Beaumont Transit feasibility study 2012

Town of Beaumont Transit Feasibility Study Project No. 121-15113-01

M a r c h

2 0 1 3

Transit Feasibility Study

Transit Solutions GENIVAR Inc., 600 Cochrane Drive, Floor 5, Markham, Ontario L3R 5K3 Telephone: 905.475.7270  Fax: 905.475.5994  www.genivar.com Contact: Eric Peissel, MCIP, MUP  E-mail: Eric.Peissel@genivar.com

Beaumont Transit Feasibility Study Report

Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................................................................... I LIST OF EXHIBITS ............................................................................................................................... III 1.

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 1

2.

BACKGROUND REVIEW .............................................................................................................. 3 2.1 2.2

3.

EXISTING SERVICE REVIEW ....................................................................................................... 7 3.1 3.2

4.

Beaumont Municipal Development Plan ..................................................................................... 3 Capital Region Growth Plan ....................................................................................................... 3 2.2.1 Capital Region Board – 30-Year Transit Service Plan ................................................ 4 2.2.2 Capital Region Board – Service Standards for Intermunicipal Transit........................ 5

2003 Trial Transit Service ........................................................................................................... 7 Private Operator Service............................................................................................................. 8

MARKET ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................... 11 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4

Capital Region .......................................................................................................................... 11 Town of Beaumont .................................................................................................................... 11 Commuting Patterns ................................................................................................................. 12 Travel Survey ............................................................................................................................ 13

5.

REVIEW OF EXISTING RELEVANT TRANSIT AGENCIES ....................................................... 17

6.

NEEDS AND OPPORTUNITIES .................................................................................................. 19 6.1 6.2

7.

SERVICE STANDARDS............................................................................................................... 23 7.1 7.2

8.

Service Design Standards ........................................................................................................ 23 Performance Measures............................................................................................................. 26

ROUTE OPTIONS AND EVALUATION ....................................................................................... 31 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5

9.

Impetus for Transit Service: Why it’s required .......................................................................... 19 Providing Transit Service: How it Should be Delivered ............................................................ 19 6.2.1 Needs and Opportunities .......................................................................................... 20

Evaluation Criteria..................................................................................................................... 31 Service Characteristics ............................................................................................................. 32 Service Options ......................................................................................................................... 33 Evaluation Ranking ................................................................................................................... 37 Service Option Recommendation ............................................................................................. 37 8.5.1 Forecasted Ridership Levels ..................................................................................... 39

SERVICE DELIVERY OPTIONS.................................................................................................. 41 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4

Option 1 – Town of Beaumont Owned and Operated .............................................................. 41 Option 2 – Contract to ETS ....................................................................................................... 41 Option 3 – Service Provided by a Local Contractor .................................................................. 42 Discussion and Recommendation ............................................................................................ 43

10. SUPPORT ELEMENTS ................................................................................................................ 45 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 10.5

GENIVAR

Staffing Requirements .............................................................................................................. 45 Fleet Requirements and Accessibility ....................................................................................... 45 Stops and Stop Amenity Requirements .................................................................................... 45 Garage Facility Requirements .................................................................................................. 46 Park-and-Ride ........................................................................................................................... 46

i

Beaumont Transit Feasibility Study Report

Table of Contents

10.6 Technology Requirements ........................................................................................................ 46 10.7 Transit-Oriented Planning Principles ........................................................................................ 47

11. FARE POLICIES .......................................................................................................................... 49 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4

Fare Policy Peer Review........................................................................................................... 49 U-Pass Fare Policies ................................................................................................................ 50 Regional Fare Policies .............................................................................................................. 50 Fare Strategy Recommendations ............................................................................................. 50 11.4.1 Passenger Classes ................................................................................................... 51 11.4.2 Fare Table ................................................................................................................. 51 11.4.3 Regional Fare Policies .............................................................................................. 52 11.4.4 U-Pass Fare Policies ................................................................................................. 52

12. MARKETING STRATEGY............................................................................................................ 53 12.1.1 12.1.2 12.1.3 12.1.4

Target Market Identification ....................................................................................... 53 Recommended Transit Service Marketing ................................................................ 54 Evaluation Program ................................................................................................... 56 Short- and Long-Term Actions .................................................................................. 57

13. FINANCIAL AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN .............................................................................. 59 13.1 Capital and Operating Costs ..................................................................................................... 59 13.2 Financial Cost Assumptions ..................................................................................................... 60 13.2.1 Operating Costs ........................................................................................................ 60 13.2.2 Capital costs .............................................................................................................. 61 13.2.3 Performance Summary ............................................................................................. 61 13.3 Funding Options ........................................................................................................................ 62 13.4 Implementation Plan ................................................................................................................. 62 13.4.1 Contract Services ...................................................................................................... 62 13.4.2 Route Planning .......................................................................................................... 63 13.4.3 Marketing ................................................................................................................... 63 13.4.4 Post-Implementation ................................................................................................. 64

14. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................................. 65

GENIVAR

ii

Beaumont Transit Feasibility Study Report

Table of Contents

List of Exhibits Exhibit 1 – Outline of Report Sections .......................................................................................................... 2 Exhibit 2 – 30-Year Intermunicipal Transit Service Plan – Recommended Scenario ................................... 5 Exhibit 3 – Beaumont Commuter Service Route Map .................................................................................. 7 Exhibit 4 – Riders Per Trip of Trial Service Period by Month........................................................................ 8 Exhibit 5 – Population and Employment Projections for the Capital Region .............................................. 11 Exhibit 6 – Population Trends in Beaumont ................................................................................................ 12 Exhibit 7 – Place of Work of Beaumont Residents ..................................................................................... 12 Exhibit 8 – Place of Residence of Beaumont Workers ............................................................................... 13 Exhibit 9 – Destinations Travelled to by Household Members Three Times or More Per Week ................ 14 Exhibit 10 – Transit Centres and LRT Stations Where Respondents Park or Get Dropped Off ................ 15 Exhibit 11 – Time of Day Household Members Travel to/from Most Frequent Destination ........................ 16 Exhibit 12 – One-Way Adult Fare for Commuter Transit trip to Edmonton ................................................. 16 Exhibit 13 – Summary of Services Offered by Peer Group Agencies ........................................................ 18 Exhibit 14 – Hours of Service and Service Frequency Standards .............................................................. 24 Exhibit 15 – Route Performance Standard ................................................................................................. 26 Exhibit 16 – Evaluation Criteria ................................................................................................................... 31 Exhibit 17 – Summary of Service Characteristics ....................................................................................... 32 Exhibit 18 – Option 1 Route Description and Evaluation ............................................................................ 33 Exhibit 19 – Option 2 Route Description and Evaluation ............................................................................ 34 Exhibit 20 – Option 3 Route Description and Evaluation ............................................................................ 35 Exhibit 21 – Option 4 Route Description and Evaluation ............................................................................ 36 Exhibit 22 – Summary Evaluation Table ..................................................................................................... 37 Exhibit 23 – Recommended Route Alignment ............................................................................................ 38 Exhibit 24 – Ridership Forecast Adjustments from 2014 Base Ridership Conditions ................................ 39 Exhibit 25 – Fare Structure Comparisons for Intermunicipal Services to Edmonton .................................. 49 Exhibit 26 - Passenger Class ...................................................................................................................... 51 Exhibit 27 - Proposed Fare Structure .......................................................................................................... 51 Exhibit 28 – Financial Plan for the Recommended and Alternative Service Delivery Option ..................... 59

GENIVAR

iii

Beaumont Transit Feasibility Study Report

GENIVAR

Table of Contents

i

Beaumont Transit Feasibility Study Report

1.

121-15113 March 8, 2013

Introduction

The Town of Beaumont wishes to investigate the feasibility of operating a transit service to serve the needs of its growing population base. While a number of transit services have operated in the Town in the past decade, the ridership uptake from those services has been modest. However, a number of changing conditions have led the Town to reinvestigate the need to operate transit services for its residents and workers. These conditions include: → the rapid level of residential growth in the Town in the past decade → the continued economic linkages and increasing travel needs between the Town and Edmonton → the relatively high proportion of youth living in the Town → the growing aging population in the community → the accelerated interest in using regional transit services in other smaller communities in the Capital and Calgary regions (e.g., Airdrie, Cochrane, Fort Saskatchewan, Leduc, Okotoks, Spruce Grove) The main objectives of this transit feasibility study are to: → determine the demand for transit service in the Beaumont community → identify the operational details and financial requirements for the service → develop an implementation plan for the provision of the proposed transit service(s) GENIVAR has completed a number background and primary analysis tasks to achieve the aforementioned objectives. This report provides a description of all the tasks, findings, and recommendations that address those main objectives. This report is intended to provide the Town with a realistic picture of what to expect if it chooses to operate a transit service for its residents. GENIVAR has assumed that the earliest implementation of any service would be in the year 2014.

The report is divided into 13 sections. Exhibit 1 summarizes each of the 13 sections of the report.

GENIVAR

1

Beaumont Transit Feasibility Study Report

121-15113 March 8, 2013

Exhibit 1 – Outline of Report Sections Section

Description

1. Introduction

Sets the context, major objectives and the structure of the report

2. Background Review

Outlines the policy documents relevant when considering the operation of a transit service for Town residents and workers

3. Existing Service Review

Summarizes the transit services operating or have operated in Beaumont in the past decade

4. Market Analysis

Summarizes the market conditions that would guide the opportunities available to provide transit services for the Town Provides an overview of transit systems in municipalities that are comparable and relevant to Beaumont

5. Review of Existing Relevant Transit Agencies 6. Needs and Opportunities

8. Route Options and Evaluation

Summarizes the needs and opportunities for transit in the Town based on the analysis from Sections 2 to 5 Outlines the service standards for a proposed Beaumont service to establish a consistent process of continually improving transit services to meet varied and changing customer needs Identifies the developed route options, the evaluation process and recommendations for the proposed Beaumont service

9. Service Delivery Options

Outlines potential service delivery options for transit in Beaumont and identifies a recommended option

10. Support Elements

Discusses all the other elements (outside of Sections 7 to 9) the Town would need to consider when establishing a new transit service

11. Fare Policies

Outlines the fare policies from other systems and identifies policies specific to the proposed Beaumont service

12. Marketing Strategy

Outlines the procedures and guidelines to engage, communicate, and promote transit ridership in the Town

13. Financial and Implementation Plan

Summarizes the financial implications for operating the proposed transit service and the specific implementation steps to bring the service to fruition

7. Service Standards

GENIVAR

2

Beaumont Transit Feasibility Study Report

2.

Background Review

2.1

Beaumont Municipal Development Plan

121-15113 March 8, 2013

The Beaumont Municipal Development Plan outlines the policy direction for its long-term growth and development. The plan includes directions for encouraging continued residential development around the current urban periphery, strengthening the mixed-use focus of the downtown area, encouraging further commercial development (particularly along 50th Street), and developing a business park area along Highway 625.

The plan includes provisions to consider future bus service requirements as part of the design of arterial and collector roadways.

The document provides a specific focus to plan for land uses and the transportation system comprehensively. The Town also prioritizes the development of a continuous pedestrian walking system that links between activity areas through the open space and road systems. A dense pedestrian pathway system that connects different neighbourhoods is a key to providing Beaumont residents and workers access to bus stops without the need for transit vehicles to make circuitous routes to ensure appropriate route service coverage.

Furthermore, the Town’s Strategic Plan has identified that Smart Growth is a priority in respect to the Municipal Development Plan. This Smart Growth priority focuses on embracing development that supports all modes of transportation including active transportation and transit.

Beaumont’s road network is structured around the development of two ring road centres around 50 Street and 50 Avenue. These collector ring roads, along with appropriate grid pattern connectivity between the ring roads, will assist in providing more direct transit routes in the future.

2.2

Capital Region Growth Plan

The Capital Region Board (CRB) developed the Capital Region Growth Plan (CRGP) called “Growing Foward” for three major objectives: → to provide an integrated and strategic planning approach for future growth in the Capital Region → to identify key development patterns and infrastructure investments → to co-ordinate decision-making in the Capital Region that balances economic growth with healthy communities and the environment The Growth Plan includes the development of an Intermunicipal

GENIVAR

3

Beaumont Transit Feasibility Study Report

121-15113 March 8, 2013

Transit Network Plan (ITNP) which will coordinate planning and implementation of a regional transit network that will link Capital Region citizens to an efficient, convenient and seamless transit system. The plan’s short-term capital program includes the operation of a new intermunicipal bus service linking Beaumont to the South Light Rail Transit (LRT). In the medium-term, additional bus service is proposed to link to the Southeast LRT at Mill Woods.

The CRB’s land use and transit plans contain strategies that aim to intensify land use and promote compact development throughout the Capital Region. Successful implementation of these strategies rely, in part, on enhancing local and intermunicipal transit services in an effort to attract residents to switch their mode of travel from single occupant automobiles to transit.

This plan will be a key guiding document throughout this Transit Feasibility Study.

2.2.1

Capital Region Board – 30-Year Transit Service Plan

The Capital Region Growth Plan includes a 30-Year Transit Service Plan. The plan’s goals are (1) to develop a coordinated vision for integrated intermunicipal transit services in the Capital Region, and (2) to guide the planning and implementation of future intermunicipal services.

However the plan does not provide funding mechanisms intermunicipal transit services and the plan does not identify how the costs should be paid for and how they should be distributed.

The document is based on the design of services that meet standards and guidelines for intermunicipal services and provides estimates of capital and operating costs for the entire period. Projections in the 30-Year Transit Service Plan are based on the existing Capital Region Board Growth Plan as well as the Capital Region Board Transit Service Standards for Intermunicipal Transit.

Exhibit 2 illustrates the recommended scenario for the 30-year intermunicipal transit service plan. As it relates to Beaumont, the Transit Service Plan calls for: → constructing the Southeast LRT line to Mill Woods (as part of the Edmonton Transportation Master Plan – “The Way We Move”) → operating bus transit service from Beaumont to the Century Park LRT Station by 2015 → identifying Edmonton Transit Service (ETS) as the initial bus operations contractor and transitioning to a private contractor as the system grows → expanding bus service to Nisku and Leduc as ridership increases

GENIVAR

4

Beaumont Transit Feasibility Study Report

121-15113 March 8, 2013

Exhibit 2 – 30-Year Intermunicipal Transit Service Plan – Recommended Scenario

2.2.2

Capital Region Board – Service Standards for Intermunicipal Transit

The Transit Committee of the CRB identified the need for regional service standards as part of the development and implementation of a regional transit system. Service standards define the role of transit services in the community. They ensure appropriate service levels and balanced resource requirements that are based on community driven objectives. They are also established to ensure a consistent and fair process of continually adjusting and improving transit services to meet varied and changing customer needs.

