Excessive Idling Bylaw

Excessive Idling Bylaw

Recommended Bylaw Provisions

Recommendation:
ThatTransportation and Public Works Committee recommend to City Council:
That Administration bring forward amendments to the Community Standards Bylaw 14600 based on the Excessive Idling provisions provided in Attachment 1 of the November 21, 2008, Deputy City Manager’s Office report 2008DCM046.

Report Summary

This report provides recommended excessive idling bylaw provisions that have been developed through research of other municipal bylaws and community consultation.

Previous Council/Committee Action

  • At the March 4, 2008, Transportation and Public Works Committee meeting, the following motions were passed:
  1. That the February 26, 2008, Asset Management and Public Works Department report 2008PW2596 be received for information.
  2. That a non-statutory public hearing be held on the Excessive-idling bylaw, at the November 4, 2008, Transportation and Public Works Committee meeting, prior to presentation of the bylaw to City Council.

Report

Bylaw Provisions

  • Attachment 1 provides proposed excessive idling bylaw provisions and exemptions, developed through a review of other municipal idling bylaws and community consultation.
  • The bylaw provisions would regulate vehicle idling (engine operating while a vehicle is not moving)to less than three consecutive minutes.
  • The scope of the amendments to the bylaw would be for all licensed motor vehicles (i.e. private and commercial) on public and private lands.
  • Recommended bylaw exemptions identified in Attachment 1 are included to allow for vehicle idling where required for safety, emergency, operational and because of cold temperatures.
  • The Vehicle Idling Control Directive and Work Instruction for the City’s bus fleet put restrictions that will meet or be more stringent than the proposed bylaw provisions.

Bylaw Enforcement

  • Administration will integrate enforcement of excessive idling restrictions into its current enforcement programs.
  • Municipal enforcement officers will rely on a citizen complainant to provide all the necessary evidence to lay a charge. No physical inspection will be undertaken, only verification ofinformation provided through a witness statement.The complainant will be required to attend court if the matter is contested.
  • This enforcement approach is similar to the current method of dealing with certain types of property noise complaints or other violations that are witnessed by individuals.
  • It is anticipated that enforcement of bylaw provisions would not begin until 2010, preceded by an awareness and education campaign in 2009.

2008 Excessive Idling Campaign

  • A $140,000 vehicle idling reduction campaign was conducted in 2008.
  • Two one-month long campaigns using the tag line “You hold the key … Be idle free” were conducted in the spring and fall, which included a media launch, billboard, bus-board and radio advertising as well as significant media pickup.
  • The key messages were to reduce ‘warm up’ idlingto 30 seconds and to turn off you engine if parked for more than 10 seconds.
  • Results of a post campaign telephone survey were that one in three Edmontonianssurveyed said they recalled hearing about the campaign, which is an acceptable result but below thecampaign target of three in four.
  • When asked what the maximum time a person should let their vehicles idle, those that recalled the campaign said 4 minutes while those that did not recall the campaign said 4.8 minutes, on average.
  • When asked what the maximum time required for winter warm-up of a vehicle, those that recalled the campaign said 5.4 minutes while those that did not recall the campaign said 7.2 minutes, on average.
  • Regarding direct observations of vehicle idling at a drive through ATM machine, while the average vehicle idling time slightly increased from pre to post campaign (1.73 to 2.13 minutes) the number of people that turned off their vehicles while in line increased from less than one percent in the spring to about four percent in the fall.

Policy

  • Excessive idling bylaw provisions are supported by Environmental Policy C512.

Focus Area

  • Excessive idling bylaw provisions will support the 10-year strategic goal to Preserve and Sustain Edmonton’s Environment.

Public Consultation

  • Excessive Idling Bylaw consultation was undertaken in accordance with Policy C513.
  • The Environmental Advisory Committee reviewed and provided their support for the consultation plan.
  • Attachment 3 provides the Consultation Summary report with the full report available on the City website.
  • The outcomes of the consultation process have strongly informed the Bylaw provisions that Administration are recommending.

