.0 WHY IS THIS PROJECT NEEDED?

We will provide efficient and effective transportation and mobility options for our residents. We need to anticipate future transportation needs with well planned neighbourhoods and gathering places that incorporate broad, accessible streets and paths, as well as technologies that facilitate the smooth flow of people, whether on foot, cycle, vehicle and other mode of transportation. We need to anticipate future transportation needs ... and be prepared to offer, sponsor or support movement-related solutions...to continually make transportation an important part of municipal planning investment and service delivery.

Spruce Grove Strategic Plan 2015-2035

The City has experienced significant growth, averaging 3.9% annually since 1986, almost a

tripling of population over this period. This rapid population growth can be attributed to the

City being located west of the City of Edmonton, which is a centre for industrial, commercial,

and institutional employment.

Figure 1. Population Trends City of Spruce Grove

-

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

19

89

19

92

19

96

19

99

20

01

20

03

20

05

20

06

20

09

20

10

20

11

20

14

20

16

20

18

20

20

20

22

20

24

20

26

20

28

20

30

20

32

20

34

20

36

City of Spruce Grove - Population Growth

High Growth Conservative Growth


It is believed that with consistent service and a reasonable fare system, transit growth will

increase proportional to population growth. Using 2010 conservative population growth

models, transit use could grow by 129% over 30 years equalling 4.3% per year (based on a

linear growth model). Should there be a significant price increase in automotive fuels, it is

expected that transit ridership could increase further increase from 3.4% to 6.5% (as based

upon 35% increase in fuel prices from 2007 and 2008)1.

Although like many other large and medium size cities in Alberta, the citizens of Spruce Grove

appear to be financially secure. However, there are some citizens that are less fortunate. Many

are trying to make ends meet while being employed. These individuals are referred to as the

“working poor”. These individuals may be single parents who are on social assistance and need

to get children to day care or to a friend so that they can work. Most in these situations do not

have the advantage of a personal vehicle, as a result they are forced to walk or get a taxi.

Transit service is a common benefit to the entire community which will help to break the

barriers to prosperity: Employment + Affordable wage + Mobility + Health = Affordable

Housing. This plan takes a firm step to start addressing the mobility part of the cycle.

Transit also has many environmental benefits for the City, besides reducing emissions that not

only affect the global environment, but also the local air quality. In the United States it is

estimated that vehicle pollution contributes to 30,000 premature deaths annually2. By

providing citizens with the option to take transit, it keeps cars off congested roadways, reduces

the likelihood of motor vehicle accidents and reduces use of our limited petroleum resources.

CURRENT SERVICE AND PLANNING FOR GROWTH

The City has operated under contract with ETS since 2006. Since this time growth of the system

has increased based on the level of available service. Fare adjustments that have been

introduced have impacted transit volumes over the short term. However, continual

1 Transit Elasticities and Price Elasticities, Victoria Transport Policy Institute, Victoria B.C.; 2014. Accessed: October

24, 2014 from http://www.vtpi.org/tranelas.pdf 2 Union of Concerned Scientists, Accessed Oct. 28, 2014 from: http://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/clean-

vehicles/vehicles-air-pollution-and-human-health#.VGoTYPnIZgh

http://www.vtpi.org/tranelas.pdf

http://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/clean-vehicles/vehicles-air-pollution-and-human-health#.VGoTYPnIZgh

http://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/clean-vehicles/vehicles-air-pollution-and-human-health#.VGoTYPnIZgh


improvement in timing on the part of ETS has helped to keep overall ridership stable and

complainants to a minimum.

Figure 2. Spruce Grove Ridership

In 2013 and 2014, the City conducted additional research and analysis of the short term

operation of the transit system. Work over this period included:

Route analysis and costs (DanTech Associates), City of Spruce Grove with ETS support

Transit On-board Rider Survey - Spring 2014

Public consultation on short term route options

THE ON-BOARD SURVEY RESULTS KEY FINDINGS:

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 post-secondary institutions. A

number of regular riders are using the system to access K-12 schools (~10%).

Approximately 10% of riders transfer to ETS. A desire to see an integrated pass was a

common theme in the open ended question responses.

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Note: 2014 data is not complete - Data Jan to Sep.

Spruce Grove Annual Transit Ridership


Forty-five percent (45%) of riders said they either drive or get a ride to their bus stop.

Over one –third of these (41 riders) live in the City and prefer this option because the

bus stop is too far away or the route is too 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 passes’, ‘more frequent 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.

ON-GOING CUSTOMER 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.

3.0 PROPOSED TRANSIT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN - TRANSIT SERVICE REVIEW: On June 23, 2014 Council was presented with the findings from Phase 1 of the Transit Service

Review.

Phase 1 - short term service changes (2014 - 2018). Broken down into 4 stages.

Phase 2 - long term service changes (2018 and beyond)

RESULTS OF THE PHASE 1 TRANSIT REVIEW

STAGE 1 (APPROVED BY COUNCIL IN MAY 2014 AND IMPLEMENTED SEPTEMBER 2014)

Improved on-time schedule issues by discontinuing direct service to U of A and relying

on the LRT for service to the University (Figure 4)

The addition of a midday trip

Increasing bus pass options to City Residents

o Standard adult pass $135

o Student pass (Spruce Grove Residents) $95. This represents a 27% reduction

from the standard adult pass.

o Integrated pass -Spruce Grove plus ETS Transit pass (1-year pilot) $165. If sold

separately the passes would cost $224, this represents a combined discount of

$59.

No changes to the route within the City (Figure 3)

No reduction in summer service (July/August)


Figure 3. Current Service Spruce Grove

Figure 4. Downtown Edmonton Service Phase 1 (current)


STAGE 2 (PROPOSED LOCAL ROUTING CHANGES) START 20153

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 existing Route

197 and add service to Spruce Ridge, Harvest Ridge, Hilldowns, Stoneshire, Linkside, Aspenglen,

Deer Park, and Greenbury.

Figure 5 illustrates the two proposed routes within the City 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 (Figure 3) 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 fewer busses are required.

High ridership levels would be required before adding an additional PM trip on each route.

Figure 5. Transit Review 2014: Option (A) Two local Routes within Spruce Grove

3 This start date is currently under consideration by Council to be implemented by 2016.


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 (Figure 3.). 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.

Option C - New Local Express Route to WEM and South Campus (Recommended):

Option C emerged out of the May 2014 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 the City and then running to the West Edmonton Mall (WEM) and South Campus

LRT (~60% of households within a 5-minute walk)(Figure 6 and 7). Three trips during peak

periods 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 care centers. 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.