Based on the Vision of Regional Transit and Key Principles adopted by the Transit Committee and the CRB, the Service Standards for Intermunicipal Transit document provides transit service standards for the Capital Region that can be used to guide development of the 30-Year Service Plan. The document identifies a series of goals for transit that are each accompanied by a range of objectives (aspect of service to be measured), indicators (best possible means of measuring a standard) and targets (desired level of service) that will guide transit service in the region. Service standards in the document were established based on a peer review of the current practices of local and other North American transit systems.

Service standards for intermunicipal transit in the Capital Region include goals, objectives, indicators and targets related to: → service frequency → coverage → demand management GENIVAR

5

Beaumont Transit Feasibility Study Report

121-15113 March 8, 2013

→ vehicle capacity → comfort and safety → service reliability → service efficiency → service expansion → ridership growth These will be considered when developing the Town’s own service standards.

GENIVAR

6

Beaumont Transit Feasibility Study Report

3.

Existing Service Review

3.1

2003 Trial Transit Service

121-15113 March 8, 2013

In September 2003 the City of Edmonton, the Town of Beaumont, and the provincial government partnered to operate a trial transit service linking Beaumont and Edmonton. The trial service provided local service within the Town and then operated limited-stop express service along 23 Avenue, 91 Street, 63 Avenue, 99 Street and Scona Road before reaching downtown and Grant MacEwan University (then Grant MacEwan College). Only two request stops (at Mill Woods Transit Centre and at 99 Street and 82 Avenue) are made in the limitedstop express portion of the route. Exhibit 3 illustrates the route alignment of the service.

At the time of the trial service, the LRT network only extended as far south as University Station.

Thus, it was more logical then to provide service directly to downtown rather than to connect to the southernmost LRT station.

Exhibit 3 – Beaumont Commuter Service Route Map

The trial service operated two trips in the AM peak period and two trips in the PM peak period.

The service operated for only six months and ridership levels were fairly modest. Exhibit 4 summarizes the number of riders per trip in the AM and PM peak periods during each of the six months of trial service.

GENIVAR

7

Beaumont Transit Feasibility Study Report

121-15113 March 8, 2013

Exhibit 4 – Riders Per Trip of Trial Service Period by Month Month Riders Per Trip AM Peak

PM Peak

September 2003

8.6

7.3

October 2003

6.6

5.0

November 2003

8.0

6.9

December 2003

4.7

5.2

January 2004

6.4

6.1

Trial Service Average

6.8

6.0

During the six month trial period, the operating cost of the service was approximately $77,200, while revenues from the farebox totalled approximately $11,600. Thus, the revenue-to-cost ratio for the service was 15 percent. This low ridership and revenue-to-cost ratio can be attributed to a number of factors: → the trial service did not operate for a long enough duration for users to establish a culture of transit usage → the internal circulator route structure within Beaumont was not necessary as the provided service was specifically geared for commuters working and going to school in Edmonton → the service provided very limited frequency (only two trips in each of the AM and PM peak periods) → the service required the need to operate a lengthy route from Beaumont directly to downtown (as opposed to connecting to Century Park LRT Station like today) → the service missed direct connections to key destinations, including the University of Alberta and Government Centre → the service captured a smaller population base compared to today – the Town experienced a 121 percent increase in population between 2003 and projected to 2014

3.2

Private Operator Service

A private operator ran a shuttle service from Beaumont to Mill Woods Transit Centre and the Grey Nun’s Community Hospital until late 2012. The AM peak, service started at 50 Street just south of Coloinale Way / Montalet Street, made a stop at Place Beauséjour, and then operated around the existing ring road, made stops at all the mailboxes, before running express to Mill Woods. The service then operated southbound along the same route alignment.

The shuttle ran every hour from 6:00 to 10:00 am and 2:00 to 6:00 pm, from Monday to Friday.

The service also ran on Saturdays from 8:00 and 11:00 am and 1:00 to 6:00 pm. Ridership figures were not made available to the study consultants.

GENIVAR

8

Beaumont Transit Feasibility Study Report

121-15113 March 8, 2013

The one-way fare for the service was $4.00. The service did not offer monthly passes nor concessionary fares for seniors and students. The service was terminated due to low revue and ridership.

GENIVAR

9

Beaumont Transit Feasibility Study Report

GENIVAR

121-15113 March 8, 2013

10

Beaumont Transit Feasibility Study Report

121-15113 March 8, 2013

4.

Market Analysis

4.1

Capital Region

Exhibit 5 shows population and employment projections for the Capital Region based on the Capital Region Growth Plan. Population in the Capital Region is projected to increase 17 percent or just shy of 200,000 people from 2009 to 2019. Total employment in the Region is projected to grow by approximately 16 percent during the next 10 years from 620,000 to 716,000 jobs. Given Beaumont’s geographic location near the growing urban boundary of Edmonton, it is anticipated that the population within Beaumont will increase at a rate much greater than the Capital Region average.

Exhibit 5 – Population and Employment Projections for the Capital Region

Number of People and Jobs (Thousands)

2,000 Population Employment

1,734 1,481

1,500

1,311

1,218

1,121 1,000

677

620

716

780

862

500

0 2009

2014

2019 Year

2029

2044

Source: Addendum to the Capital Region Growth Plan (December 2009), Alternate Scenario

4.2

Town of Beaumont

Exhibit 6 illustrates the five-year incremental population projections for Beaumont from 2011 to 2031. The Town anticipates a steady but considerable population increase from 12,500 in 2011 to 34,000 in 2031 – a 172 percent increase. In the next ten years, we anticipate that the population will increase 90 percent to 24,500 in 2021. With such considerable growth expected in the Town and in the Capital Region overall, the need to provide transit services will become more critical over time.

Beaumont is reaching a population similar to other Alberta municipalities that provide transit services. For instance, Fort Saskatchewan had a population of 14,000 when it began service in 2004. In 2006 when Spruce Grove commenced transit service, it had a population of 19,000.

GENIVAR notes that there are a number of similar-sized Alberta municipalities that are also considering operating transit service. Cochrane, with a population of 17,500, is moving forward with transit service and received a GreenTRIP grant. Okotoks, with a population of 24,500, recently completed a feasibility study for its own transit service.

GENIVAR

11

Beaumont Transit Feasibility Study Report

121-15113 March 8, 2013

Exhibit 6 – Population Trends in Beaumont 40,000 34,000

35,000 29,000

30,000 24,500

25,000 20,000 15,000

17,500 12,500

10,000 5,000 0 2011

2016

2021

2026

2031

Source: Beaumont Future Growth Projections and Land Supply

4.3

Commuting Patterns

Based on the data from the 2006 Census on Commuting Flow, Exhibit 7 illustrates the place of work of Beaumont residents. From the data, a majority (56 percent) of Beaumont residents travel to Edmonton to work. This is a major market of potential transit riders to consider when planning a for transit service. Unfortunately, the current lack of detail of the data does not indicate precisely where within Edmonton people from Beaumont are working. Leduc County is a distant second with 17 percent of local residents working in its County limits. Unfortunately, given the dispersed land uses within the County, it would be difficult to support a financially efficient service to this area. Internal working trips within Beaumont are in third place at 13 percent. This market is not likely to use proposed transit services because the small geographic area of the Town will likely encourage more active transportation or continued auto usage than transit.

Exhibit 7 – Place of Work of Beaumont Residents Place of Residence

Place of Work

Total

Male

Female

Beaumont

Edmonton

2,275

1,200

1,080

Beaumont

Leduc (County)

710

475

235

Beaumont Beaumont

Beaumont Leduc (City)

515 250

140 105

375 145

Beaumont

Strathcona County

180

95

85

Beaumont Beaumont

Wood Buffalo Wetaskiwin

35 30

35 10

0 15

Beaumont

Calgary

20

15

0

GENIVAR

12

Beaumont Transit Feasibility Study Report

121-15113 March 8, 2013

Exhibit 8 is the inverse of Exhibit 7, which illustrates the place of residence of Beaumont workers. Given Beaumont’s primarily residential community, there are fewer Beaumont workers than there are Beaumont residents. A majority of Beaumont workers (53 percent) live in Beaumont. Edmonton and Leduc County residents, at 26 and 13 percent, travel to Beaumont to work. With such a small market, it is not worth focusing on these trips for an initial service. The focus of the service will be to provide connections geared more to connecting Beaumont residents to Edmonton.

Exhibit 8 – Place of Residence of Beaumont Workers Place of Residence

Place of Work

Total

Male

Female

Beaumont

Beaumont

515

140

375

Edmonton Leduc County

Beaumont Beaumont

250 130

85 15

160 115

Leduc

Beaumont

60

0

55

Spruce Grove

Beaumont

20

10

15

4.4

Travel Survey

The Town of Beaumont retained a survey research firm to ask Beaumont residents about the need for and feasibility of operating a transit service for the community. Telephone interviews were conducted in June and July 2012. A total of 400 telephone interviews with Beaumont residents were conducted. The following are the major findings from the survey relevant to the Beaumont Transit Feasibility Study.

Most Frequently Travelled Destinations Exhibit 9 illustrates the destinations household members travel to on a regular basis. For the purposes of this exercise, regular basis is defined as those trips that are made three times or more per week. As illustrated in the exhibit, 809 of the 1,186 responses (68 percent) identified locations within Edmonton as a frequently travelled to destination.

GENIVAR

13

Beaumont Transit Feasibility Study Report

121-15113 March 8, 2013

Exhibit 9 – Destinations Travelled to by Household Members Three Times or More Per Week Downtown

170

Edmonton

Destination

University of Alberta

103

Grant MacEwan University

32

NAIT

31

Government Centre

29

Other

444

Nisku

189

Leduc

128

Rural Leduc

60 0

100 200 300 Number of Responses (n=1186)

400

500

Among these responses, Downtown was the most frequently identified location within Edmonton with 170 responses, followed by the University of Alberta and Grant MacEwan University with 103 and 32 responses respectively. While the highest identified destination was other Edmonton locations outside those specifically identified places (with 444 responses), the responses are likely to be dispersed throughout the city and, thus, would be difficult to serve by a proposed commuter service. Exhibit 9 confirms that Edmonton is the largest market of trips to serve.

Specific destinations along the LRT network are identified to be the destinations that would generate the highest number of transit trips.

Exhibit 10 summarizes the transit centres and LRT stations where respondents currently park or get dropped off. Century Park LRT Station received the most responses, with 38 out of a total 54 responses.

GENIVAR

14

Beaumont Transit Feasibility Study Report

121-15113 March 8, 2013

Exhibit 10 – Transit Centres and LRT Stations Where Respondents Park or Get Dropped Off

Transit Centre

Century Park LRT Station

38

Mill Woods Transit Centre

11

Southgate LRT Station

2

Coliseum LRT Station

1

University LRT Station

1

Don’t know/Refuse

1 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Number of Responses (n=54)

Time of Trips The survey asked respondents at what time members of their household would make their trip to and from their most frequently travelled destination. Exhibit 11 illustrates that most people surveyed travelled during regular commuting periods from 6:00 am to 9:00 pm and from 3:00 pm to 6:00 pm. These responses confirm the need to target the commuter market when starting a transit service for Beaumont.

Fares The survey asked respondents what they thought was a reasonable adult one-way fare for a commuter transit trip to Edmonton. Exhibit 12 illustrates the tallied responses. 118 respondents said that a commuter fare of $3.00 is reasonable, while 111 respondents said $4.00 is a reasonable fare and 93 respondents identified $5.00 as a reasonable fare. The median of the 381 total responses is $4.00.

GENIVAR

15

Beaumont Transit Feasibility Study Report

121-15113 March 8, 2013

Exhibit 11 – Time of Day Household Members Travel to/from Most Frequent Destination

Early morning (before 6 am)

35

Time Period

AM peak (6 am - 9 am)

290

Midday (9 am - 3 pm)

86

PM peak (3 pm - 6 pm)

233

Evening (6 pm - 10 pm)

53

Late evening (after 10 pm)

5 0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Number of Responses (n=702)

Exhibit 12 – One-Way Adult Fare for Commuter Transit trip to Edmonton

Reasonable adult fare

Less than $3.00

22

$3.00 to $3.99

118

$4.00 to $4.99

111

$5.00 to $5.99

93

$6.00 or greater

37 0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Number of Responses (n=381) Median $4.00

GENIVAR

16

Beaumont Transit Feasibility Study Report

5.

121-15113 March 8, 2013

Review of Existing Relevant Transit Agencies

This section uses available data to provide a reference overview of transit systems in other jurisdictions that are comparable to Beaumont. This review can assist in identifying the kinds of services operated by different municipal operators and also build a foundation for later identification of key performance measures and benchmarking indicators that can be compared to other transit operations.

GENIVAR identified six municipalities that provide transit services that are, to a certain degree, similar to what would be anticipated for service in Beaumont based on population, suburban form, and relationship within a larger metropolitan area. The municipalities considered are Airdrie, Fort Saskatchewan, Leduc, Spruce Grove, St. Albert, and Strathcona County. Airdrie is part of the Calgary Region, while the remaining municipalities are part of the Capital Region.

Strathcona County and St. Albert are the largest systems in the peer group serving a population of over 60,000. Airdrie has population of over 40,000, while the remaining peer group systems have populations just over 20,000. While these municipalities all have larger population bases than Beaumont, they are a similar distance away from their respective city centres. Population numbers are based on 2011 census data from Statistics Canada.

Most of the systems provide services only during the weekday peak periods except for Strathcona County and St. Albert, which also provide service in the midday and evening periods. Airdrie provides local service during the midday.

Similar to what may be an option for a Beaumont service, transit in Leduc and Fort Saskatchewan connect to ends of the Edmonton LRT system.

In terms of fare policies, adult cash fares (including local fare with access to ETS services) range from $5.00 per one way trip (St. Albert) to $8.00 per one way trip (Leduc, Spruce Grove).