Budget/Financial Implications

  • There are no financial implications in 2009 for the enforcement approach and bylaw awareness program put forward in this report. These components will be incorporated into existing programs.

Justification of Recommendations
Excessive idling bylaw provisions will reduce criteria air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles.

Attachments

  1. Proposed Amendments to the Community Standards Bylaw to include Excessive Idling Provisions
  2. Excessive Idling Bylaw Consultation Report

Background Information Available upon Request from the Department

  1. Excessive Idling Bylaw Consultation - Report Appendices
  2. City of Edmonton Municipal Fleet and Transit Idling Policies

Others Reviewing this Report

  • D. H. Edey, General Manager, Corporate Services Department
  • R. G.Klassen, General Manager, Planning and Development Department
  • R.Boutilier, General Manager, Transportation Department

Page 1 of 3

Attachment 1

Proposed Amendments to the Community Standards Bylaw to include Excessive Idling Provisions

Proposed Definitions

‘idle’ or ‘idling’ means the operation of the engine of a motor vehicle while the motor vehicle is not in motion;

Proposed Regulations

A person shall not cause, permit or allow a motor vehicle to idle for more than three consecutive minutes.

A person shall not cause, permit or allow a motor vehicle to idle for more than three minutes total in a 30 minute period.

Proposed Exceptions

Fire, police, medical services or other similar emergency motor vehicles while engaged in operational activities.

Motor vehicles assisting in emergency activities.

Motor vehicles in which the engine is used to operate auxiliary equipment that is essential to the basic function of the vehicle.

Motor vehicles containing equipment that must be operated inside or in association with the vehicle.

Motor vehicles idling in compliance with the manufacturer’s written directions concerning proper vehicle performance and proper vehicle safety.

Armoured motor vehicles in the course of being loaded or unloaded.

Motor vehicles using heating or refrigeration systems powered by the vehicle engine for the welfare or preservation of perishable cargo.

Motor vehicles in which proper ventilation system function is required to clear interior window surfaces of accumulated condensation, but only for the minimum period of time to allow safe visibility.

Motor vehicles idling where required for the purpose of servicing or repairing the vehicle.

Motor vehicles engaged in a parade, race or other event authorized by the City.

Motor vehicles operating solely on electric power or those idling without the use of an internal combustion engine.

Motor vehicles licensed to provide for hire transportation services to the public, but only when the outdoor temperature is less than 10 degrees above zero Celsius.

Motor vehicles idling when the outdoor temperature is less than 10 degrees below zero Celsius.

Proposed Evidentiary Clauses

In the absence of evidence to the contrary, if a motor vehicle is involved in an offence referred to in this Part the registered owner of that vehicle is deemed to be someone causing, permitting or allowing the idling of the vehicle.

In any prosecution for an offence under this Part evidence by a person of audible engine noise or visual observation of exhaust coming from a motor vehicle shall be considered prima facie evidence of engine operation.

Proposed Fine

The proposed specified fine is $250.00. Higher fines (up to the $10,000 maximum amount permitted by the Municipal Government Act) may be imposed by a court for repeat offenders.

Page 1 of 2Report: 2008DCM046 Attachment 1

Attachment 2

Public Consultation for the Limited Idling Bylaw – Final Report

November 14, 2008

INTRODUCTION

In December, 2007, Edmonton City Council asked administration to prepare an excessive idling bylaw for its consideration. Council agreed an awareness and education campaign should precede consideration of the bylaw and that the public should be consulted regarding the bylaw’s contents. The awareness and education campaign concluded in the fall of 2008.

In September, 2008, MarcommWorks, an Edmonton private consulting firm, was retained by the Office of the Environment and Energy to conduct the public consultation regarding the proposed bylaw. The scope of the consultation was to include any person interested in the operation of a personal or commercial vehicle within the boundaries of the City of Edmonton.