A downtown Edmonton 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 and the risk of

potential ridership declines from disruptions to 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.


Figure 6. Transit Review 2014 Option C -Express reduced coverage route to WEM and South Campus LRT – Spruce Grove Component

Figure 7. Transit Review 2014 Option C - Express reduced coverage route to WEM and South Campus LRT – Edmonton component


Each of the options was evaluated on their strengths and weaknesses. Option (c) emerged as

the preferred and recommended route to Council. Council supported the route, however it was

decided that an evaluation of Stage 1 and another public consultation on Option C in the fall of

2014 should be conducted and reported back to Council.

STAGE 3 (PROPOSED) SEPTEMBER4 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 to 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 to and

from most of Edmonton (Note: ETS is advising that WEM is becoming very congested at peak

travel periods and is recommending the use of the Lewis Farms Transit Centre on the west side

of the Anthony Henday Highway. This transit centre has high volume connections to WEM and

the distributed Edmonton transit network.).

The express nature of this route within the City 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.

STAGE 4 –SEPTEMBER 2017 5, 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 the City and WEM on an hourly basis

between 9:00am and 7:00pm. This service is not dependent on the implementation of Stage 2 –

4 With the possible deferral of stage 2 to 2016 subsequent stages may be deferred by one-year – this stage would

move to 2017. 5 With the possible deferral of stage 2 to 2016 subsequent stages may be deferred by one-year. This stage would

move to 2018.


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 Edmonton. Demand for this service should be verified

prior to implementing as 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.

PROPOSED TRANSIT PARK & RIDE (TRANSIT CENTRE)

Each of the transit concepts developed so far for the City conceive options for a transit Park and

Ride – Transit Centre location. The development of additional intercity (commuter) services and

local transit service that can feed the commuter service makes a facility such as this very

important. These facilities also increase the potential for future regional partnership with Stony

Plain and Parkland County, as they open the doors for regional feeder routes and access to

transit for more rural residents.

The best location for a transit centre should be at the outer edge of the City, located nearest to

the express portion of each of the routes. This allows park and riders to avoid a slow circuitous

trip through the City. On this basis a transit centre should be located on the Southeast,

Southwest or Northeast corners of the City6.

The construction of a Park and Ride Transit Centre should if possible be combined with some

commercial enterprise that would be supportive to transit riders such as a coffee shop or

restaurant. Figure 8 identifies three potential sites; additional sites may be available and would

need to be evaluated early on in the process. In the 2020 timeframe only one site is required,

but long term planning should consider two or three additional sites as the system grows and

becomes more robust.

6 Transit Comprehensive Operations Review, April 2013, DanTec Associates p. 32


Figure 8. Three identified Park and Ride

REGIONAL SERVICE

STONY PLAIN

From the very start of the transit service in the City there has been discussions and

considerations in planning for expanded regional transit coverage. The 2007 Stantec Report:

Spruce Grove & Stony Plain Transit Feasibility study examined a possible route between Stony

Plain and the City with connection to the Spruce Grove-Edmonton commuter service. The same

report also looked at direct service from Stony Plain to Edmonton and a park and ride option on

the west side of Spruce Grove. None of these were adopted, possibly due to costs and unknown

interest on the part of Stony Plain residents.

PARKLAND COUNTY

There are a number of residential and business areas within Parkland County that could benefit

from transit service. North of Spruce Grove, Parkland Village has a population of 1,7837 and the

Acheson Business Area with a current employment base of 9,000 with growth estimated to be

13,000 to 16,0008 was included as a potential regional transit location in the 2007 Spruce

Grove & Stony Plain Transit Feasibility Study. ISL Engineering explored options for the Acheson

7 Parkland County 2009 Municipal Census. Accessed October 30, 2014 from :

http://www.parklandcounty.com/Assets/About+Us/general/2009+Municipal+Census+Report.pdf 8 Draft Acheson Industrial Area Structure Plan 2014, Accessed October 30, 2014 from:

http://www.parklandcounty.com/Assets/About+Us/Projects+and+Studies/Acheson+ASP/2014+ASP+data/Acheson+ASP+-+Sept+2014.pdf

http://www.parklandcounty.com/Assets/About+Us/general/2009+Municipal+Census+Report.pdf




Industrial Area in the 2012 Parkland County – Acheson Industrial Park Transit Feasibility Study.

This report recommended that Parkland County contract directly from ETS or considers

contracted Vanpooling as options. A follow up report in 2013 made a further case for the

Vanpool option9.

Recently, discussions between Parkland County, the Acheson Business Association and the City

are indicating that cooperating with traditional transit into Acheson and utilizing Vanpools to

take workers from a single pickup location to their places of work is the most efficient method.

For this reason the City is exploring inclusion of Acheson as a stop on the deadhead (trip out)

from Edmonton to Spruce Grove.

PROPOSED TRANSIT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN SUMMARY

Public transit is of critical importance to a city`s development because it is an essential part that enables the functionality of the urban setting. In particular, inefficient transportation systems incur extra costs to city residents and the government in terms of increased spending, higher taxes and the loss of city competitiveness. Also, it causes environmental problems such as car exhaust, road congestion and loss of green space. An efficient public transit system is increasingly viewed as one major competitive drivers for a city in the national and international arena.

Efficient Cities: The interrelationship Between Effective Transit Systems and Optimal Utilization of Land Use Entitlements – Canada West Foundation 2011

Given the previous research, and the level of growth the City is experiencing, it is

recommended that we continue with expansion of service as planned and presented to City

Council in June 2014. Table 1 below is a summary of the total plan. Two additional

enhancements are being proposed for consideration in this plan that was not presented to

Council:

9 Acheson Industrial Area Transit Feasibility Study: A case for Vanpools. Huculak, M, Zeggelaar, D and Levy, D. 2013

Accessed Oct 31, 2014 from: http://www.cite7.org/conferences/compendium/2013_Transit_AchesonIndustrialAreaTransitFeasibilityStudy_CaseVanpools.pdf

http://www.cite7.org/conferences/compendium/2013_Transit_AchesonIndustrialAreaTransitFeasibilityStudy_CaseVanpools.pdf

http://www.cite7.org/conferences/compendium/2013_Transit_AchesonIndustrialAreaTransitFeasibilityStudy_CaseVanpools.pdf


Service from Edmonton to Acheson (this has been included due to current discussions

with Parkland County).