This range is a reasonable estimate as to what a single one-way commuter trip from Beaumont to Edmonton, including transfer to ETS services, would cost (Section 11.1 provides a further analysis of fare policies). Airdrie’s Intercity Express (ICE) service provides service directly to downtown Calgary for $8.00. Refer to Exhibit 13 for a summary of services offered by peer group agencies.

GENIVAR

17

61,466

64,733

St. Albert, AB

Strathcona County, AB

27,500

19,000

19,500

GENIVAR

* 2010 figures from the CUTA Canadian Transit Fact Book ^ 2012 figures obtained from study stakeholders

26,171

23,300

24,279

Spruce Grove, AB

13,800

20,475

Fort Saskatchewan AB Leduc, AB

17,500

42,564

Airdrie, AB

Population when st transit 1 started

Population (2011)

Municipality

Commuter services to downtown destinations Local fixed schedule service (Daytime) Dial-a-bus (Non Daytime)

Commuter services to city centre and regional destinations

Commuter services to city centre

Commuter services to nearest LRT station

Commuter services to downtown destinations Local fixed schedule service (Daytime) Dial-a-bus (Non Daytime) Commuter services to nearest LRT station

Services Offered

AM and PM Peak Service Only AM and PM Peak Service Only AM and PM Peak Service Only AM and PM Peak, Midday Evening, Saturdays and Sundays AM and PM Peak, Midday Evening

AM and PM Peak, Midday Evening

Service Span

Exhibit 13 – Summary of Services Offered by Peer Group Agencies

Beaumont Transit Feasibility Study Report

34%^

39%^

37%*

28%*

33%*

10%^

Revenueto-Cost Ratio

36.77^

20.41^

3.21*

1.51*

1.69*

No Info

Annual Rides Per Capita

89.19^

91.17^

13.4*

10.9*

11.9*

No Info

Annual Riders Per Hour

$5.25

$5.50

$5.00

$5.00 + $3.00

$3.50 + $3.00

$8.00

To City Centre

18

$3.25

$2.75

No special fare $2.00

$1.00

For Local Travel $2.00

Adult Cash Fare

121-15113 March 8, 2013

Beaumont Transit Feasibility Study Report

6.

121-15113 March 8, 2013

Needs and Opportunities

This section outlines the needs and opportunities for transit in the Town of Beaumont. These have been identified based on our background analysis, market research, and technical data analysis. Our findings were also determined based on an assessment of the public survey commissioned by the Town.

6.1

Impetus for Transit Service: Why it’s required

Future Growth With important projected population and employment growth in the Town and overall in the Capital Region (see Section 4), travel demand is expected to grow significantly within the Town and to other municipalities in the region, particularly Edmonton. It is expected that more people will rely on transit services for travel due to population growth, an aging population, increasing automobile costs, and increasing road congestion.

Changing Travel Needs As discussed in Section 4.4, the survey indicates that 68 percent of all frequently-made trips (i.e., trips made more than three times a week) made by Beaumont residents were made to and from destinations in Edmonton. The existing travel patterns show that Edmonton destinations such as Downtown, Government Centre, and the University of Alberta are the most popular location-specific destinations, and GENIVAR anticipates that this is a major transit service target market to serve, especially given the higher parking rates charged at these destinations.

Aside from providing transit connections to Edmonton, the survey showed that Nisku was also a destination demonstrating a considerable number of trips from Beaumont. Given the dispersed land uses in this larger industrial employment area and the lower levels of transit service, providing connections to the area would likely require long route diversions. Considerations should be made when developing route alignment options that could provide some connections to Nisku that still ensure a fast and direct connection to Edmonton.

Other Transit Market Groups Seniors, youth and people who have no access to other transportation alternatives rely on transit for their day-to-day activities and particular consideration should be given to these market groups for future transit development in the community.

6.2

Providing Transit Service: How it Should be Delivered

Providing Commuter Transit Service to Edmonton Edmonton will continue to be a key destination for employment, education and other activities for the residents of Beaumont. Thus, transit service routes and schedules should be developed to best cater to the needs of this target market. Commuter services that provide fast and direct access to the ETS LRT network would provide Beaumont residents with convenient access to major destinations in Edmonton (i.e., Downtown, University of Alberta, Government Centre).

The proposed Beaumont bus service should be coordinated with LRT schedules to reduce the amount of waiting time at the station.

GENIVAR

19

Beaumont Transit Feasibility Study Report

121-15113 March 8, 2013

Ensuring Accessibility to Services Services need to accessible and integrated with the existing sidewalk infrastructure. The proposed service should include the development of accessible bus stop pads, the provision of customer information in accessible formats, the delivery of bus stop maintenance, the announcement of subsequent bus stops along the route, and the operation of wheelchairaccessible buses. These provisions present more improved transportation alternatives to seniors and people with mobility restrictions.

Customer Information and Fleet System Technology Given recent developments in the transit industry, there are opportunities to employ new technologies to improve customer service and passenger convenience, including service operations management, service planning and monitoring tools, and fare payment systems.

Computer-Aided Dispatching (CAD) / Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) systems facilitate the management of transit operations, provide up-to-date vehicle location information to assist transit dispatchers and inform passengers of bus status. Service planning and monitoring will also improve with the installation of Automatic Passenger Counters (APC) – these devices count the number of passengers that board and alight at every bus stop.

Finally, easy fare payment options, such as smart card and credit card systems, make it easy for travellers to use transit services. ETS is currently assessing the implementation of this technology that has become a standard, particularly with the larger transit properties across the country.

6.2.1

Needs and Opportunities

We have identified strengths and weaknesses of the existing conditions in Beaumont as they relate to the potential for implementation of transit services in the Town. These strengths and weaknesses have led to the development of needs and opportunities, which in turn formed our recommendations throughout this study.

Strengths → potential ridership base as large percentage of residents commute to Edmonton for employment and post-secondary education → growing population in the Town and in the Capital Region overall → proximity to Century Park LRT Station and Mill Woods Transit Centre makes transit an attractive commuter and post-secondary travel option → Capital Region Board policies and plans have created a climate that now promotes and is supportive of continued growth and investment in transit for the Capital Region Weaknesses → possible perception of transit as expensive, slow, inconvenient and unnecessary (based on previous trial service) → external factors including low-density residential development, quick automobile travel times, and the relatively low cost and high availability of parking may contribute to difficulty of attracting choice riders GENIVAR

20

Beaumont Transit Feasibility Study Report

121-15113 March 8, 2013

→ bus stops and sidewalk infrastructure are absent and may not be fully accessible for persons with mobility challenges Needs and Opportunities → opportunities to improve access throughout the community by adding sidewalks and bus stop pads → need to change perceptions of the transit system as expensive, slow, inconvenient and unnecessary → opportunity to market the service as a contributor to a clean, environmentally conscious, sustainable community and to build the “community brand” → need to increase community awareness of the economic, social and environmental benefits of taking transit → opportunity to provide a convenient alternative to the automobile for individual commuting

GENIVAR

21

Beaumont Transit Feasibility Study Report

GENIVAR

121-15113 March 8, 2013

22

Beaumont Transit Feasibility Study Report

7.

121-15113 March 8, 2013

Service Standards

Service standards define the role of transit services in the community and ensure that service levels and resource requirements are based on community driven objectives. It provides a consistent and fair process of continually adjusting and improving transit services to meet varied and changing customer needs.

Service standards define the conditions that require action when standards are not met, but allow flexibility to respond to varied customer needs and community expectations in an accountable, equitable, and efficient manner.

Service standards typically comprise of: → performance targets to measure and monitor the system → guidelines for designing services and implementing service changes → benchmarks for quality of service The “Service Standards for Intermunicipal Travel” document developed by the CRB includes service standard recommendations for the delivery of intermunicipal transit that would apply to commuter connections between Beaumont and Edmonton. As noted in that report, the recommended service standards are a strategy for the long-term development of comprehensive and unified services in the Region, and while they are not necessarily targets for individual systems in the short-term, these goals have been considered in the development of recommended service standards for commuter connections.

For the purpose of this review, a commuter service from Beaumont to Edmonton is assumed to be in place.

7.1

Service Design Standards

The following service standards deal with service hours, service levels (frequencies), route structure, service coverage, route performance and vehicle loading, and will be used for service design, evaluation of transit routes, and to set the decision-making basis regarding service changes and improvements.

Hours of Service and Service Frequency Committing to a base “hours of service” ensures that customers have a clear understanding as to the provision of service, and this commitment is an important element in the decision to use transit in the long-term. If service levels vary too much, customers will have less faith in the system and are less likely to choose transit.

Frequency of service is also important and must be considered in conjunction with the hours of service. Frequency of service is often ranked inversely with service reliability in terms of customer service. That is, service reliability is a critical factor where service frequencies are low, but less important where service frequencies are very high.

It is important to recognize that service frequencies are critical to attracting ridership, and that in lower demand areas, service must be provided at an acceptable base level to be considered

GENIVAR

23

Beaumont Transit Feasibility Study Report

121-15113 March 8, 2013

attractive to passengers. Of course any increase in frequencies does carry additional operating costs.

There is considerable evidence to show that ridership levels are directly correlated with service levels, and that higher levels of service will drive additional ridership, though not immediately after service increases are implemented.

The CRB recommendations for minimum service levels are 30-minutes in peak periods and 60minutes in off-peak periods for intermunicipal services such as those proposed for Beaumont.

Service levels less than 30 minutes (i.e.,. 45- or 60-minute service) are considered less attractive to passengers. However, given that a Beaumont service would be in its infancy, GENIVAR proposes it provide a specified number of trips without being confined strictly to a specific service interval in the short-term.

Recommended Standard

Exhibit 14 shows the recommended combination of service hours and frequency. Periods where span or frequency are indicated as “based on demand” have no minimum service requirement at this time, but service should be provided where ridership and revenue would meet the minimum performance guidelines in those areas. This standard should be reviewed on an ongoing basis to ensure consistency with current community objectives.

Exhibit 14 – Hours of Service and Service Frequency Standards Period Time Period Service Frequency Weekday AM Peak

5:00 am to 9:00 am

Minimum three trips

Weekday Midday

9:00 am to 3:00 pm

Based on demand

Weekday PM Peak

3:00 pm to 6:00 pm

Minimum four trips

Weekday Evening

6:00 pm to 10:00 pm

Based on demand

Saturday

Based on demand

Based on demand

Sunday/Holiday

Based on demand

Based on demand

A service in any of these periods should be considered in the following order: → to meet service coverage requirement → to meet route performance standard This means that service may not be considered in some areas if 95 percent of the population of the service areas are served and the service cannot meet the minimum route performance standard.

Service Coverage A service policy of providing 400 m coverage to 95 percent of the population is typical of many municipalities and was supported in the workshop. However, to allow service design flexibility in low demand areas and for low demand periods, while still meeting the objectives of the service

GENIVAR

24

Beaumont Transit Feasibility Study Report

121-15113 March 8, 2013

coverage standards, the following standards are proposed for service coverage. It should be noted that the CRB report has no service recommendation for intermunicipal services.

Recommended Standard

Transit in Beaumont will provide a commuter service connecting Town residents to transfer points in the Edmonton transit network (i.e., Century Park LRT Station, Mill Woods Transit Centre, etc.) From there, transfers can be made to bus or LRT vehicles that provide access to places of employment, post-secondary schools, major shopping centres, and public facilities.

The following are defined service areas for the commuter route when it travels in Beaumont: → 400 metre walking distance within 95 percent of the urban residential population in the weekday peak periods The objective is to provide service to approximately 95 percent of the population for their travel needs by transit within the service area. An area may be excluded from consideration if transit needs of 95 percent of the population are met based on the proposed service coverage standards.

As a guideline to maximize transit service coverage and convenience in the community, services should be arranged to get closer to major trip generators and destinations. Staff and Council may also use the walk distance standard to assist in locating new facilities relative to existing routes (once established). For example, the location for a proposed community or activity centre should consider the location of existing routes and services. This gives staff and Council an effective tool to avoid making costly and inconvenient detours to serve facilities or areas that are not already within defined service areas.

Route Structure Standard The structure (including alignments and connections) of the commuter route is important to ensuring passenger convenience and a reasonable overall travel time for transit riders.

Overall travel time and number of transfers are important factors in the decision whether or not to use transit, and should be minimized. Routes need to directly connect major trip generators and destinations along main travel corridors.

The CRB proposed standards specify that 95 percent of commuter passengers transferring to LRT should be accommodated with no more than one additional transfer in peak periods.

Recommended Standard

→ commuter service should connect major trip generators to major transfer points (i.e., Century Park LRT Station, Mill Woods Transit Centre, etc.) in urban service areas, and follow the most direct and fastest route.

Route Performance Standard A route performance standard is required to determine at what level service should be provided.

To establish thresholds for performance of routes, it should be acknowledged that routes will vary in their performance, with some exhibiting superior performance and others exhibiting lower performance levels. To meet a variety of system objectives, top-performing routes must be allowed to support other lower performing routes, ensuring that:

GENIVAR

25

Beaumont Transit Feasibility Study Report

121-15113 March 8, 2013

→ the average performance of all routes meets system objectives → a minimum performance level is established and met by each route Route performance standards will vary based on the type and purpose of a route. For a commuter service similar to what is proposed for Beaumont, the standard needs to reflect longer distance trips with fewer boarding and alighting opportunities, as compared to a local route that would travel shorter distances with more frequent stops. For this reason, commuter routes are based on percent of seating capacity and can be assessed on a trip-by-trip basis, subject to the minimum service requirements.

Recommended Standard

We propose that a transit service in Beaumont must meet the ridership levels identified in Exhibit 15 unless the route is required to meet the route coverage requirement. If these thresholds are not met, staff should assess and recommend alternatives (i.e., restructured route, adjusted service frequencies, span of service, etc.) that will improve the performance of the route, while ensuring that coverage standards are met.

Exhibit 15 – Route Performance Standard Weekday Base (7:00 am – 6:00 pm) Commuter Route – percent of seating capacity

Average

Minimum

80

60

Vehicle Loading Standards The application of the vehicle loading standards depends on whether the objective is to limit standees to ensure good quality service or limit vehicle crowding. Because Beaumont’s proposed service will likely operate along controlled-access highways, all riders should be seated. Thus if a trip consistently surpasses the seated capacity of the vehicle, an additional scheduled trip should be added. Given the limited number of runs that are likely to be operated in the first years of service, GENIVAR recommends that additional trips be added and the trip departure times be more distributed to accommodate the additional trip when trips reach 90 percent of seated capacity.