The main objective of the consultation was to gather feedback from Edmontonians regarding the proposed elements of an excessive idling bylaw. This input would be used in two ways:

  1. Assist the Office of the Environment and Energy and the Law Branch to draft the bylaw.
  2. Provide information to administration and City Council on the opinions of those who participated in the consultation.

METHODOLOGY

The public consultation approach was designed to ensure that those interested in excessive idling would have a reasonable opportunity to provide their thoughts, comments and suggestions. Opportunities for input included:

  • Two public meetings on October 20 and 27, 2008
  • Two industry stakeholder roundtables on November 5 and 7, 2008
  • An on-line questionnaire posted from October 18 to November 3, 2008 on the City of Edmonton’s website.
  • An invitation to provide written submissions, by mail or e-mail.

In addition to the above, stakeholders were informed of the opportunity to make a presentation at City Council’s Transportation and Public Works Committee non-statutory hearing on December 9, 2008. Various methods of communication were used to notify and encourage stakeholders to participate in the consultation including newspaper advertising, media stories, direct mail, and posting/promotion on the City of Edmonton’s website.

Prior to the consultation, an information backgrounder was prepared to provide people with a common understanding of the impacts of vehicle idling and options being considered for inclusion in the proposed bylaw. This backgrounder was posted on the City’s website, provided to those who attended face-to-face sessions and distributed to those receiving a direct mail invitation to provide input.

A total of 622 people participated in the consultation.

KEY FINDINGS

The following key findings reflect the collective input received from stakeholders via face-to-face consultation sessions, an on-line survey, written submissions and from telephone calls.

A significant majority of those who participated in the consultation want City Council to put an excessive idling bylaw in place. About 10% voiced their opinion that a bylaw was not needed.

Scope

  • There was majority agreement that the bylaw should encompass all types of vehicles and be in force on public and private property.

Special Conditions

  • Participants agreed that the health and safety of individuals should override the bylaw. However, most did not support idling simply to provide physical comfort.
  • Industry representatives advocated for the bylaw to recognize the operational needs of commercial vehicles. Public stakeholders supported this as long as it was for essential purposes.
  • Consultation participants were split on whether the bylaw should apply in all weather conditions. Those who felt there should be a temperature range could not agree on what that range should be. The largest minority supported suspension of the bylaw at -10o C or colder and +25o C or hotter.
  • Similarly, consultation participants were split on whether the bylaw should apply in all traffic conditions. Among those who felt there should be traffic considerations, most supported suspension of the bylaw for traffic congestion/traffic jams, parades and other special events.

Idling Restrictions

  • Opinion varied on an appropriate time restriction for idling at any one time but the largest minority supported three minutes. Many participants cautioned idling time restrictions need to be tempered against safe driving issues such as frosted windows.
  • Industry representatives indicated that most transportation companies or organizations with fleets were already voluntarily reducing idling time in order to conserve fuel and limit poor air quality, particularly in confined spaces.

Unoccupied Vehicles

  • The majority of participants agreed that the bylaw should not treat unoccupied vehicles differently. Those who wanted different rules largely supported a regulation that did not allow unoccupied vehicles to idle at all.

Vehicle Exemptions

  • Almost all participants favoured the exemption of vehicles that were engaged in protecting the health and safety of people. A significant majority also supported the exemption of vehicles that needed to run a motor to function properly. The blanket exemption of buses and taxis received minimal support.
  • Many people supported the principle that commercial and emergency vehicles not actively engaged in safety, health or operational activities should follow the same idling guidelines as other vehicles.

Enforcement

  • Most participants favoured active enforcement of the bylaw but cautioned this needed to be preceded or accompanied by a major educational effort. Industry representatives were concerned that they would be the focus of enforcement because they were “easy targets” for complaints and tickets.
  • The suggestion at one of the public consultation sessions that the city create idle-free zones and focus enforcement there received considerable support among participants in that session.

Page 1 of 3Report: 2008DCM046 Attachment 2