Local service and or regional services targeted for 2019.

Table 1. Proposed plan and operational options

Year Routes Operating Changes Operating Options Capital Cost Implications

2014 197

Direct service to U of A cut. Service within SG stays same to Edmonton City Centre. Additional mid-day trip added. Schedule adherence issues fixed (i.e. extra time added).

N/A

Capital costs reduced because service can now run on 6-buses. Additional trips also cheaper to add.

2015 560

Route 197 is re-numbered into route 560. Includes three buses stopping at Acheson10 North in deadhead direction. Two trips are via NAIT. One trip via downtown.

(1) Include a stop at NAIT for third Acheson North trip. (2) Route travels via WEM instead of NAIT LRT in Yr 1

No change

Acheson covers portion of operating, common and capital costs. SG sees benefit from sharing capital. Increased GHG benefits because the deadhead trip is now fully utilized.

2016 560, 562

No change 560. Route 562 introduced. This is three peak trips using express SG route between SG & WEM/SC. Deadhead direction includes three trips to Acheson11 South. Two trips leave from WEM. One trip from South Campus.

(1) Include a stop at WEM for third Acheson South trip.

SG purchases three 40-ft transit buses. Ready for Sept 2016 to run 562.

Acheson covers portion of operating and capital costs for both 560 and 562. Need to determine new contract arrangement with ETS for bus storage, maintenance, etc.

10

Date of implementation is dependent upon agreement by Parkland County and the Acheson Business Association. 11

Date of implementation and final routes associated with Acheson is dependent upon agreement by Parkland County and the Acheson Business Association.



Will not pay traditional capital fees for 562 but will need to cover other costs.

2017 560, 562

Status quo from 2016, however capacity to increase trips is possible.12

(1) Do not offer this and/or do not go to Acheson. (2) Can offer mid-morning or later evening trip if more demand exists, lots of flexibility for trip time based on existing schedule.

SG purchases three 40-ft transit buses. Ready for use in Sept 2017 on 560.

Will see capital savings in ETS contract however somewhat offset by other fees, e.g. storage

2018 560, 562

Evening service added on route 562.

If demand warrants, additional peak services is possible on both 560 and 562. Benefit is greater flexibility in system as whole is anticipated to increase ridership in peak periods.

No change Cost effective addition.

2019 560, 562, 'local'13

562 introduce hourly Saturday service using the base route (no Acheson). Local service introduced in SG.

Delay 562 Saturday service. Focus on local service.

SG purchases two (2) cutaway buses to run local service. In house storage, main-tenance &

(1) Costs associated with in house operations and new operating hours for 562 Saturday and local operating. (2) Cutaway bused are much cheaper but have a shorter

12

No increase in service is factored into the financial costs presented in this business case 13

No route numbers have been established for local routes



operations. Con-struction starts on Park and Ride.

lifecycle (6 to 8 years).

2020 560, 562, 'local'

No change. Possibly minor schedule changes

Inclusion of regional services to Stony Plain and Parkland Village.14 Spruce Grove may consider peak service from Spruce Grove to Acheson.

SG purchases two (2) more cutaway buses. SG builds storage garage for these buses. Park and Ride (Transit Centre completed and operational

Garage expansion/building costs.

The following figures show the various components of the project:

Figure 9. Commuter Bus Concept

14

Expansion to Stony Plain and Parkland Village and additional expansion for Acheson - Edmonton service is dependent upon agreement with the Municipality of Stony Plain and Parkland County


Figure 10. Local Bus Concept

Figure 11. Transit Centre Shelter Concept


4.0 COSTS AND BENEFITS

From an individual household’s perspective, public transit investments are often very cost effective. According to analysis described in our study, Raise My Taxes, Please! Evaluating Household Savings from High Quality Public Transit Service, providing high quality public transit service typically requires about $268 in annual subsidies and $108 in additional fares per capita, but reduces vehicle, parking and road costs an average of $1,040 per capita. This is more than a 300% annual financial return on investment, in addition to other benefits including congestion reductions, reduced traffic accidents, pollution emission reductions, improved mobility for non-drivers, and improved public fitness and health.

Todd Litman15, 2014

The provision of public transit has costs and benefits for every municipality and very few

operate on a full cost recovery model. Transit is regarded as a public good and a component of

core transportation infrastructure funded by the greater community for the benefit of all

residents. The reality however, is that public transit does benefit from an economy of scale. The

larger the system and the more riders that utilize the system the more cost effective the system

becomes. It is for this reason that although the City is putting forth this plan for the expansion

of service, it is recognized that there would be an increased benefit from a total Capital Region

integrated transit System.

Table 2 below offers a summary of common benefits and costs associated with public transit. In

most cases they apply to the City, but for many the benefits certainly extend beyond and

certainly apply to the City of Edmonton as well.

15

Responding to Transit Funding Criticism, Opinion – Planetizen. May 2014. Accessed from http://www.planetizen.com/node/69020

http://www.vtpi.org/raisetaxes.pdf

http://www.vtpi.org/raisetaxes.pdf

http://www.planetizen.com/node/69020


Table 2. Public Transport Benefits and Costs16

Category Improved Transit Service

Increased Transit Travel

Reduced Automobile Travel

Transit-Oriented Development

Indicators Service Quality (speed, reliability, comfort, safety,

etc.)

Transit Ridership (passenger-miles or mode share)

Mode shifts or Automobile Travel

Reductions

Portion of Development with

TOD design features

Benefits

Improved convenience and comfort for existing users.

Increased user security, as more users ride transit and wait at stops and stations.

Reduced traffic congestion

Additional vehicle travel reductions (`leverage effects`).

Equity benefits (since exciting users tend to be disadvantaged).

Mobility benefits to new users.

Road and parking facility cost savings.

Improved accessibility particularly for non-drivers.

Option value (the value of having an option for future use).

Increased fare revenue.

Consumer savings.

Reduced crime risk.

Improved operating efficiency (if service speed increases).

Increased public fitness and health (if transit travel stimulates more walking and cycling trips).

Increased traffic safety

More efficient development (reduced infrastructure costs).

Improved security (reduced crime risk)

Energy conservation

Farmland and habitat preservation

Air and noise pollution reductions

Costs Increased capital and operating costs and therefore subsidies.

Transit vehicle crowding

Reduced automobile business activity

Various problems associated with more compact development

Land and road space

Traffic congestion and accident risk imposed by transit vehicles.