On-Time Performance On-time departures from a stop are defined as departure from zero minutes before to three minutes after the scheduled departure time. The minimum performance threshold for on-time performance is 90 percent of all trips. No vehicle shall leave a time point early.

7.2

Performance Measures

The following section outlines the recommended guidelines for monitoring and development of services based on current performance and peer benchmarking. The recommended values in each of these areas reflect a desire to improve service levels and promote ridership growth.

The objective in establishing guidelines and monitoring performance in these areas is to improve year-over-year performance, recognizing short-term impacts of service increases.

GENIVAR

26

Beaumont Transit Feasibility Study Report

121-15113 March 8, 2013

Amount of Service Vehicle hours per capita is an important measure of the amount of service provided. Vehicle hours provided in different systems tend to increase exponentially with population size so that vehicle hours per capita increase with population in a linear fashion. In practice, this means that small systems tend to provide service in the range of 0.50 to 0.75 vehicle hours per capita, while large systems typically provide in excess of 2.0 vehicle hours per capita. For transit in municipalities comparable to Beaumont, the typical range is 0.25 to 0.75 vehicle hours per capita.

It is recommended that a minimum of 0.25 vehicle-hours per capita be established to guide the provision of services in the medium-term. In the initial years of service, GENIVAR has proposed that the Town provide 0.20 vehicle-hours per capita to assess demand and increase as the culture of transit use grows.

Financial Monitoring Financial performance is highly related to the role of transit in the community. Municipal government provides public services for a variety of reasons, including social, environmental and economic – all of which are benefits that transit brings to the community. Public transit plays an important role in the community to meet transportation needs and support sustainable economic, social, and environmental development.

For this reason, financial performance alone should not be used to assess system performance, especially considering that the service will be new and requires time to establish itself as part of the municipal services that are provided by the community.

Also, financial performance is significantly affected by inflation, particularly changing fuel costs, which cannot be precisely predicted and will significantly reduce or eliminate evidence of progress in this measure. Therefore, financial measures are addressed in this document as an effective monitoring tool, but not recommended as a standard.

The following are target financial measures for a commuter transit service in Beaumont when the system reaches its fifth year of service: → cost recovery – 35% → passengers per capita – 1.8 → passengers per hour – 12.0 Other Guidelines Bus Stop Guidelines

From a simple on-street stop to a major transfer point and terminal facility, the key interface between transit services and transit riders occurs at transit stops. Each of these should be properly designed and equipped to ensure the appropriate level of customer services and amenities, transit operational requirements and system marketing opportunities.

Bus stops should be placed at passenger generators and transfer points based on potential ridership and with safety considerations, as well as possible traffic conflicts. New bus stops should generally be located at around 300 metres from the nearest bus stop unless site-specific considerations require the need for closer spacing.

GENIVAR

27

Beaumont Transit Feasibility Study Report

121-15113 March 8, 2013

As general guidelines, bus shelters should be installed based on following priority factors: → all terminals and major transfer points → high boarding locations → in front of major medical facilities, senior citizen residences and other institutional facilities → locations with unique exposure to inclement weather To promote passenger and operational safety, bus stops should not be located, and route designs should not require that vehicles stop: → directly at the bottom of a hill → on an incline greater than five percent Bus Stop Exemptions

For any route option considered as a transit service in Beaumont, discussion should take place with ETS to determine whether or not the service will be direct to Edmonton destinations (i.e., Century Park LRT Station, Mill Woods Transit Centre) from Beaumont, or if the route will serve ETS bus stops that occur along the route. This may impact timing, route frequency and ridership levels on the route, as well as the operational cost implications of the service.

Service in New Areas

Ensure the commuter service meets coverage standards and provides service to new subdivisions with 400 households or 1,000 residents. Alternative forms of service delivery could be considered for new subdivisions that do not meet the criteria.

Services introduced in new areas not previously served should be guaranteed for a minimum 12 months of operation to ensure adequate time for travel patterns to adjust and for four-season ridership patterns to be accounted. At the end of the 12 months, the service must meet the minimum performance thresholds.

Within this trial period, interim targets are set to ensure that a service that is clearly not capable of meeting the ultimate targets is identified as early as possible. Monitoring at three, six and nine months is conducted to ensure that the new service is trending towards the appropriate standard. Targets for these interim periods are set at 25 percent, 50 percent and 75 percent of the ultimate target, respectively. If the performance at the end of each period has not reached at least 75 percent of the target value, the route should be re-examined to identify potential changes to improve its performance. If the same standard is not met in the next period, changes should be recommended.

Service in New Operating Periods

Changes that introduce service in new operating periods on an existing route or modify the existing service are subject to a similar evaluation as new routes, but over a shorter six-month period. If the service change is substantial, staff may recommend a longer trial period. For a six month trial, interim targets are established at two months and four months with target levels of 33 percent and 66 percent of the ultimate target.

GENIVAR

28

Beaumont Transit Feasibility Study Report

121-15113 March 8, 2013

Scheduling and Service Coordination

Scheduling should ensure that commuter trips are provided Monday to Friday for a minimum of three and four trips in the AM and PM peak periods respectively (as identified in Exhibit 14).

Trips should be scheduled to facilitate connection to ETS vehicles and match ETS scheduled times at LRT and/or transit stations in Edmonton as well as possible.

GENIVAR

29

Beaumont Transit Feasibility Study Report

GENIVAR

121-15113 March 8, 2013

30

Beaumont Transit Feasibility Study Report

8.

121-15113 March 8, 2013

Route Options and Evaluation

From the review of the existing plans and policies, as well as the assessment of the current transit market analysis, four route alternatives were identified. These four alternatives were evaluated and ranked based on evaluation conditions developed for the purposes of the study.

An evaluation rating scale and associated weighting factors were applied for each criterion to determine the relative performance of each of the four route alternatives.

A descriptive overview of the evaluation for each service option is found in this section. The evaluation of all service options and the recommendation of a preferred service option will ensure that the municipality is recommended the most efficient and cost effective transit solution to meet needs of Town residents.

8.1

Evaluation Criteria

Evaluation criteria utilized for this study are summarized in Exhibit 16. The service option that best meets the objectives of the criteria will be identified as the recommended service option.

Exhibit 16 includes a qualitative weighting for each of the five evaluation criteria. The first three criteria (supports regional policies, route coverage/ridership potential, travel time to Century Park LRT Station) were given a high evaluation weighting because these are the three major conditions to fostering a ridership base in the Town. The fourth criteria, (minimize operating costs) is given a medium-high weighting because this criteria somewhat duplicates the third criteria (travel time to Century Park LRT station) since it too aims to reduce revenue service hours for the proposed service. Cost is of concern since the majority of the tax base of the Town of Beaumont is based on its residential properties and the burden will fall primarily on residents.

Finally, the last criteria (travel within Beaumont) has a low weighting because, while local travel within the Town by transit should be encouraged, it is not a significant target market in the shortterm (see Section 4.3 and 4.4) and will not generate a high level of ridership given the level and span of service being proposed in the initial stage.

Exhibit 16 – Evaluation Criteria Option Evaluation

Weighting

1. Supports Regional Policies

High

2. Route Coverage / Ridership Potential

High

3. Travel Time to Century Park LRT Station

High

4. Minimizes Operating Costs 5. Travel Within Beaumont

GENIVAR

MediumHigh Low

Description of Criteria Route option should support the development of a regional transit system for the Capital Region Route option should provide convenient access to the major destinations and transit transfer facilities taken by Beaumont residents Route option should provide a quick connection between Beaumont and Century Park LRT Station , as the station is a convenient gateway to Edmonton’s major destinations Route option should minimize the amount of operating costs as much as possible Route option should provide passengers an alternative to travel within the Town

31

Beaumont Transit Feasibility Study Report

8.2

121-15113 March 8, 2013

Service Characteristics

Each of the service options is designed to serve the key market groups and areas and, therefore, have similar overall service characteristics. The summary of service characteristics are outlined in Exhibit 17.

Exhibit 17 – Summary of Service Characteristics Service Description Characteristics Hours of Service

Initial service span in the AM and PM peak periods only

Level of Service

Initial objective to provide at least three and four trips between Edmonton and Beaumont in the AM and PM peak respectively as per the identified service standard Schedules should be coordinated with LRT schedules at Century Park LRT Station

Number of Buses Operated

Assume the operation of two buses to serve the three and four trips in the AM and PM peak respectively Scheduled service frequencies will be adjusted where required for each of the options to retain the operation of two vehicles only

Route Characteristics

All options will operate along a similar routing within the Beaumont to pick up and drop off passengers living in the Town All four options will provide connections between Beaumont and Century Park LRT Station, but how it connects between the two points is what varies between options

GENIVAR

32

Beaumont Transit Feasibility Study Report

8.3

121-15113 March 8, 2013

Service Options

Exhibit 18 – Option 1 Route Description and Evaluation Route Alignment

Route Description Option 1 calls for a connection within Beaumont to Century Park LRT Station and the Mill Woods Transit Centre. The proposed route would collect passengers within Beaumont making local and frequent stops. From there, the route would operate as a limited-stop express service along 50 Street and make an on-street loop along Anthony Henday Drive, 111 Street, 23 Avenue and back onto 50 Street. The on-street loop in Edmonton would operate clockwise during the AM peak period and counterclockwise in the PM peak period.

In Beaumont, the service would operate in both directions along Montalet Street, 56A Street, 57 Street, 50 Avenue, 50 Street, 55 Street, 44 Street, 43 Avenue, 50 Street, and make an onstreet loop via 30 Avenue, Parc Street, and Soleil Boulevard.

Proposed Service Design Scheduled Round-Trip Running Time: 100 minutes Average Service Frequency: 50 minutes Required Buses: 2 buses Number of Trips Operated: AM Peak: 3 trips (1 trip/hour) PM Peak: 4 trips (1 trip/hour)

Option Evaluation Criteria

Option Description

Rating

Supports Regional Policies Route Coverage / Ridership Potential Travel Time to Century Park LRT Station Minimizes Operating Costs Travel Within Beaumont

Supports regional travel by providing connections from Beaumont to destinations in Edmonton via the ETS LRT network Provides access to Century Park LRT Station and Mill Woods Transit Centre Travel time from Beaumont to Century Park LRT Station is 33 minutes Tied with Option 2 for the shortest travel time relative to the other options Requires 11.7 revenue service hours per day Requires the highest number of revenue hours relative to the other options Beaumont residents can travel in both directions within the Town Rank (Out of 4)

GENIVAR

4 3 4 2 4 3

33

Beaumont Transit Feasibility Study Report

121-15113 March 8, 2013

Exhibit 19 – Option 2 Route Description and Evaluation Route Alignment

Route Description Option 2 calls for a connection within Beaumont to the Century Park LRT Station. Similar to Option 1, the route would make frequent local stops to collect passengers within Beaumont.

From there, the route would operate as a limitedstop express service along 50th Street and would make on-street loop along Anthony Henday Drive, 111th Street, 23rd Avenue, 91st Street and back onto Anthony Henday Drive.

The on-street loop in Edmonton would operate clockwise during the AM peak period and counterclockwise in the PM peak period.

Within Beaumont, the service would operate in both directions along Montalet Street, 56A Street, 57 Street, 50 Avenue, 50 Street, 55 Street, 44 Street, 43 Avenue, 50 Street, and make an on-street loop via 30 Avenue, Parc Street, and Soleil Boulevard.

Proposed Service Design Scheduled Round-Trip Running Time: 90 minutes Average Service Frequency: 45 minutes Required Buses: 2 buses Number of Trips Operated: AM Peak: 3 trips (1 trip/hour) PM Peak: 4 trips (1 trip/hour)

Option Evaluation Criteria

Option Description

Supports Regional Policies Route Coverage / Ridership Potential Travel Time to Century Park LRT Station

Supports regional travel by providing connections from Beaumont to destinations in Edmonton via the ETS LRT network

4

Provides access to Century Park LRT Station

2

Minimizes Operating Costs Travel Within Beaumont

Rating

Travel time from Beaumont to Century Park LRT Station is 33 minutes Tied with Option 1 for the shortest travel time relative to the other options Requires 10.5 revenue service hours per day Tied with Options 3 and 4 for the fewest number of revenue hours relative to the other options Beaumont residents can travel in both directions within the Town Rank (Out of 4)

GENIVAR

4 3 4 4

34

Beaumont Transit Feasibility Study Report

121-15113 March 8, 2013

Exhibit 20 – Option 3 Route Description and Evaluation Route Alignment

Route Description Option 3 provides connections to a number of destinations for Beaumont residents, including the Century Park LRT Station, Mill Woods Transit Centre, and to Nisku. In the AM Peak, the route would operate with frequent stops within Beaumont, and operate as a limited-stop express service along Highway 625, Highway 2, 23 Avenue to reach Century Park LRT Station.

From there, it travels along 23rd Avenue and 50th Street until it returns back to Beaumont.

The route would operate in the reverse direction in the PM peak period.

Within Beaumont, the service would operate in in one direction only (clockwise in the AM peak period and counterclockwise in the PM Peak) along 50 Street, Montalet Street, 56A Street, 57 Street, 50 Avenue, 50 Street, 55 Street, 44 Street, 43 Avenue, 50 Street, and Highway 625.

Proposed Service Design Scheduled Round-Trip Running Time: 90 minutes Average Service Frequency: 45 minutes Required Buses: 2 buses Number of Trips Operated: AM Peak: 3 trips (1 trip/hour) PM Peak: 4 trips (1 trip/hour)

Option Evaluation Criteria

Option Description

Supports Regional Policies Route Coverage / Ridership Potential

Supports regional travel by providing connections from Beaumont to destinations in Edmonton via the ETS LRT network Provides access to Century Park LRT Station, Mill Woods Transit Centre, and partly to Nisku Travel time from Beaumont to Century Park LRT Station is 36 minutes Tied with Option 4 for second shortest travel time relative to the other options Requires 10.5 revenue service hours per day Tied with Options 2 and 4 for the fewest number of revenue hours relative to the other options

Travel Time to Century Park LRT Station Minimizes Operating Costs Travel Within Beaumont

Rating

Beaumont residents are unable to travel in both directions within the Town Rank (Out of 4)

GENIVAR

4 4 3

3 2 1

35

Beaumont Transit Feasibility Study Report

121-15113 March 8, 2013

Exhibit 21 – Option 4 Route Description and Evaluation

Route Alignment

Route Description Option 4 provides connections for Beaumont residents to Nisku and the Century Park LRT Station. The route would operate with frequent stops within Beaumont, and then operate as a limited-stop express service along Highway 625, Highway 2, Anthony Henday Drive, and 111th Street. The route would operate along the same corridors in both directions in the AM and PM peak periods.

