Presented with some graphic numbers and dire service scenarios, Edmonton city council’s urban planning committee kicked off its transit funding brainstorming Tuesday with three scenarios to choose from as presented by the Edmonton Transit Service.
Councillors voted not to kick the can down the road. This time, no short-changing transit.
Sarah Feldman, director of transit planning, ridership and revenue, presented a report requested in 2024 to outline bus renewal needs to maintain current transit service levels through 2030, and the service impacts that would occur if the minimum requirement isn’t met.
The ETS conventional bus fleet consists of 983 buses, including 879 40-foot buses.
There is a smaller number of larger, 60-foot articulated buses, as well as smaller 30-foot buses for specific service needs.
“Fleet renewal is a driver of service reliability. A younger fleet will experience fewer issues with vehicles breaking down and running late. An older fleet also requires more time in the garage for maintenance and repairs, which means less time on the road for delivering service,” Feldman said.
The North American average for retiring 40-foot buses is 15.1 years, with 81 per cent of these buses adhering to a 12-year standard.
“In Edmonton, we are currently retiring buses at 24 years, and currently, more than half of the bus fleet is rated in poor condition,” Feldman said.
The current fleet renewal plan is based on conventional 40-foot buses getting midlife refurbishment, a mechanical makeover around the nine-year mark.
“This helps us to maintain a longer useful life,” she said.
Over the last 17 years, ETS has consistently replaced an average of 48 conventional buses per year, with some exceptions — a large buy in 2007 and 2009 with 355 buses purchased, representing more than one-third of the fleet.
“When we buy buses in big numbers like this at once, it puts pressure on future budgets to maintain that same level during replacement, which is what we’re seeing now with those bus orders,” Feldman said.
In 2023, ETS started a “second life extension program,” putting buses on life support.
In the first option, where ETS can’t meet minimum requirements, there are immediate service impacts. All capital funding goes to the midlife program. Without bus replacements, the city would be forced to remove 100 of the 40-foot buses from the fleet, retiring them in 2027.
“That would mean a reduction of 331,000 annual service hours, which is the equivalent of 13 per cent of total conventional transit service,” Feldman said.
“We would also need to remove all of the 30-foot buses, which means that several community bus routes must be canceled, such as routes to travel on private property of commercial centres and seniors facilities. These routes can only operate with a smaller bus as they travel in more constrained areas with tight turning movements and pavement structures that can’t accommodate a bigger bus,” Feldman said.
In Scenario 2, the minimum renewal required to maintain current service levels, the city would keep the midlife program, layer in the replacement of 100 40-foot buses, all 49 of the 30-foot buses and 19 DATS buses.
“In this scenario, half the bus fleet remains more than 20 years old, which means there is still a continued risk of buses failing while in service, which could impact daily service operations and impact reliable service for transit riders,” Feldman said.
That option. would push some renewal challenges into the next budget cycle, she said.
“Specifically, while we could sustain 25 buses per year from 2027 through 2032, the number would need to increase to 50 buses per year from 2033 through 2036 to avoid service reductions,” she said.
The final scenario addresses bus renewal pressure in the upcoming budget cycle.
The city would replace 75 of the 40-foot buses over four years, for 300 buses.
Like Scenario 2, it includes the replacement of the 30-foot buses and 19 DATS buses, but eliminates the “life support” second midlife extension program introduced in 2023, with that funding going into the first midlife program.
“We have a comprehensive fleet plan, and we are focused on effective fleet management to maintain a state of good repair,” Feldman said.
Inflation has taken a nasty bite out of what the city can do with tax dollars. In 2012, a bus cost about $400,000. In 2026, that cost has soared to $1.1 million.
Emily Stremel is chair of the volunteer-driven non-profit Edmonton Transit Riders.
Inflationary pressures won’t relent, she said.
“Buses will be more expensive in the next budget cycle. In 2031 families will have to navigate transportation alternatives,” Stremel said.
A transit rider himself, Ward papastew Coun. Michael Janz said he favoured supporting transit.
“We are marching towards economic ruin. We’re marching towards higher property tax increases in perpetuity,” said Janz, saying the city is still bringing new neighbourhoods online and not talking about the cost of growth, when it should be flipping the pyramid on its head with recommendations for housing and transportation choices with better transit options — and getting more help from the federal government.
“Public transit must be the base of how we think about city building, how we think about saving money, how we think about keeping money in the local economy,” he said.
Mayor Andrew Knack moved for an unfunded capital profile for the targeted renewal scenario for consideration during the 2027 to 2030 budget discussions.
“We have a $1.5 billion renewal deficit. We only have $1.37 billion available to us. Even if we spent every penny in this next four-year budget on renewal, that still puts us a little short of where we need to be. And I expect there will be some limited growth in the next four-year budget, but this is not the area that I think we sacrifice on. There will have to be some areas where we sacrifice on,” Knack said.
“We’re going to have to kick the can down the road on something in this next four-year budget. But I don’t think it should likely be our bus fleet, which is desperately needed, and so that’s why I wanted to provide this motion.”
But why no Scenario 4?
“I’m just wondering why we didn’t see like a full costed right-sizing to the system as an option,” asked Coun. Aaron Paquette, pointing out that even Scenario 3 is not a full fix.
“We understand the fiscal constraints and didn’t feel that would be a realistic scenario to put forward,” Feldman responded.
Related
Bookmark our website and support our journalism: Don’t miss the news you need to know — add EdmontonJournal.com and EdmontonSun.com to your bookmarks and sign up for our newsletters.
You can also support our journalism by becoming a digital subscriber. Subscribers gain unlimited access to The Edmonton Journal, Edmonton Sun, National Post and 13 other Canadian news sites. The Edmonton Journal | The Edmonton Sun