16

Evaluating Public Transit Benefits and Costs – Best Practices Guidebook, Victoria Transport Policy Institute. Todd Litman, August 2014. Accessed from: http://www.vtpi.org/tranben.pdf

http://www.vtpi.org/tranben.pdf


SPRUCE GROVE TRANSIT COSTS

CAPITAL COSTS:

The capital requirements for the plan are separated according to how they have been included

into the City’s Corporate Plan. Each component is listed in Table 3 and includes all aspects of

the recommended plan.

Transit System Growth - Bus Purchase is the acquisition of a total of six, 40 foot high efficiency

commuter buses. These are owned by the City and operated, stored and maintained by ETS.

Transit Infrastructure – Permanent Park & Ride is the selection, land acquisition, design and

construction of a Park & Ridge facility with parking for 100, with expansion to 300. A heated

transit centre shelter with associated furniture and bike storage.

Transit System Growth – Local/sub regional Bus is the acquisition of four 24 passenger size,

and the land acquisition, design and construction of a bus storage facility, with capacity for up

to eight buses, staff facilities and bus wash bay.

Table 3 below describes the estimated capital costs of implementing the recommended plan.

Each item breaks down the contribution requirements from the City of Spruce Grove and the

GreenTRIP program.

Table 3. Capital Summary

Transit System Growth – Bus Purchase (DP266.2)

Per unit Total Cost GreenTRIP City of Spruce Grove

2016 Bus Purchase (3 – 40’ High Efficiency) $505,000 $1,515,000 $1,009,748 $505,253

2017 Bus Purchase (3 – 40’ High Efficiency) $505,000 $1,515,000 $1,009,748 $505,253

TOTAL $3,030,000 $2,128,230 $1,010,505

Transit Infrastructure – Permanent Park and Ride (DP265.2)

Per Unit Total Cost GreenTRIP City of Spruce Grove

2015 Park & Ride - Site selection analysis $55,000 $36,658 $18,343

2018 Design and Engineering $130,000 $86,645 $43,355

2019 Park & Ride Construction $340,000 $226,610 $113,390

2020 Park & Ride Construction including Shelter and fixtures

$2,875,000 $1,916,188 $958,813

TOTAL $3,400,000 $2,254,200 $1,133,900


Transit System Growth – Local/Sub regional Per Unit Total Cost GreenTRIP City of

Spruce Grove 2019 -2 Community Feeder/sub regional buses (24 Passenger)

$199,000 $398,000 $265,267 $132,733

2020 – 2 Community Feeder/sub regional buses (24 Passenger)

$199,000 $398,000 $265,267 $132,733

2018 – Bus storage Land acquisition and design $470,000 $313,255 $156,745

2019 – Bus Storage Construction $1,944,000 $1,295,676 $648,324

2020 – Bus Storage Construction $1,980,000 $1,319,670 $660,330

TOTAL $5,190,000 $3,459,135 $1,730,865

Total Project Total Cost GreenTRIP City of Spruce Grove

$11,620,000 $7,744,730 $3,875,270


SUMMARY OF STATEMENT OF OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS FINDINGS

Projected operating costs and bus purchase costs are detailed in Appendix 1 and include two options for comparing the status quo (No service

change) and the full plan, based on services provided as detailed in Table 1 contained within the plan. The information that follows in table 4 is a

summary which include all operational costs (including amortization expenses for all components of the plan), ETS Contract costs, bus storage and

maintenance costs (under contact to the City of Edmonton), in-house expenses, and revenue projections based upon each option. Only limited

operational costs for the local/sub regional service, the Park and Ride facility and the local/sub regional service storage have not been included due

to a lack of certainty around these costs. Capital acquisitions and their related GreenTRIP funds are not included in this summary analysis.

Table 4. Summary of projected revenues, expenditures and the recovery/cost ratio

Status Quo, i.e. no expansion 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

Revenue* $570,389 $451,005 $444,289 $450,662 $461,099 $486,703 $502,271 $512,934 $516,794 $543,518

Expenses $1,261,115 $1,286,935 $1,313,311 $1,339,158 $1,365,697 $1,392,691 $1,420,280 $1,448,060 $1,475,945 $1,505,790

Annual Surplus (Deficit) ($690,726) ($835,930) ($869,022) ($888,496) ($904,598) ($905,988) ($918,010) ($935,126) ($959,151) ($962,272)

Recovery/Cost Ratio 45.2% 35.0% 33.8% 33.7% 33.8% 34.9% 35.4% 35.4% 35.0% 36.1%

* Revenue includes MSI operating funds in 2015 ($107K) and GreenTRIP funds for Park and Ride Site Analysis ($37K). This is factored in the R/C ratio.

Acheson + Spruce Grove, All Expansions 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

Revenue* $620,375 $543,104 $664,416 $701,163 $781,584 $942,903 $975,477 $1,013,676 $1,026,555 $1,068,876

Expenses** $1,282,839 $1,328,101 $1,496,713 $1,568,788 $2,120,543 $3,303,167 $3,368,385 $3,425,678 $3,478,657 $3,543,237

Annual Surplus (Deficit) ($662,463) ($784,997) ($832,297) ($867,625) ($1,338,959) ($2,360,264) ($2,392,908) ($2,412,002) ($2,452,102) ($2,474,360)

Recovery/Cost Ratio 48.4% 40.9% 44.4% 44.7% 36.9% 28.5% 29.0% 29.6% 29.5% 30.2%

* Revenue includes MSI operating funds in 2015 ($107K) and GreenTRIP funds for Park and Ride Site Analysis ($37K). This is factored in the R/C ratio.

**Expenses include all amortization expenses and limited and park and ride/local bus storage facility operating costs starting in 2020.


SPRUCE GROVE TRANSIT BENEFITS

RIDERSHIP GROWTH

Figure 12 illustrates ridership projections based upon system growth as outlined in Table 1. These projections

are estimated based upon previous research; current ridership and model split models developed in previous

research. The growth of ridership is seen as most substantial with the addition of commuter service on

Highway 16A and with the addition of local/sub regional service (Stony Plain, Parkland Village and Spruce

Grove to Acheson). The potential for Acheson service in both directions may exceed our projections based

upon growth estimates for the area as an employment centre. Detailed data on ridership projections are

contained in Appendix 2.