Within Beaumont, the service would operate in both directions first in an on-street loop along 50 Street, 50 Avenue, 57 Street, 56A Street, Montalet Street, 50 Street. After the on-street loop, the service travels along 55 Avenue, 44 Street, 43 Avenue, 50 Street, and Highway 625.

Proposed Service Design Scheduled Round-Trip Running Time: 90 minutes Average Service Frequency: 45 minutes Required Buses: 2 buses Number of Trips Operated: AM Peak: 3 trips (1 trip/hour) PM Peak: 4 trips (1 trip/hour)

Option Evaluation Criteria

Option Description

Supports Regional Policies Route Coverage / Ridership Potential

Supports regional travel by providing connections from Beaumont to destinations in Edmonton via the ETS LRT network

4

Provides access to Century Park LRT Station and partly to Nisku

3

Travel Time to Century Park LRT Station Minimizes Operating Costs Travel Within Beaumont

Rating

Travel time from Beaumont to Century Park LRT Station is 36 minutes Tied with Option 3 for second shortest travel time relative to the other options Requires 10.5 revenue service hours per day Tied with Options 2 and 3 for the fewest number of revenue hours relative to the other options Beaumont residents can travel in both directions within the Town Rank (Out of 4)

GENIVAR

3

3 4 2

36

Beaumont Transit Feasibility Study Report

8.4

121-15113 March 8, 2013

Evaluation Ranking

Exhibit 22 provides an overview of the scoring and evaluation of each proposed service option.

Based on the scoring relative to all service options, Option 3 has been identified as the preferred option, followed by Option 4, Option 1 and Option 2.

Exhibit 22 – Summary Evaluation Table Option Evaluation Supports Regional Policies Route Coverage / Ridership Potential Travel Time to Century Park LRT Station Operating Costs Travel Within Beaumont

Weighting Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 High

4

4

4

4

High

3

2

4

3

High

4

4

3

3

MediumHigh

2

3

3

3

Low

4

4

2

4

3

4

1

2

Rank

GENIVAR ranked Option 3 as the preferred option because the route allows for a competitive travel time to Century Park LRT Station (at 36 minutes), while also providing expanded coverage to other destinations including Nisku and Mill Woods. The service fares well to the others for minimizing operating costs.

Because this option operates via a large on-street loop, it does not facilitate internal travel within Beaumont. As described in Section 8.1, however, GENIVAR feels that local travel will not be a significant target market and will not generate a high level of ridership given the level and span of service being proposed. Thus, this is not as weighted as heavily as the other criteria.

8.5

Service Option Recommendation

GENIVAR recommends the operation of the Option 3 service design as illustrated in Exhibit 23.

The service would provide local service to all stops in Beaumont. It would provide limited stops outside of Beaumont to the following areas: → Nisku with service coordination with Route 590 C-Line service at County Centre upon request (requires continued discussions with Leduc) → Century Park LRT Station – buses will operate directly to the transit centre → Mill Woods – buses will only provide service along 23 Avenue and will not connect to the Mill Woods Transit Centre as a result of capacity issues at the facility and the attempt to reduce overall travel time for the service The service in first year of service would operate three trips in the clockwise direction in the AM peak period and four trips in the counterclockwise direction in the PM peak period. Two buses would be required to operate the service in both service periods. GENIVAR has planned for static service levels of the initial three years of service. However, if ridership levels increase, GENIVAR

37

Beaumont Transit Feasibility Study Report

121-15113 March 8, 2013

additional trips may be added (following the service standards outlined in Section 7) in the peak periods to establish a more flexible set of schedules for commuter and school trips and continue to develop a culture of transit use in the Town. Scheduled trips should be coordinated with trains at Century Park LRT Station to reduce waiting time at the transit centre.

Exhibit 23 – Recommended Route Alignment

GENIVAR

38

Beaumont Transit Feasibility Study Report

121-15113 March 8, 2013

While GENIVAR has identified that the average service frequency for the service is 45 minutes, the scheduled trips do not need to operate in equal service frequencies. For example, the interval between the first and second trip could be one hour, while the interval between the second and third trip could be 30 minutes to accommodate the higher demand closer to the start of the business or school times. However, the interval between the first and third trips and second and fourth trips must not be less than 90 minutes because only two buses have been planned for the service.

8.5.1

Forecasted Ridership Levels

Capitalizing on the data available, GENIVAR forecasted ridership levels using the observed ridership data from the initial 2003 Beaumont commuter service and increasing it by the forecasted rate of increase in population. With an assumed 2014 service implementation, Beaumont’s population is forecasted to increase 121 percent from 2003 to 2014. The 2014 base ridership conditions are then further adjusted based on four noted changes in service conditions since the 2003 trial service. The adjustments are summarized in Exhibit 24.

Exhibit 24 – Ridership Forecast Adjustments from 2014 Base Ridership Conditions Changing Conditions from 2003 Service

Description

Ridership Assumption

Increase in trip attraction between Edmonton and Beaumont Increase in the level of service

Beaumont to be more connected to the Capital Region with Edmonton’s continued urban expansion and Beaumont’s increased residential growth

Increase ridership by 10 to 30 percent from 2014 base ridership conditions

Proposed service will provide one and two additional trips in the AM and PM peak periods respectively The additional trips captures a distinct set of passengers not served from 2003 service and thus the increase in riders will be relatively in line with the increase in level of service

Increase ridership on average by 90 to 120 percent for every 100 percent increase in level of service

Increase in the number of destinations served

Proposed service will provide quick and convenient connections to the University of Alberta and Government Centre in addition to downtown via the LRT network – previous service provided a direct connection only to Downtown

Increase ridership by 10 to 15 percent from 2014 base ridership conditions

As illustrated in Exhibit 24, GENIVAR has identified a low and high ridership increase range for each of the three identified changing conditions since the operation of the 2003 service. With these assumptions, GENIVAR forecasts that the service could anticipate approximately 23,200 to 29,500 passengers in the first year of service.

The study team has applied the conservative end of the forecasted ridership (23,200) in the initial year of service in the financial plan outlined in Section 13.1. We assumed that ridership will increase at a higher than the rate of population growth in the second year as the culture of transit usage gets established. A 10 percent increase in ridership is assumed compared to a

GENIVAR

39

Beaumont Transit Feasibility Study Report

121-15113 March 8, 2013

population increase of 7 percent. For the third year of service, we assumed that the increase in ridership will be more in line with the increase in population, with a ridership increase of 7 percent, versus a population growth of 6 percent.

GENIVAR

40

Beaumont Transit Feasibility Study Report

9.

121-15113 March 8, 2013

Service Delivery Options

This section outlines potential service delivery options for transit in Beaumont. GENIVAR has identified three options for consideration. An assessment of each option has been completed and the advantages and disadvantages of these options, in the context of Beaumont’s operating environment, are identified in the following sections.

9.1

Option 1 – Town of Beaumont Owned and Operated

In this option, the Town would be responsible for all facets of the transit service, including the purchase, maintenance, and operation of the transit vehicles by the Town of Beaumont. The Town would be responsible for day-to-day delivery, service operations, and management of the service, including the provision of customer service functions, service planning, scheduling activities, and operations management.

Advantages: The Town would have direct control over all aspects of the transit service, including communication with drivers, maintenance, training, supervision, and dispatch.

Customer service and other communication issues would be simplified as handling complaints and other customer interaction would be provided by one organization. Providing the service inhouse will also provide an opportunity to increase transit awareness in the community and build a transit “brand” for the Town.

Disadvantages: A municipally owned and operated service will require a significant investment from the Town. Costs include expenses for the day-to-day management and administration of the transit service, purchase and maintenance of the vehicles, dispatch and scheduling functions, recruitment and training of drivers, marketing and customer service.

General Evaluation: Due to the proposed service levels for the system being limited to weekday peak period commuter operation in the short-term, and the costs and risks involved with owning and operating a municipal transit service, it is not recommended for Beaumont to pursue this service delivery option at this time. As the start-up system matures and both the Town population and ridership grow, this may be an option to consider in the future.

9.2

Option 2 – Contract to ETS

Similar to commuter services operated in Leduc, Fort Saskatchewan and Spruce Grove, the Town of Beaumont could contract ETS to operate the service. In this scenario, the City of Edmonton would own the vehicles, maintain the vehicles, and operate the service on behalf of the Town. Through the contract partnership, ETS would also assist in providing customer information services, both the delivery of service information and materials, by tapping into their organization’s already established economies of scale. This partnership would also allow the contracted service to operate to ETS-owned transit terminal areas to promote convenient passenger transfers.

As part of this study, we participated in discussions with ETS regarding the potential for such an arrangement. Through those discussions, ETS has showed continued interest in playing a role in promoting transit in the region and has demonstrated willingness to operate services on behalf of Beaumont, subject to resource and fleet availability. ETS will require additional buses to operate the Beaumont service, so further discussions and negotiations would need to take

GENIVAR

41

Beaumont Transit Feasibility Study Report

121-15113 March 8, 2013

place between the Town and ETS to ensure vehicle availability and feasibility of this operating arrangement.

Advantages: ETS already has the infrastructure and expertise necessary to provide services to Beaumont, including dispatch and scheduling services, trained bus drivers, maintenance facilities, management and administrative services. Providing the service through a known regional operator can give it credibility and legitimacy with the public. The Town will also be able to gain and capitalize on ETS’s expertise in local operations and planning on a more ongoing basis. Additionally, contracting to ETS reduces the amount of administrative costs necessary because they will be able to provide customer service information as part of the contract.

Disadvantages: ETS maintains a high operating cost in support for their bus operators, maintenance and administrative employees. Given that ETS is a service owned and operated by the City of Edmonton, the transit system puts priority to the delivery of transit service within its own jurisdiction before the contract services supplied to communities in its periphery – though contractual obligations will ensure that services are supplied through the life of the agreement. Electing ETS as the operating contractor also presents the Town with less control over the delivery of the service (i.e., bus branding and livery opportunities), though we note that Leduc contracts its service to ETS and they were still able to develop a differentiated brand called the “C-Line.”

General Evaluation: Contracting the proposed commuter service to ETS is a recommended option because the Town can capitalize on their expertise in regional transit operations. This expertise would provide good value to the Town, particularly in the initial years of transit service, as we gain experience about the service operation. While the operating costs of the service are higher than Option 3, this option poses less risk because there are fewer upfront capital costs, fewer Town staffing requirements, and greater assurance that all the administrative and legal obligations will be met.

9.3

Option 3 – Service Provided by a Local Contractor

In this scenario, the operation of the service and the maintenance of the vehicles would be provided by a local contractor. The Town would procure the necessary vehicles to operate the service. For this option, the Town would be responsible to put the operations and maintenance contract to tender, ensure that appropriate transportation licences are obtained, and satisfy legal requirements to operate transit services are clear. Most of these requirements listed can stipulated as a contractor responsibility as part of the development of the tender and contractual agreement. Arrangements will also need to be made to ensure that the proposed service can access ETS-owned terminal facilities.

GENIVAR notes that it is possible to have the contractor assume the responsibility to not only operate and maintain, but also to supply the vehicle needs on behalf of the Town. This is a more unique contractual arrangement but is being applied in some municipalities such as Fort Erie, Ontario. However, because of the high upfront costs required to procure the vehicles, a competitive bidding process is more constrained because there may be fewer interested contractors who would wish to bear the additional financial risk. Alternatively, the contract length needs to be more protracted because the private contractor would need to recoup the capital cost over the life of the contract. For that reason, GENIVAR has assumed that the Town would procure the vehicles under this option.

GENIVAR

42

Beaumont Transit Feasibility Study Report

121-15113 March 8, 2013

Advantages: A local contractor will be able to provide a comparable service to ETS but at a reduced rate, including trained bus operators, vehicle maintenance, dispatch, scheduling, and general day-to-day management and administration of the service. A private carrier would have experience providing transit services and may be able to provide additional back-up vehicles in the case of accidents or maintenance. A contracted service will also provide the Town with known operating costs and will likely have cheaper hourly rates than those offered by ETS. Contracting services to a local private contractor may also lead to cost-efficiencies as a result of the competitive open bid process.

Disadvantages: A contracted service would require contract management oversight by the Town to ensure the service is operated according to the terms of the contract, and to promote, recommend and approve changes to the service. An experienced transit planning coordinator/manager would be required that fully understands the steps and mechanisms required to deliver a safe and reliable contracted service.

An independent local provider will also not have the same “brand recognition� associated with ETS in the Edmonton Capital Region, and may require additional marketing efforts and/or time to increase awareness and ridership.

General Evaluation: This scenario may be a considerable option for provision of commuter transit service for Beaumont residents at a more affordable rate than Option 2 if the Town were to undertake a competitive bidding process. However, this option requires a higher level of upfront capital costs, a greater level of administrative, communications, and operations management staff to deliver a safe and reliable service that will be used by Beaumont residents.

With these additional costs (both capital and operating), the potential savings that would be brought on by pursuing Option 3 is lowered. GENIVAR notes that the procurement of buses may be funded through possible green investment grants (i.e., GreenTRIP) if the program is being continued.

9.4

Discussion and Recommendation

GENIVAR recommends implementation of Option 2 based on the assessment of the advantages and disadvantages in the context of the Town. While there are distinct merits to pursuing Option 3, contracting the service to ETS allows the Town to capitalize on ETS’s expertise in the planning and delivery of the intermunicipal service, minimize the financial risks inherent in the implementation of a new transit service.