Figure 12. Ridership projections 2013 to 2024

GREEN HOUSE GAS REDUCTION

The Royal Society and the National Academy of Science have said in their 2014 report, Climate Change

Evidence and Cause: “Climate Change is one of the defining issues of our time. It is now more certain than

-

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

Ridership Projections

560 A -Status Quo 562 A - WEM/South Campus 562 B - WEM Evening

562 C - WEM Saturday Local/Subregional service Acheson Service


ever, based on many lines of evidence, that humans are changing Earth’s climate. The atmosphere and oceans

have warmed, accompanied by sea-level rise, a strong decline in Arctic sea ice and other climate-related

changes”17.

One of the key benefits of transit is the reduction in local emissions NOX and SO2. Equally as important is the

reduction of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) all of which are classified as Greenhouse Gases (GHG). Transit benefits GHG

reductions through the removal of single occupancy vehicles from the roads. Based on the implementation of

the GreenTRIP program for the City, it is estimated that a total of 8,956.01 Tonnes CO2E will be avoided from

2015 to 2020 through the removal of such single occupancy vehicles. Details on the methodology for

calculating GHG reductions and the application of this formula through each step of the project are detailed in

Appendix 3.

It is also important to note although improvements are being made with all mobile source technologies

through increased efficiency and the use of hybrid, electric and natural gas fuels. The emissions released from

the tailpipe are significant and not only effect world climate, but the local environment. The City of Toronto

Medical Officer has noted: “Pollution from vehicles travelling Toronto’s routinely-jammed streets and

expressways contributes to about 280 premature deaths and 1,090 hospitalizations each year — a significant

portion of the total. Furthermore, that burden isn’t shared equally, with residents living near major

thoroughfares exposed to considerably more toxins and health risks”18.

5.0 ON-GOING BENEFITS MONITORING PLAN

As our population ages, transit services of all kinds must introduce a higher standard of accessibility and security. Fares will need to be customized. Customer service will become more critical.

Barbara Myers19, 2014

17

Climate Change Evidence and Causes: An overview from the Royal Society and the US National Academy of Sciences, 2014, Accessed Oct. 30, 2014 from: https://royalsociety.org/~/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/projects/climate-evidence-causes/climate-change-evidence-causes.pdf 18

Toronto can do more to reduce premature deaths from air pollution: Editorial, Toronto Star. April 21, 2014. Accessed Nov. 4, 2014 from: http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/2014/04/21/toronto_can_do_more_to_reduce_premature_deaths_from_air_pollution_editorial.html?app=noRedirect 19

Transit in Canada, The Overwhelming Canadian Issue – Barbara Myer, 2014 – Accessed from Plan Canada

https://royalsociety.org/~/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/projects/climate-evidence-causes/climate-change-evidence-causes.pdf

https://royalsociety.org/~/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/projects/climate-evidence-causes/climate-change-evidence-causes.pdf

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/2014/04/21/toronto_can_do_more_to_reduce_premature_deaths_from_air_pollution_editorial.html?app=noRedirect

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/2014/04/21/toronto_can_do_more_to_reduce_premature_deaths_from_air_pollution_editorial.html?app=noRedirect


Reporting both on the project and the benefits will be maintained throughout the project as defined in the

GreenTRIP Administrative Procedures and Guidelines. The City will ensure all reports are complete and

submitted on-time using the GreenTRIP Annual Benefits Summary Report. This will report will accurately

record the anticipated project benefits as outlined in the original GreenTRIP application and Business Case

against the actual benefits as the project progresses. More specifically the City will report on project benefits

such as GHG reduction, increased ridership, variations in safety levels and travel times. In addition the City will

commit to maintain regular contact with the Ministry of Transportation on an informal on-going basis to keep

them apprised of progress and any potential issues that might develop.


Appendix 1 – Details of Operating Costs

A. Status Quo – No Capital Purchase

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

Revenue

Government Tranfers (MSI)

MSI (Operating) 107,709 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

User Fees - Route 560a 459,680 448,005 441,289 447,662 458,099 483,703 499,271 509,934 513,794 540,518

Ad revenue 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000

Total Revenue 570,389 451,005 444,289 450,662 461,099 486,703 502,271 512,934 516,794 543,518

Expenses

ETS Contract Expenses

Service Hour Operating Expenses 951,053 970,951 991,278 1,011,196 1,031,648 1,052,450 1,073,712 1,095,120 1,116,609 1,139,609

Bus Related Operating Expenses 225,043 229,751 234,561 239,274 244,113 249,036 254,067 259,132 264,217 269,660

Misc. ETS Admin Expenses 58,019 59,233 60,473 61,688 62,935 64,204 65,501 66,807 68,118 69,522

Sub-total 1,234,115 1,259,935 1,286,311 1,312,158 1,338,697 1,365,691 1,393,280 1,421,060 1,448,945 1,478,790

Misc. Spruce Grove Expenses (Schedule 4) 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000

Total Expenses 1,261,115 1,286,935 1,313,311 1,339,158 1,365,697 1,392,691 1,420,280 1,448,060 1,475,945 1,505,790

Annual Surplus (Deficit) (690,726) (835,930) (869,022) (888,496) (904,598) (905,988) (918,010) (935,126) (959,151) (962,272)

Notes

1 Revenue projections are rough numbers based on past trends, comparable services, and future bus capacity. 2 Add revenue potential not explored. Anticipated revenue will increase.

3 Inflation not applied to misc. in-house operating expenses at this time.


Schedule 1 - Misc. Spruce Grove Operating 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

Misc. Spruce Grove Expenses

Professional fees/CRB 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000

CUTA Membership fees 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000

Advertising 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000

Bus Passes 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000

Sub-total 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000


B. Acheson + Spruce Grove, All Planned Expansion

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

Revenue

Government Transfers (MSI, GreenTRIP)

MSI (Operating) 107,709 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

GreenTRIP (Park and Ride Site Selection Only) 36,667 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Sub-total 144,376 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

User Fees (Schedule 1) 473,000 540,104 661,416 698,163 778,584 939,903 972,477 1,010,676 1,023,555 1,065,876

Ad revenue 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000

Total Revenue 620,375 543,104 664,416 701,163 781,584 942,903 975,477 1,013,676 1,026,555 1,068,876

Expenses

Amortization (incl. local + commuter) 0 75,750 151,500 151,500 208,357 456,594 456,594 456,594 456,594 456,594

ETS Contract Expenses (Schedule 2)

Service Hour Operating Expenses 977,565 1,173,582 1,476,748 1,548,847 1,691,612 1,777,519 1,813,429 1,849,585 1,885,879 1,924,724

Bus Related Operating Expenses 225,043 250,084 199,466 203,508 207,618 211,807 216,085 220,405 224,744 229,328

Misc. ETS Admin Expenses 58,019 59,233 60,473 61,688 62,935 64,204 65,501 66,807 68,118 69,522

Sub-total 1,260,626 1,482,899 1,736,686 1,814,043 1,962,166 2,053,531 2,095,015 2,136,798 2,178,741 2,223,574

Acheson Portion (Schedule 3) (59,788) (257,549) (418,473) (423,755) (426,214) (434,288) (442,809) (451,391) (460,005) (469,218)

Local/Subregional Service - Operating 0 0 0 0 349,233 1,160,329 1,192,584 1,216,677 1,236,327 1,265,286

Misc. Spruce Grove Expenses (Schedule 4) 82,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 67,000 67,000 67,000 67,000 67,000

Total Expenses 1,282,839 1,328,101 1,496,713 1,568,788 2,120,543 3,303,167 3,368,385 3,425,678 3,478,657 3,543,237

Annual Surplus (Deficit) (662,463) (784,997) (832,297) (867,625) (1,338,99) (2,360,26) (2,392,98) (2,412,002) (2,452,102) (2,474,360)


Notes

1 Revenue projections are rough numbers based on past trends, comparable services, and future bus capacity.

2 Add revenue potential not explored. Anticipated revenue will increase.

3 The PnR site analysis is expensed in 2015 so related GreenTRIP funds included to illustrate offset. No other GreenTRIP funds included.

3 Capital acquisitions and GreenTRIP-related funds excluded. This covers: bus purchases, park and ride facility, local bus storage facility.

4 Amortization and capital-related operating expenses are included.

6 Lifecycle schedule: commuter buses (20-yrs), cutaway buses (7-yrs), park and ride (30-yrs), bus storage facility (50-yrs).

5 Inflation not applied to misc. in-house operating expenses at this time.

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

Schedule 1 - User Fees

560a 459,680 448,005 441,289 447,662 458,099 483,703 499,271 509,934 513,794 540,518

562 A - WEM/South Campus - 38,819 140,207 155,723 167,330 171,828 177,965 188,524 188,309 199,377

562 B - WEM Evening - - - 6,034 18,763 19,666 20,317 20,954 21,063 22,197

562 C - WEM Saturday - - - - 5,156 46,401 46,401 58,001 58,001 58,001

Local/Subregional Service - - - - 40,492 127,396 130,621 133,031 134,996 137,892

Acheson Service 13,320 53,280 79,920 88,745 88,745 90,909 97,902 100,233 107,393 107,892

Sub-total 473,000 540,104 661,416 698,163 778,584 939,903 972,477 1,010,676 1,023,555 1,065,876

Schedule 2 - ETS Contract Expenses

Service Hour Operating Expenses

560b - City Centre + Acheson North 977,565 1,036,323 1,058,019 1,079,278 1,101,107 1,123,310 1,146,003 1,168,853 1,191,788 1,216,337

562d - South Campus/WEM + Acheson South 0 137,259 418,729 427,143 435,782 444,569 453,550 462,593 471,671 481,386

562b - WEM Evenings, Weekdays 0 0 0 42,426 129,336 131,944 134,610 137,294 139,988 142,871

562c - WEM Saturday 0 0 0 0 25,387 77,696 79,265 80,846 82,432 84,130

Sub-total 977,565 1,173,582 1,476,748 1,548,847 1,691,612 1,777,519 1,813,429 1,849,585 1,885,879 1,924,724

Bus Related Operating Expenses

560b - City Centre + Acheson North 225,043 229,751 157,947 161,155 164,409 167,727 171,114 174,537 177,976 181,597

562d - South Campus/WEM + Acheson South 0 20,333 41,518 42,353 43,209 44,080 44,971 45,868 46,768 47,731

562b - WEM Evenings, Weekdays 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

562c - WEM Saturday 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


Sub-total 225,043 250,084 199,466 203,508 207,618 211,807 216,085 220,405 224,744 229,328

Misc. ETS Admin Expenses

CVIP Inspection, $8.79 2014 27,031 27,596 28,174 28,740 29,322 29,913 30,517 31,126 31,736 32,390

Daily Admin fee, $101 in 2014 25,883 26,424 26,978 27,520 28,076 28,642 29,221 29,804 30,388 31,014

Insurance/Registration, $5000 in 2014 5,105 5,212 5,321 5,428 5,538 5,649 5,763 5,878 5,994 6,117

Sub-total 58,019 59,233 60,473 61,688 62,935 64,204 65,501 66,807 68,118 69,522

Total ETS Contract Expenses 1,260,626 1,482,899 1,736,686 1,814,043 1,962,166 2,053,531 2,095,015 2,136,798 2,178,741 2,223,574

Schedule 3 - Acheson Portion

Acheson Portion of Costs

560b - City Centre + Acheson North (52,170) (159,264) (156,135) (159,212) (162,368) (165,578) (168,859) (172,164) (175,481) (179,025)

562d - South Campus/WEM + Acheson South 0 (67,052) (213,532) (215,332) (214,887) (219,047) (223,300) (227,581) (231,879) (236,479)

ETS Misc. Admin (2,401) (8,601) (11,840) (11,756) (11,234) (11,200) (11,435) (11,671) (11,909) (12,163)

Spruce Grove Admin Fee (10%) (5,217) (22,632) (36,967) (37,454) (37,725) (38,463) (39,216) (39,975) (40,736) (41,550)

Sub-total (59,788) (257,549) (418,473) (423,755) (426,214) (434,288) (442,809) (451,391) (460,005) (469,218)

* Some of these costs cover additional expenses associated with adding the Acheson extensions. This value does not reflect the 'benefit cost' to Spruce Grove.

Schedule 4 - Misc. Spruce Grove Operating

Misc. In-House Expenses

Professional fees/CRB 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000

CUTA Membership fees 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000

Advertising 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000

Bus Passes 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000

Park and Ride & Bus Storage Facility

Site Selection Analysis 55,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Utilities 0 0 0 0 0 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000

Snow removal, garbage, recycling 0 0 0 0 0 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000

Sub-total 82,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 67,000 67,000 67,000 67,000 67,000

* The 10% Spruce Grove Admin fee charged for the Acheson service would help cover their portion of these expenses.