Consistent with the recommendations of the Capital Region Board to work towards an integrated regional transit system, the Town would be in a better position in the future to promote a more seamless service by partnering with ETS. As demonstrated in Section 13.1, GENIVAR forecasted the financial implications of pursuing Option 2 versus Option 3 and determined that Option 3 demonstrates an operational savings of just over $100,000 annually. However, this operational savings requires a greater level of capital costs to procure the necessary three vehicles to operate the proposed service. Option 3 requires an additional $1.3 million investment over Option 2 in the first year, as well as any additional buses that may be required with any increases in service.

GENIVAR

43

Beaumont Transit Feasibility Study Report

121-15113 March 8, 2013

After the assessment of the service delivery options, GENIVAR identifies Option 2 as the recommended service delivery option. It also identifies Option 3 as an alternative service delivery option. The following sections describe the rationale for the identification of both a recommended and alternative service delivery option.

Recommended Service Delivery Option: Option 2 – Contract to ETS Given the identified financial forecasts for the two options, the additional operating costs required to contract the service to ETS allows for a better management of risk for the Town.

Along with the merits having ETS’s operational expertise and the policy directions for more regional integration, GENIVAR recommends pursuing Option 2. Continued discussions between the Town and ETS will be required as ETS will still require an assessment of its own resources to ensure that it can deliver on providing the proposed Beaumont commuter service.

Alternative Service Delivery Option: Option 3 – Service Provided by a Local Contractor As discussed, the implementation of the proposed service under the Option 2 framework requires the Town to continue discussions and negotiations with ETS. Implementation is also contingent to the availability of ETS vehicles and operators. If the aforementioned conditions cannot be met within Beaumont’s implementation timeframe, the Town could approach neighbouring transit agencies instead (i.e., Strathcona County) to execute an arrangement similar to Option 2. Alternatively, the Town could put the proposed service to tender to private transit operators as outlined in Option 3.

GENIVAR

44

Beaumont Transit Feasibility Study Report

10.

Support Elements

10.1

Staffing Requirements

121-15113 March 8, 2013

Few staff resources are required to maintain the service in the initial years of operation. During implementation, resources would be required to finalize route options, develop marketing and communications and manage the contract. If the Town pursues the alternative service delivery option (see Section 9.3), additional resources would also be required to follow the processes to procure a contract operator and to support customer service functions.

For budgeting purposes, GENIVAR has assumed that these resources can be drawn largely from existing staff, but a 0.5 full-time equivalent (FTE) position has been included, primarily to support administrative functions, marketing, and basic customer service activities. An additional 0.5 FTE position is appended under the alternative service delivery option to deliver the additional work related to contract management and customer service.

10.2

Fleet Requirements and Accessibility

A 40-foot coach service is appropriate for commuter services operating longer distance on an expressway. Passengers often prefer coach-type vehicles, but comparable systems in the Capital Region are either already using urban ETS vehicles (Fort Saskatchewan, Leduc) or are moving towards using similar vehicles (St. Albert, Strathcona County). Additionally, St. Albert Transit and Strathcona County Transit have been actively working with Alberta Transportation to resolve weight and highway operation issues.

GENIVAR notes that ETS does not maintain any coaches in their fleet, and would unlikely be able to provide this service with coach vehicles. Given the short distance of the higher speed trip to the Century Park LRT Station and the need to operate the commuter vehicles through local neighbourhoods to collect passengers, GENIVAR recommends the use of an urban-type 40-foot bus for both the recommended and alternative service delivery scenarios.

Accessibility is a crucial element of any transit service and helps ensure that the service is available equally to all members of the population. Generally, low-floor vehicles are a preferred method of providing accessibility because it allows for faster boarding not for just passengers with mobility aids but all passengers in general.

When considering vehicle procurement and determining the specifications for a contractor RFP including vehicles, consideration should be given to low-floor vehicles to provide accessibility.

10.3

Stops and Stop Amenity Requirements

The Town will be responsible for identification of stop locations, and the installation of appropriate stop facilities. At a minimum, these include signage (bus stop pole) and safe, level boarding areas.

Concrete pads should be constructed for all stops and linked to existing sidewalks. These pads should be approximately six metres long and two metres wide. Shelters should also be considered in addition to the concrete pad at stops with higher levels of passenger activity.

GENIVAR

45

Beaumont Transit Feasibility Study Report

121-15113 March 8, 2013

At Century Park LRT Station, GENIVAR recommends the installation of prominent signage and customer information materials to inform customers about the new service. Consent is required from ETS before such an installation.

10.4

Garage Facility Requirements

Both the recommended and alternative service delivery options call for the contractor to house and maintain the operated vehicles. Therefore, there are no garage facility requirements for the implementation of the proposed service.

10.5

Park-and-Ride

Because of the levels of service at initial implementation are fairly modest, park-and-ride facilities are not recommended for Beaumont. If Beaumont residents have access to a vehicle and wish to connect to transit services in Edmonton, it is likely that they would access park-andride facilities at Century Park LRT Station. However as service grows, this may be a future potential for park-and-rides, but this would be recommended to be analysed after the service has matured.

10.6

Technology Requirements

In the initial phases of the service, only rudimentary technologies would be used in the system to keep capital expenditures to a minimum. This would include the use of mechanical fare boxes and route information limited to printed schedules, as well as online and telephone transit information.

Once the system becomes established, more sophisticated technologies should be employed to improve customer service and facilitate system management and operations. These technologies include Computer-Aided Dispatching (CAD), Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL), Automatic Passenger Counters (APC).

The package of these three systems for transit is currently priced at approximately $8,000 to $10,000 per vehicle plus $50,000 to $100,000 for the system requirements.

The implementation of these technologies does not apply for the recommended service delivery option because the CAD/AVL and APC systems are already in place with ETS. Automated stop announcements are being phased in over the upcoming years. As for the alternative service delivery option, GENIVAR has allocated $100,000 during Year 3 for the implementation of the CAD/AVL and APC systems.

Computer-Aided Dispatching (CAD) / Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) Systems

CAD/AVL systems facilitate the management of transit operations, providing up-to-date information on vehicle locations to assist transit dispatchers, as well as inform travellers of bus status, provide real-time information on a vehicle’s location on the route and can be used to provide a range of system enhancements such as: → detailed operational data to assist with planning and management → foundation for customer service elements such as stop announcements and trip planning Automatic Passenger Counters (APC) GENIVAR

46

Beaumont Transit Feasibility Study Report

121-15113 March 8, 2013

Integrated with AVL systems, APCs are autonomous devices that count the number of passengers that board and alight at every bus stop. When the accumulated data is validated, it becomes very useful for planning purposes to monitor and recommend changes where appropriate.

Automated Stop Announcements

Using AVL, systems can provide audio and visual announcements of the next stop to assist passengers, especially those with visual impairments. These systems are increasingly popular in transit systems across the country. The cost of this technology is similar to AVL systems, and a small increment in price as part of the procurement of an AVL system.

10.7

Transit-Oriented Planning Principles

Future residential development plans should be designed with pedestrian-oriented access in mind, as pedestrian connections and proximity of higher density developments to available transit will encourage ridership, help grow the service and result in healthier, more sustainable communities. Consideration should be given to modifying municipal policies to reflect this concept.

GENIVAR found very few policies in the Municipal Development Plan related to promoting transit service in the Town. There were policy provisions to ensure that road designs for arterial and collector roadways consider the needs for future bus service requirements (i.e., space for bus bays and bus stop amenities). GENIVAR recommends a permeable grid-pattern road network be maintained for the arterial and collector roads. The grid spacing should be no larger than one kilometre to ensure that transit service can provide adequate coverage without the need to operate long and circuitous routes through the Town. Many suburban residential areas in the Capital Region have developed in a way that intentionally breaks up the grid road network as means to develop a highly hierarchical road network that truncates road connections between different residential communities. As a result, buses must often make long route diversions to capture the required service coverage to reduce the amount of walking passengers need to travel to access transit services. Pedestrian/cyclist short cuts should also be provided to ensure that access times to transit are kept to a minimum.

GENIVAR

47

Beaumont Transit Feasibility Study Report

GENIVAR

121-15113 March 8, 2013

48

Beaumont Transit Feasibility Study Report

11.

121-15113 March 8, 2013

Fare Policies

Establishing an appropriate fare is an important consideration in the design of a new service.

Fare structures directly affect the attractiveness of the service and determine revenue. Higher fares will increase revenue per passenger and overall revenue. On the other hand, it will also have a negative impact on ridership. Since revenue is pivotal to the long-term sustainability of the proposed service, it is important to find the appropriate fare level that optimizes the balance between revenue and ridership.

11.1

Fare Policy Peer Review

As an extension to the peer agencies review work illustrated in Section 5, Exhibit 25 shows a comparison of fare structures from intermunicipal transit systems specifically in the Capital Region.

Section 5 indicated that intermunicipal services in Fort Saskatchewan and Leduc, by virtue of their closer proximity to the ETS LRT network, provide connections only to the spoke ends of the LRT, while the remaining municipalities provide service directly to downtown destinations.

Fort Saskatchewan, Leduc, and Spruce Grove currently do not have fare agreements in place with ETS, and thus passengers that require the services of these two systems must pay a double fare. However, because Spruce Grove provides a direct service to downtown destinations, there is less propensity for its users to need to use ETS services, compared to Fort Saskatchewan and Leduc. Thus, for equitable comparison of fare polices, the fares outlined for Fort Saskatchewan and Leduc include the ETS portion of the fare.

Exhibit 25 – Fare Structure Comparisons for Intermunicipal Services to Edmonton Municipality

Cash

Adult Ticket (per ride)

Monthly Pass

Cash

Senior Ticket Monthly (per Pass ride)

Cash

Youth Ticket Monthly (per Pass ride)

Fort Saskatchewan^

$6.50

$5.63

$180.65

$6.50

$3.99

$103.50

$6.50

$3.99

$103.50

Leduc^

$8.00

$6.78

$159.65

--

--

--

--

--

--

Spruce Grove*

$5.00

--

$125.00

--

--

--

--

--

--

St. Albert*

$5.50

$3.85

$105.00

$4.50

$3.85

$55.00

$4.50

$3.85

$92.00

Strathcona County*

$5.50

$4.00

$100.00

$4.50

$4.00

$27.00

--

$4.00

$90.00

^ Service provides connection to the nearest LRT station only. To ensure equitable comparison, fare table numbers for these agencies also include the ETS portion of the fare. * Service provides direct connection to downtown Edmonton destinations, ETS portion of the fare is not included in the fare table.

As illustrated in the Exhibit 25, fares are not identified for all passenger classes in some of the systems. The smaller intermunicipal transit systems, particularly Fort Saskatchewan and Leduc, require higher fares to get to downtown, for instance, than the larger intermunicipal systems.

This is attributed partly to the need to pay a double fare.

GENIVAR

49

Beaumont Transit Feasibility Study Report

11.2

121-15113 March 8, 2013

U-Pass Fare Policies

Currently, the larger intermunicipal systems, Strathcona County and St. Albert, along with ETS, have agreements in place for the U-Pass program The U-Pass provides eligible students at the University of Alberta, Grant MacEwan University, and the Northern Alberta Institute of Technology (NAIT) with unlimited travel on its systems during the school terms. The U-Pass program has been very well received by students, with 93 percent of students satisfied with the U-Pass program based on a 2008 study.

The same study observed that ridership increased from 21 to 40 trips per month per student, from 7.3 to 13.9 million trips per academic year, following the introduction of the U-Pass in 2007.

Ridership continues to remain high. The accumulated funds from the U-Pass are distributed back to these three transit systems, with ETS receiving a high majority of the funds at 84 percent and St. Alberta and Strathcona County receiving the remainder of the funds.

11.3

Regional Fare Policies

Currently, the Capital Region lacks a regional fare policy. For that reason, passengers who travel across municipal borders in the region must pass through additional hurdles to understand the fares required to use each system. In some cases, passengers are required to pay a double fare to get from origin to destination.

As discussed in Section 11.1, the smaller systems around the region including Fort Saskatchewan, Spruce Grove and Leduc, do not have integrated fare policies. When passengers travel between these systems and ETS, they must pay the full fare for both systems. However, St. Albert Transit, Strathcona County Transit, and ETS have fare agreements that allow passengers to receive a fare discount when using services between its systems. Additionally, the U-Pass is only accepted on the two larger systems in the region.

Given the noted concerns, one of the Capital Region Board’s current priorities is to explore the integration of the current transit fares across the existing transit services in the Region into one seamless fare system for all riders. This project will also explore enabling technologies to support a regional fare system.

11.4

Fare Strategy Recommendations

Our fare strategy recommendations intend to establish a sustainable fare structure for the commuter service, and aims to develop a structure that deals with different pass and transfer recognition between ETS and other service providers in the Capital Region. This framework will also allow for the future adjustment of fares. The following are assumptions that were utilized during development of the fare strategy recommendations: → current fare collection technologies onboard vehicles of the successful contractor will remain in place in the short-term → the recommended fare strategy must be compatible with any Capital Region Board regional fare integration initiatives → Beaumont will provide a commuter service to the Century Park LRT Station

GENIVAR

50

Beaumont Transit Feasibility Study Report

11.4.1

121-15113 March 8, 2013

Passenger Classes

For passenger convenience, Beaumont should adopt the same passenger classes as ETS, which are shown in Exhibit 26. Adopting the same passenger classes as ETS will minimize confusion for passengers as they will very likely require the services from Beaumont and ETS. The passenger classes are similar to others identified in many transit systems.

Exhibit 26 - Passenger Class Passenger Class

Criteria

Adult Senior Child Youth Post-secondary Student

11.4.2

18 to 64 years 65 years+ 5 years and younger 6 to 17 years (to 19 years with valid student ID) With valid student ID

Fare Table

For fare levels, GENIVAR recommends the fare table illustrated in Exhibit 27. The recommended fare structure establishes a common cash fare for all passenger classes – a trend increasingly common in the industry, designed to make the prepaid fares more attractive and reduce cash handling costs. The identified fare prices are in line with the fare policies of the small intermunicipal systems in the Capital Reign.

Exhibit 27 - Proposed Fare Structure Commuter Service (Beaumont <-> Century Park / Mill Woods)* Passenger Class Ticket for Monthly Cash 10 Pass Adult Senior / Youth Post-Secondary Student Child

$5.00 $5.00 $5.00

$42.50 $36.25 $42.50

Local Service (Beaumont <-> Beaumont) Cash

$93.50 $79.75 $85.00 Free

$1.00

* Fares outlined pertain only to the Beaumont service only. Passengers transferring to the ETS network must pay the ETS fare.

The discount for 10-ride tickets is approximately 15 percent from the adult cash fare. This fare is set as the base fare for all other discounts. Youth and senior tickets are discounted about 15 percent from the adult ticket price. Because we wish to provide incentive for Beaumont residents to become regular transit commuters, we propose to have monthly passes discounted at about 45 percent from the ticket price for the Adult, Senior and Youth passenger classes, based on 40 rides per month.

As discussed in Section 12.1.1, commuters and post-secondary students will be Beaumontâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s major target market. These two target markets are likely to travel on most weekdays. GENIVAR identified the need to create a loyalty incentive by offering a more discounted monthly pass for

GENIVAR

51

Beaumont Transit Feasibility Study Report

121-15113 March 8, 2013

all passenger classes. This will also assist in alleviating some concerns related to paying a double fare when accessing between Beaumont funded services and ETS.

11.4.3

Regional Fare Policies

GENIVAR recognizes that in an ideal policy is to have integrated regional fare policies and structures. We recommend that Beaumont continue to work with the CRB to devise appropriate fare policies and financial mechanisms to break down the inherent municipal barriers of the current system.

11.4.4

U-Pass Fare Policies

Beaumont should examine options, in the context of Capital Region initiatives, to provide UPass reciprocity for travel on the commuter service. Since other regional communities providing commuter services, including Spruce Grove, Fort Saskatchewan and Leduc, are in similar positions, a coordinated discussion should take place to possibly expand the program to provide equity to all post-secondary students living in the Capital Region and to begin to develop a seamless regional transit system.

GENIVAR

52

Beaumont Transit Feasibility Study Report

12.

121-15113 March 8, 2013

Marketing Strategy

The Town does not currently have a marketing plan to identify strategies to promote municipal services and amenities and encourage continued growth and development. If a formal marketing strategy is developed, any transit service implemented in Beaumont should be consistent with the standards and requirements of this strategy. An important aspect of a marketing plan is the idea that municipal services should be promoted in a consistent manner that re-enforces their position as City-owned, operated or mandated (including transit services).

12.1.1

Target Market Identification

Understanding the target markets for transit in Beaumont will be an important component of marketing the service. Future transit services in the Town should be marketed in accordance with the service and route design, as well as the preferred service delivery model.

The service discussed throughout this study is commuter-focused, and should be marketed as such in an effort to attract choice riders who live in Beaumont and work or attend postsecondary institutions in Edmonton.

Commuters Residents living in Beaumont and commuting to work in Edmonton will be the foundation for the commuter service and, as such, the Town should focus on opportunities to attract riders who choose to take transit to Edmonton instead of driving. Information regarding the service should be promoted in high-profile locations throughout the Town, for example at municipal/civic buildings, shopping areas, community events and recreation facilities.

Some residents may be unaware of the benefits of transit, while others may prefer other forms of transportation for a variety of reasons. In either case, the public perception of transit may be improved via marketing. As the system matures, marketing to non-riders may include inducements to raise awareness of and attract new customers to the system such as reduced fares or free rides on promotional days.

Post-secondary Students Post-secondary students living in the Town and attending school in Edmonton are another primary transit market, and will include both choice and captive riders. Beaumont could consider promoting the service on campus at relevant post-secondary institutions in Edmonton during orientation week or during similar promotional or special event days throughout the school year.

The Town should ensure that the Beaumont commuter service has a year-round presence at the post-secondary institutions, which could include making sure schedules and maps are available on-campus in designated areas or wherever transit information for ETS, Strathcona County Transit or St. Albert Transit are provided. The negotiation of an arrangement allowing the U-Pass to be accepted as fare payment to board transit in Beaumont would provide the Town with a marketing opportunity to promote the service and attract ridership.

Seniors As the service will likely be commuter-focused, marketing to senior populations may not be a priority at this time. As the senior population and the Town continue to grow, local services or specialized transit services may become viable options. At that time, marketing efforts should

GENIVAR

53

Beaumont Transit Feasibility Study Report

121-15113 March 8, 2013

focus on engaging with the senior population to promote transit in the Town. Promotions and partnerships between the Town, senior citizen advisory groups, seniors’ apartment buildings and local retailers, such as grocery stores or other merchants or locations of interest, should be pursued.

If local or specialized transit services are considered in the future, the Town should promote transit to seniors in a way that advertises the benefits of transit, and should also conduct sessions that inform seniors about the service, and provide instructions on how to board, pay for a trip, and request a stop. Service features that are designed to improve access for persons with mobility restrictions should be emphasized. Transit information should be available at senior citizen residences beyond promotional presentations or events, and the Town should ensure that easy-to-read information materials are available year round when such a service is offered.

12.1.2

Recommended Transit Service Marketing

Overview As everyone in the community benefits from public transportation, including commuters, students, seniors, and persons with mobility challenges, it is important for Beaumont to brand transit services as an efficient and customer focused transportation option that provides the population with access to opportunities and mobility. If service is implemented, the Town should pursue marketing strategies specific to transit that raise awareness of the service in the community with the goal of increasing ridership. Transit services should be incorporated into overall Town marketing efforts (if a marketing strategy is developed) so as to associate transit with the full range of other municipal services provided by the Town.

The following have been identified as recommended strategies that may be implemented to market transit services for Beaumont.

Transit Marketing Strategy Beaumont should develop a formal Transit Marketing Strategy. This marketing plan for transit services could take the form of a stand-alone document or be incorporated into an overall Town marketing plan (if developed). The commuter transit service should be closely aligned with other municipal services, as this may raise awareness and visibility of the service and positively associate transit with other municipal services. Transit should be marketed as one of many important components of a “complete community”, and materials should emphasize how transit strengthens economic, social, and environmental sustainability, and contributes to community diversity and healthy living.

Start-up Promotion A “start-up” promotion should be developed (if possible in conjunction with corporate or other partnerships) to encourage residents to take transit and to draw attention to and promote the service.

The service, as well as the start-up promotion, should be advertised in advance of implementation. Informing customers about the service in advance of its implementation can help introduce the system in a positive manner and raise community awareness regarding the benefits of transit.

GENIVAR

54

Beaumont Transit Feasibility Study Report

121-15113 March 8, 2013

Transit Materials If a transit service is implemented in Beaumont, marketing materials should include route maps, schedules, bus stop signage, and web content.

These will be dependent on which service delivery model is selected to provide the service.

Town owned and operated vehicles (if applicable), as well as leased services from some local contractors, will allow the Town to “brand” the vehicles in a manner that can be made unique or consistent with other Town marketing. If Beaumont develops a formal marketing strategy, schedules, maps, signage and other materials should be updated to be consistent with the format of other Town marketing materials and online content, including fonts, layout and colour selection (if applicable).

If the service is purchased from ETS, the branding at bus stops, on customer notices, and the decals, paint and appearance of transit vehicles will be consistent with ETS marketing standards (similar to transit services currently provided in Fort Saskatchewan, Spruce Grove and Leduc).

The Town should ensure that system information and marketing materials including route maps and schedules are available onboard vehicles and in easy to see locations at major stops and destinations.

Transit Vehicle Branding If possible and dependent on the service delivery option preferred by the Town, consider development of Beaumont Transit Service decals to be applied to vehicles serving the community. This would increase the profile of the service and raise awareness among nonriders. Ensure that, where possible, all marketing, promotional and advertising materials are consistent with the Town’s overall marketing strategy (if developed) and the “Transit Service Brand”.

Online Content The availability of a transit website, with route and fare information as well as current updates on service changes, disruptions, as well as marketing and promotional material, is a basic requirement of a transit service in today’s operating environment. This information should be made available on the ETS website as well as Beaumont’s local site.

The website must contain a range of information for transit service components, including a service overview, schedules and route maps, fares, tickets and passes, transfers, contact information and more, including links to other relevant pages.

The website should make online information available in an accessible format and in compliance to Web Content Accessibility Guidelines.

Consultation Consultation is an important part of providing a successful transit service, and Beaumont should capitalize on opportunities to engage with the public and stakeholders. Consultation and engagement should be pursued when conducting market research, identifying future system improvements, development and review of future marketing materials and strategies, and when

GENIVAR

55

Beaumont Transit Feasibility Study Report

121-15113 March 8, 2013

evaluating the results of future marketing plans. The Town should ensure that consultation is incorporated into these strategies as appropriate.

A formal “Transit Marketing Engagement” advocacy group could be considered. This group could include Town staff and members of the public, such as representatives from student groups and existing riders, as well as seniors, and persons with disabilities, among others, in the future. These residents could be consulted at various stages of the transit marketing development and review process.

Partnerships and Community Presence Beaumont should strive to demonstrate a transit presence in the community via public and private partnerships. Private-sector partnerships may allow the Town to share the cost of marketing the service with a corporate partner and may increase awareness of the service to the general public. Corporate partnerships could include development of a Corporate Sponsorship Plan that identifies and evaluates potential partners and provides a strategy for the transit service to successfully pursue corporate support and develop long-term partnerships.

After implementation, the Town should also ensure that the commuter service is visible in the community, including presence at events such as holiday celebrations, concerts, family activities, sporting events and/or any other opportunities to raise awareness and increase visibility of the service. These events may provide opportunities to promote the service to residents who do not typically take transit or who are not aware of the service.

Staff Assistance Consider temporarily assigning employees to key locations (i.e., Century Park LRT Station, or at key Beaumont stops) to answer questions and help customers navigate and understand the new system. Depending on available resources, this could be implemented on a daily basis for a week upon implementation, just during a single special “kick-off” event, or at various times throughout the year.

12.1.3

Evaluation Program

Ongoing evaluation of marketing initiatives is an important part of a successful marketing strategy, and presents an opportunity to “follow-up” on the implementation of a previous plan to identify the relative effectiveness of the campaign. Evaluation should be qualitative and quantitative, and occur at predetermined intervals after the service is implemented.

Evaluation of implemented marketing strategies should be conducted to identify the effectiveness and success of the strategy, as well as areas requiring continued improvement.

This will help Beaumont assess how riders and non-riders are responding to the marketing efforts, identify successes and challenges, and establish priorities, updates and potential improvements for future marketing plans.

Quantitative evaluation efforts could focus on measurable metrics such as ridership, and could be evaluated based on a comparative analysis of ridership during a determined time period versus a baseline or previous period. Revenue generated on specific products or services may be evaluated, for example, from passes or fare box revenue, and compared to projections, benchmarks or specific performance metrics such as revenue per passenger and revenue per service hour.

GENIVAR

56

Beaumont Transit Feasibility Study Report

121-15113 March 8, 2013

Qualitative evaluation could include community consultation and conducting market research to measure effectiveness of marketing based on the image and public perception of transit in the Town among riders and non-riders. This could include conducting regular research such as onboard, intercept, mail-back or telephone surveys to understand ongoing public perception and the relative effectiveness of current marketing initiatives. This type of regular and consistent customer and community outreach can be useful to understand service strengths and areas requiring improvement, as well as improving the image and customer service, and community exposure and awareness of the service.

12.1.4

Short- and Long-Term Actions

The following are short- and long-term actions that should be considered for marketing commuter transit services in Beaumont: Short-Term Short-term actions may be considered immediately or in the 12 months following implementation and include: → advertise and market the service, including route maps and schedules, fares and other service components, as well as the community benefits of transit → develop a formal Transit Marketing Strategy to market the commuter service → develop a “start-up” promotion should to encourage residents to take transit and to draw attention to and promote the service (prior to and after implementation) → develop evaluation criteria for review of marketing strategy success moving forward → conduct community outreach and consultation with identified target markets including commuters and post-secondary and students → ensure system information and marketing materials including route maps and schedules are available on board all vehicles and in easy to see locations at major destinations as appropriate → ensure transit services are visible in the community, including presence at events such as holiday celebrations, concerts, family activities, sporting events and/or any other opportunities to raise awareness and increase visibility of the service → emphasize the environmental and personal health benefits, and overall sustainability of transit and its contribution to development of an environmentally and socially sustainable community in all marketing materials → utilize social and conventional media where possible to promote the service → assign employees to key locations upon service implementation to answer questions and help customers navigate the system Long-Term Long-term actions are recommendations that may be considered beyond the 12 months following implementation and include:

GENIVAR

57

Beaumont Transit Feasibility Study Report

121-15113 March 8, 2013

→ develop a formal Transit Marketing Engagement advocacy group including Town staff and members of the public to be consulted with at various stages of the transit marketing development and review process → consider development of a Corporate Partnership Plan to provide a strategy for the Town to successfully pursue long-term corporate support and partnerships → if Beaumont develops a formal marketing strategy, ensure route maps, schedules and other transit materials are consistent with general Town marketing materials → conduct an internal and external marketing evaluation program at regular intervals to evaluate the effectiveness of current marketing efforts → follow-up consultation and market research to evaluate impacts of implemented strategies and determine needs and opportunities for future marketing efforts with the general public, including riders and non-riders via onboard, telephone and intercept surveys, questionnaires, and public forums

GENIVAR

58

Beaumont Transit Feasibility Study Report

121-15113 March 8, 2013

13.

Financial and Implementation Plan

13.1

Capital and Operating Costs

Exhibit 28 outlines the capital and operating costs required for first three years of the transit operations based on both the recommended and alternative service delivery options, as identified in Section 9.4.