Appendix 2 – Calculations of Transit Ridership Growth

Projections for transit growth are based upon past trends, previous research, current ridership. Factors that can increase ridership range from poor weather in winter to a significant increase in the cost of motor fuel. Increased service and more reliable/predictable service also help to promote ridership. Route Category 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

560 A -Status Quo, 40-ft urban coach

Annual daily load factor 0.64 0.65 0.66 0.63 0.62 0.62 0.63 0.66 0.67 0.675 0.675 0.7

Number of trips 14 14 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15

Service days per year 250 250 251 251 252 252 250 250 252 252 251 252

Projected ridership 82622 84175 91941 87762 86713 86713 87413 91575 93706 94406 94031 97902

562 A - WEM/SC, 40-ft urban coach

Annual daily load factor 0 0 0 0.5 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.7 0.725 0.75 0.75 0.775

Number of trips 0 0 0 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6



562 B - WEM Evening, 40-ft urban coach

Annual daily load factor 0 0 0 0 0 0.25 0.3 0.3 0.325 0.35 0.35 0.375

Number of trips 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 4 4 4 4 4



562 C - WEM Saturday, community shuttle

Annual daily load factor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.125 0.125 0.125

Number of trips 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 12 12 12 12 12




Local Service, community shuttle

Annual daily load factor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.125 0.125 0.125

Number of trips 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 28 36 36 36 36


Projected ridership 0 0 0 0 0 0 13200 15523.2 19958.4 24948 24849 24948

Acheson Service, 40-ft urban coach

Annual daily load factor 0 0 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.325 0.325 0.325 0.35 0.35 0.375 0.375

Number of trips 0 0 3 3 & 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6

Service days per year 0 0 83 83 & 251 252 252 250 252 252 252 251 252


Estimated total daily riders per direction

33

67 72 72 72 78 78 83 83

Total Projected Ridership 82622 84175 94705 108097 137063 144330 169058 177002 187298 195662 196285 202888

% Total Ridership is Acheson

2.9% 10.3% 12.2% 12.6% 10.7% 10.3% 10.5% 10.0% 10.6% 10.3%

Rate of Increase year over year 1.9% 12.5% 14.1% 26.8% 5.3% 17.1% 4.7% 5.8% 4.5% 0.3% 3.4%


Appendix 3 - GHG Benefits

Methodology Calculations for Green House Gas emissions will be based upon current approaches to transit based emission modeling. Emission calculations will be based upon primary emission sources and not secondary and supporting sources such as the Park and Ride construction and the transit storage facility. Our baseline is based upon current ridership and estimated direct calculations of transit kilometers travelled using the most current emission factors. The project that is being proposed is one that is intended to change modal shift from automobile use to public transit. As described earlier projections for increased ridership have been made on the basis of current ridership, previous research projecting growth and the growth of the system. There is no standardized approach to determining the exact amount of model shift. For consistency of calculation we are assuming that each passenger utilizing transit will displace a single occupant car. Assumptions

Distance used will be the same for bus and vehicles

Estimated vehicle use Edmonton Region = 55% Passenger Car, 45% Light Duty Truck – The emission factor used will be for a midsize car.

Bus emissions factors used will remain constant over the project period however; number of buses, number of trips and bus kilometers will increase as the system grows.

Automobile use will grow corresponding to the bus growth reflecting the same vehicle kilometers. Sources: For Bus Emission Factor: Travel Emission Based on Travel Distance – Bus (City) 0.1158 (Kg CO2E/passenger-Kilometer)20 For Automobile Emission Factor: Travel Emissions Based on Fuel Efficiency – Car (Gasoline) 10.3 L/100 Km = 2.326 Kg/L CO2E21

CO2e = 2.326 kg/L Fuel Efficiency = 10.3 L/100km Co2e in Kg/km = 2.326kg/L * 10.3L/100 Km = 23.9578 kg/100km / 100 = 0.239 kg/km

20

2013 B.C. Best Practices Methodology for Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Emissions, December 2013. Ministry of Environment. P. 28 21

Ibid, p. 26


GHG Calculations based upon project reflecting system growth vs. Equivalent automobile use