Exhibit 28 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Financial Plan for the Recommended and Alternative Service Delivery Option Option Description of Option

Recommended Service Delivery Option Contract Services to ETS ETS own, operate and maintain vehicles

Year 1

Year 2

Alternative Service Delivery Option Contract Services to a Private Contractor Town owns, while contractor operates and maintains vehicles Year 1 Year 2 Year 3

Year 3

Operating Costs Revenue Service Hours Annual Operating Hours (h)

2,646

2,646

2,646

2,646

2,646

2,646

419,500

419,500

419,500

264,600

264,600

264,600

0.5

0.5

0.5

1.0

1.0

1.0

32,500

32,500

32,500

65,000

65,000

65,000

5,000

10,000

10,000

5,000

10,000

10,000

40,000

40,000

40,000

40,000

40,000

40,000

517,000

502,000

502,000

414,600

379,600

379,600

Annual Ridership

23,178

25,402

27,254

23,178

25,402

27,254

Average Fare ($)

3.9

3.9

3.9

3.9

3.9

3.9

90,393

99,066

106,290

90,393

99,066

106,290

426,607

402,934

395,710

324,207

280,534

273,310

0

Total Operating Cost ($) Staffing Costs Total FTE Wages and Salaries ($) Other Operating Cost Launch Marketing ($) On-going Marketing ($) General Stop Maintenance ($) Total Operating Costs

20,000

40,000

Ridership and Revenue

Total Operating Revenue ($) Net Operating Cost Net Operating Cost ($) Capital Costs Stops and Shelters ($)

250,000

0

0

250,000

0

Vehicle Purchase ($)

0

0

0

1,500,000

0

0

Technology ($)

0

0

0

0

0

100,000

250,000

0

0

1,750,000

0

100,000

Total Performance Indicators Cost Recovery Ratio Net Cost Per Passenger Passengers Per Hour Passengers Per Capita

17%

20%

21%

22%

26%

28%

18.41

15.86

14.52

13.99

11.04

10.03

8.8

9.6

10.3

10.1

10.1

10.1

1.35

1.39

1.40

1.35

1.39

1.40

Note: All costs are expressed in constant 2012 dollars

GENIVAR

59

Beaumont Transit Feasibility Study Report

13.2

Financial Cost Assumptions

13.2.1

Operating Costs

121-15113 March 8, 2013

Operating Costs Under the recommended service delivery option, the operating cost to provide 2,646 annual revenue hours is $419,500 annually. This figure was developed in consultation with ETS, but is not based on a formal quote. Continued detailed discussions will be required with ETS to make refinements to the estimated operating cost figure.

The alternative service delivery option is based on providing the same 2,646 annual revenue hours. We assume an average operating cost (2012) of approximately $100 per vehicle hour.

These are total average costs and reflect all costs including plant maintenance in addition to the service operation costs. The assumed cost per vehicle hour is slightly higher than the industry average because GENIVAR (1) aims to the side of conservatism when conducting costing estimates for planning exercises and (2) anticipates that the proposed service lack of economies of scale of the system would likely increase the required operating costs more than the industry average.

Staffing GENIVAR anticipates that initial administrative staff resources will comprise those required to support marketing activities, contract management, and basic customer service. For budgeting purposes, GENIVAR has assumed that these resources will amount to approximately 0.5 FTE for the first three years of service. These staffing needs apply to both the recommended and alternative service delivery options.

Under the alternative service delivery option, Beaumont will not be able to capitalize on the customer service resources provided by ETS. Thus, GENIVAR has allocated an additional 0.5 FTE to provide full customer service and liaison needs for the proposed service.

Marketing Expenses GENIVAR allocated $20,000 for base costs for the initial marketing to communicate and engage to Beaumont residents about the proposed transit service. An additional $20,000 is allocated for the alternative service delivery option to assist with the development of a Beaumont-specific brand and livery for the proposed service. This additional $20,000 does not apply to the recommended service delivery option, as the service would take on the ETS brand and livery. $5,000 was allocated to support ongoing marketing initiatives after the initial service launch and $10,000 for Year 2 and 3. The ongoing marketing costs apply to both the recommended and alternative service delivery options.

General Shelter and Stop Maintenance GENIVAR allocated $40,000 annually to support the general maintenance of shelters and stops.

These costs are associated with the cleaning of bus shelters and stop areas. We assume that winter maintenance costs such as snow clearing will be included as part of the Townâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Transportation, Roads, and Streets budget.

GENIVAR

60

Beaumont Transit Feasibility Study Report

121-15113 March 8, 2013

Ridership Revenue Section 8.5.1 identifies the forecasted ridership for the service in the Years 1 to 3. The forecasted ridership revenue is computed by multiplying the forecasted ridership for each year by the assumed average fare. Based on the recommended Fare Table identified in Section 11.1, GENIVAR assumes an average fare of $3.90. In comparison to the Leducâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s existing fare table, the $3.90 average fare is in line with what has been observed for Leduc.

13.2.2

Capital costs

Vehicle Costs For a conventional 40-foot vehicle, a capital cost of $500,000 was used. This assumed cost includes the costs for farebox equipment, radios, and variable message signs. A spare vehicle ratio of 15 percent was used to identify total fleet. However, due to the very small fleet required, a minimum of one spare bus is required. A total of three buses will be required to provide the proposed service for the first three years of service. The purchase of vehicles applies only to the alternative service delivery option.

Stops and Shelters Bus stop infrastructure, such as a bus stop pole and a concrete pad, will be required at stops along the proposed route within the Town area, at a cost of $5,000 each stop. Bus shelters are assumed to be required for 25 percent of new stops, at cost of $5,000 each. The installation of bus stop infrastructure and shelters applies to both the recommended and alternative service delivery options.

Technology Costs GENIVAR has allocated $100,000 to fulfill the recommendations identified in Section 10.6. The procurement and installation of CAD/AVL equipment identified for the third year of operation.

This allocated cost applies only to the alternative service delivery option.

It should be noted that the alternative service delivery option will require an additional $1.6 million of capital costs in the first three years.

13.2.3

Performance Summary

Revenue-to-Cost Ratio The revenue-to-cost ratio (R/C ratio) is calculated by dividing the operating revenues by the operating costs within a given year. GENIVAR projects that the R/C ratio in the first year at about 17 percent. While this is lower than the industry average of 38 percent for transit systems whose population is less than 50,000, the percentage figure is in line with what was observed in Fort Saskatchewan at 23 percent), Leduc at 17percent, and Spruce Grove at 17percent in their first months of service.

The R/C ratio of these systems have since increased to 33 percent, 28 percent, and 37 percent, respectively, and GENIVAR anticipates that Beaumontâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s R/C ratio will increase to these levels in the medium-term as ridership matures. As discussed in Section 7.2, the study team has identified an R/C ratio of 35 percent within five years of revenue service.

GENIVAR

61

Beaumont Transit Feasibility Study Report

121-15113 March 8, 2013

Passengers Per Capita The projected passengers carried per capita for the proposed service is between 1.35 and 1.40.

These figures are conservative compared to the other intermunicipal services operating in the Capital Region. Fort Saskatchewan, Leduc, and Spruce Grove currently have figures of 1.67, 1.52, and 3.20, respectively. As discussed in Section 7.2, the study team has identified a passengers per capita target of 1.8 within five years of revenue service.

Passengers Per Hour Passengers per vehicle-hour are in the range of 8.8 to 10.3 over the projected three years of service. These figures are lower than the other intermunicipal services operating in the Capital Region. Fort Saskatchewan, Leduc, and Spruce Grove currently have figures of 11.8, 10.9, and 13.4 respectively. As discussed in Section 7.2, the study team has identified a passengers per hour target of 12.0 within five years of revenue service.

13.3

Funding Options

GreenTRIP Funding The Green Transit Incentives Program (GreenTRIP) is a one-time capital-funding program that will support transit systems in Alberta. The purpose of the provincial program is to provide wider range of sustainable transit alternatives, which will help increase transit ridership.

Examples of projects eligble to GreenTRIP funding include the: → construction of LRT lines and related station structures, maintenance facilities. → construction of transit terminals and park and ride facilities → installation of intelligent transportation system components for transit → purchase of transit vehicles for mass transit The Capital Region Partnership developed a prioritized list of transit projects for the funding program, and the Beaumont Transit Service Feasibility Study was one of the projects identified.

However, the funding grant for the feasibility study was denied.

This program is identified as a one-time capital funding program and it is not known whether the program will be renewed at this time. If this or a similar program arises, Beaumont may qualify to support new and expanded buses in the Town. If the Town is able to seek assistance in the procurement of buses, it would present the alternative service delivery option as potentially a more attractive opportunity.

13.4

Implementation Plan

The following sections indentify the implementation planning steps that are required to be taken prior to launch of the service.

13.4.1

Contract Services

As a contracted service, selecting an appropriate contractor is perhaps the most important element of establishing the service. A review of potential contractors indicates a reasonable response is likely, and should satisfy the Town’s procurement requirements.

GENIVAR

62

Beaumont Transit Feasibility Study Report

121-15113 March 8, 2013

Procurement processes should follow the Town’s typical processes and be governed by them.

Timelines for the process total up to about 12 weeks. The contractor should be in place sufficiently ahead of the launch to assist with development of detailed route planning and implementation. If vehicle procurement is required, an additional period of no less than six months will be required.

Specific activities include: → develop draft service contract (3 to 4 weeks) → finalize service contract (1 to 2 weeks) → tender service contract (2 to 3 weeks) → select service contractor (2 to 3 weeks) → total: 8 to 12 weeks

13.4.2

Route Planning

Route planning activities can be completed in conjunction with the service contractor, a third party, or both. Stop locations will need to be determined based on safety, visibility and terrain, in residential areas and adjacent to other locations.

Signs will need to be installed at each new stop location, including route and schedule information at higher demand stops. Shelters should be considered on the basis of the highest demand boarding locations.

Other specific activities include: → obtain provincial approval as required for specific stop locations → finalize schedules → establish signage and communications materials at route terminals (i.e., Century Park LRT Station)

13.4.3

Marketing

Launch Marketing Marketing the launch of the service will be critical to its early success, both in terms of ridership and building community support. Activities should include print and web-based advertising, as well as community activities to preview the service. Using the vehicle as a “community booth” at activity areas such as shopping centres, seniors centres and others can help promote the launch of the service, distribute information and materials, and raise community awareness.

Specific activities include: → apply for grant for marketing plan support and start-up costs → establish website → create route maps and schedules → develop pre-launch marketing and advertising program and materials

GENIVAR

63

Beaumont Transit Feasibility Study Report

121-15113 March 8, 2013

â&#x2020;&#x2019; implement pre-launch marketing program On-going Marketing On-going marketing and advertising of the service following the launch is also important. In addition to industry-standard tools such as route maps and schedules and information websites, market-specific promotions should be implemented from time to time. These could include (for example) commuter-oriented campaigns, developed in conjunction with employers to promote peak services, including employer-subsidies for fares and passes

13.4.4

Post-Implementation

Following implementation, it will be important to monitor the service including specific travel times to ensure the reliability of schedules and to monitor ridership on a frequent basis.

Performance monitoring activities such as schedule adherence checks and ridership counts can be included in the service contract and performed by the contractor.

This information, including cost and revenue performance, should form the basis of regular reports to senior management and Council.

GENIVAR

64

Beaumont Transit Feasibility Study Report

14.

121-15113 March 8, 2013

Conclusion

An appropriate target for Beaumont to introduce transit service is 2014 While Beaumont operated a trial transit service back in 2003 with modest success, GENIVAR concludes that a number of conditions have changed since that time and that 2014 is a realistic year to operate an intermuncipal service to Edmonton again. In the past decade, the Capital Region has experienced significant growth and urban expansion. Beaumont has been a beneficiary of that growth. The nature and extent of growth has made the economic and transportation linkages between Beaumont and the Capital Region, particularly Edmonton, more prominent.

A number of suburban municipalities are either proposing to introduce intermunicipal transit service in their town (Okotoks, Cochrane) or to improve transit service (Fort Saskatchewan, Leduc, Strathcona County). Thus Beaumont has an opportunity to demonstrate leadership in providing transit service to a regional population increasingly looking for more transportation choice.

Key target markets are work and post-secondary school travel from/to Edmonton A Town-commissioned travel survey indicates that the majority of destinations frequently travelled by Town residents are in Edmonton—particularly in downtown and University of Alberta. The survey also indicated that most trips occur during the weekday AM and PM peak periods. This confirms the need to target the work and post-secondary school commuter market.

With the extension of the Edmonton LRT to Century Park, service would logically connect to this transit centre to provide convenient linkages to destinations located downtown and its environs, including Government Centre, NAIT, and the University of Alberta.

Introduce a peak-only service between Beaumont and Century Park LRT Station with strategic stops In the initial years of service, GENIVAR proposes the operation of three trips and four trips in the AM and PM peak respectively, and adding service when ridership warrants. The route would operate with frequent stops within Beaumont, and then operate with limited stops along Highway 625, Highway 2, 23 Avenue to reach Century Park LRT Station. The route would continue eastward along 23rd Avenue and southward along 50th Street until it returns back to Beaumont. The route would operate in the reverse direction in the PM peak period. Strategic stops could be made in Nisku and Mill Woods. The detailed operational details of the service require further consultations with the ETS, City of Leduc, and Leduc County. Two buses are required to operate the service.

Contract ETS to operate the service GENIVAR recommends that Beaumont contract ETS to own the vehicles, maintain the vehicles, and operate the service on behalf of the Town. This arrangement allows the Town to capitalize on ETS’ expertise in the planning and delivery of the service. While this approach requires higher operating costs, it reduces the amount initial capital investment required—thus minimizing the financial risk in the near term when ridership levels are uncertain. Continued discussions between the Town and ETS will be required to ensure that ETS has the resources to operate the service and to clarify the contractual, financial, and legal obligations between the two parties.

GENIVAR

65

Beaumont Transit Feasibility Study Report

121-15113 March 8, 2013

Proposed fares GENIVAR has proposed fares according to various passenger classes. The adult one-way cash fare for service between Beaumont and Century Park LRT station is $5. Discounts are presented through the purchase of tickets and particularly monthly passes. The proposed fare policies strike a necessary balance between promoting ridership and financial sustainability.

Because the proposed fare does not include access to ETS services, passengers travelling to other Edmonton destinations not served on the Beaumont route would need to pay an ETS fare.

Consequently, the proposed fares are generally higher than in Spruce Grove and Fort Saskatchewan but similar to Leduc. Given the higher purchasing power and median income of Beaumont residents, the study team feels a $5 cash fare is acceptable. Lowering the fares would likely make the revenue-to-cost ratio below what was observed by other similar intermunicipal transit services in the initial periods of service.

Public engagement is a key to success Further public consultation will be required to seek comments about the recommendations in this study. While the travel survey provided valuable insight related to the support and specific needs for a transit service, it is also important to seek input on the proposed routing design and service levels and fare policies, for example, to ensure that it suits the needs of prospective riders. This work is part of the larger marketing strategy geared to raise awareness of services, increase ridership, and promote a culture of transit use in the Town.

GENIVAR

66