BUS Passenger/bus Kilometers Km*PSG

Emission Factor Kg

CO2E/ PKT Kg CO2E Tonnes

CO2E/Trip Trips/day CO2E /day # Days

Total Annual

CO2

2013 21.900

75.190

1,646.661

0.115

189.366

0.189

15.000

2.840

250.000

710.123

2014 22.400

75.190

1,684.256

0.115

193.689

0.194

15.000

2.905

250.000

726.335

2015 24.400

81.280

1,983.232

0.115

228.072

0.228

15.000

3.421

251.000

858.690

2016 - 560 23.300

81.280

1,893.824

0.115

217.790

0.218

15.000

3.267

251.000

819.978

2016 - 562 18.500

92.280

1,707.180

0.115

196.326

0.196

6.000

1.178

83.000

97.770

2017 - 560 22.900

81.280

1,861.312

0.115

214.051

0.214

15.000

3.211

252.000

809.112

2017 - 562 22.200

92.280

2,048.616

0.115

235.591

0.236

6.000

1.414

252.000

356.213

2018 - 560 22.900

81.280

1,861.312

0.115

214.051

0.214

15.000

3.211

252.000

809.112

2018 - 562 24.000

92.280

2,214.720

0.115

254.693

0.255

6.000

1.528

252.000

385.096

2018 - 562E 9.250

53.880

498.390

0.115

57.315

0.057

4.000

0.229

83.000

19.029

2019 - 560 23.300

81.280

1,893.824

0.115

217.790

0.218

15.000

3.267

250.000

816.712

2019 - 562 25.900

92.280

2,390.052

0.115

274.856

0.275

6.000

1.649

250.000

412.284

2019- 562E 11.100

53.880

598.068

0.115

68.778

0.069

4.000

0.275

250.000

68.778

2019 - 562S 2.200

51.790

113.938

0.115

13.103

0.013

12.000

0.157

17.000

2.673


BUS Passenger/bus Kilometers Km*PSG

Emission Factor Kg

CO2E/ PKT Kg CO2E Tonnes

CO2E/Trip Trips/day CO2E /day # Days

Total Annual

CO2

2019 - 564LA 3.300 27.000 89.100 0.115 10.247 0.010 24.000 0.246 83.000 20.411

2019 - 564LB

3.300

21.000

69.300

0.115

7.970

0.008

24.000

0.191

83.000

15.875

2020 - 560 24.000

81.280

1,950.720

0.115

224.333

0.224

15.000

3.365

252.000

847.978

2020 - 562 25.900

92.280

2,390.052

0.115

274.856

0.275

6.000

1.649

252.000

415.582

2020- 562E 11.100

53.880

598.068

0.115

68.778

0.069

4.000

0.275

252.000

69.328

2020 - 562S 2.200

51.790

113.938

0.115

13.103

0.013

12.000

0.157

52.000

8.176

2020 - 564LA 1.100

27.000

29.700

0.115

3.416

0.003

24.000

0.082

252.000

20.657

2020 - 564LB 1.100

21.000

23.100

0.115

2.657

0.003

24.000

0.064

252.000

16.067

TOTAL

8,305.98

CAR Individual Cars

Kilometers/ car

Total Car Km

Emission Factor Kg CO2E/Km Kg CO2E

Tonnes CO2E/Trip Trips/day CO2E /day # Days

Total Annual CO2

2013 21.900

75.190

1,646.661

0.239

393.552

0.394

15.000

5.903

250.000

1,475.820

2014 22.400

75.190

1,684.256

0.239

402.537

0.403

15.000

6.038

250.000

1,509.514

2015 24.400

81.280

1,983.232

0.239

473.992

0.474

15.000

7.110

251.000

1,784.582

2016 - 560 23.300

81.280

1,893.824

0.239

452.624

0.453

15.000

6.789

251.000

1,704.129

2016 - 562 18.500

92.280

1,707.180

0.239

408.016

0.408

6.000

2.448

83.000

203.192


CAR Individual Cars

Kilometers/ car

Total Car Km



Total Annual CO2

2017 - 560 22.900

81.280

1,861.312

0.239

444.854

0.445

15.000

6.673

252.000

1,681.546

2017 - 562 22.200

92.280

2,048.616

0.239

489.619

0.490

6.000

2.938

252.000

740.304

2018 - 560 22.900

81.280

1,861.312

0.239

444.854

0.445

15.000

6.673

252.000

1,681.546

2018 - 562 24.000

92.280

2,214.720

0.239

529.318

0.529

6.000

3.176

252.000

800.329

2018 - 562E 9.250

53.880

498.390

0.239

119.115

0.119

4.000

0.476

83.000

39.546

2019 - 560 23.300

81.280

1,893.824

0.239

452.624

0.453

15.000

6.789

250.000

1,697.340

2019 - 562 25.900

92.280

2,390.052

0.239

571.222

0.571

6.000

3.427

250.000

856.834

2019- 562E 11.100

53.880

598.068

0.239

142.938

0.143

4.000

0.572

250.000

142.938

2019 - 562S 2.200

51.790

113.938

0.239

27.231

0.027

12.000

0.327

17.000

5.555

2019 - 564LA 3.300

27.000

89.100

0.239

21.295

0.021

24.000

0.511

83.000

42.419

2019 - 564LB 3.300

21.000

69.300

0.239

16.563

0.017

24.000

0.398

83.000

32.993

2020 - 560 24.000

81.280

1,950.720

0.239

466.222

0.466

15.000

6.993

252.000

1,762.319

2020 - 562 25.900

92.280

2,390.052

0.239

571.222

0.571

6.000

3.427

252.000

863.688

2020- 562E 11.100

53.880

598.068

0.239

142.938

0.143

4.000

0.572

252.000

144.082

2020 - 562S 2.200

51.790

113.938

0.239

27.231

0.027

12.000

0.327

52.000

16.992

2020 - 564LA 1.100

27.000

29.700

0.239

7.098

0.007

24.000

0.170

252.000

42.931

2020 - 564LB


CAR Individual Cars

Kilometers/ car

Total Car Km



Total Annual CO2

1.100 21.000 23.100 0.239 5.521 0.006 24.000 0.133 252.000 33.390

TOTAL

17,261.99

If all transit trips were taken by car, the total emissions created from 2013 to 2020 = 17,261.99 Tonnes CO2E

Emissions created by transit for the projected ridership from 2013 to 2020 = 8,305.98 Tonnes CO2E

Difference (Emissions avoided) = 8,956.01 Tonnes CO2E


Appendix 5 - GreenTRIP Annual Benefit Summary Report

GreenTRIP Annual Benefits Summary Report

REPORT #_____ REPORTING PERIOD: From__ (mm/yy)___ to _____ (mm/yy)____ [THE FIRST REPORT SHOULD BE SUBMITTED TO ALBERTA TRANSPORTATION ONE YEAR AFTER PROJECT IS

COMPLETE OR OPERATIONS BEGIN AND SUBMITTED ANNUALLY FOR 10 YEARS THEREAFTER.]

(FORMAT MAY BE ADAPTED BY MUNICIPALITY/APPLICANT AS REQUIRED)

1. PROJECT INFORMATION

Municipality/Applicant:

Project Description/Scope:

Date of Approval and Funding Agreement:

Approved Grant Amount::

Contact Name:

Phone: Email:

Project Start Date:

Project Completion Date:

Start of In-Service Operations (if applicable):

2. ANTCIPATED BENEFITS (AS PER APPLICATION, TO BE COMPLETED WITH FIRST REPORT)

(Examples: Increased ridership, reduced GHG, improved safety/route travel times, etc.)

Application Business Case – Ridership Numbers:

Application Business Case – Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions:


Application Business Case – Other:

2A. QUANTIFIED MEASURES

Expected Additional Ridership:

Number of Cars Taken off Roads (Mode Shift):

Annual GHG Emissions Reduction (tonnes):

Lifetime GHG Emissions Reduction

Method/Formula Used to Calculate (summarized):

Please attach a more detailed report describing the methods used for calculations.

Comments/Other:

2B. QUALITATIVE MEASURES (I.E. PASSENGER SAFETY, COMFORT ETC.)

Measure: Rationale:

REMAINDER OF REPORT TO BE UPDATED ANNUALLY


ONGOING BENEFITS REPORT SUMMARY (To be updated annually)

REPORTING PERIOD: FROM__ (MM/YY)___ TO _____ (MM/YY)____

3. ACTUAL BENEFITS

(I.e. Increased ridership, reduced delays, improved safety and travel times etc.)

3A. QUANTIFIED MEASURES

Ridership Numbers (new riders/year):

Number of Cars Taken off Roads

(Mode Shift) (Cars/Year):

GHG Emissions Reduction (tonnes/year):

3B. QUALITATIVE MEASURES (I.E. PASSENGER SAFETY, COMFORT ETC.)

Measure: Rationale:

4. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION


Additional space for comments and notes.

Applicant Contact: (Print Name and Title)

Signature:

Date:

Please note that all reported benefits are subject to audit by the Provincial Government, including the Office of the Auditor General.


Appendix 6 - Supporting Documents