Calgary Public Transit II

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by eggbert

I would guess it's a shorter drive distance wise and definitely time wise for Cochrane commuters to go to Crowfoot instead of Royal Oak or Tuscany.

Ding ding ding, we have a winner!

Anyone who thinks it will be faster/easier for Cochranites to try to hit the Tuscany station, rather than Crowfoot, has never driven through RR/RO/Tuscany.

That being said: I've been thinking about this lately, and you know what IS going to happen? The non-reserved spots WILL be taken up by Cochranites. Guaranteed. Crowfoot is jam packed long before 7 at this point, so it's no longer a question of time/convenience. People will most certainly drive 10 minutes through these communities to obtain one of the ever-rarer "free" spots, if it means actually getting a spot.

Which of course is yet another reason I was against the whole reserved park-n-ride spots in the first place. Unintended consequences truly do suck.

[lubicon]

Tuscany Station, and the parking in Tuscany and Royal Oak was deliberately planned to have no access directly off Crowchild. It is to stop short cutting into the communities, and to funnell out of town traffic to the Crowfoot Station. As Freeweed and others have mentioned, time will tell I suppose as to whether this is a successful idea or not.

Plus, I am not sure access would be allowed anyway, with the proximity of the station to the Stoney Trail interchange.

[DizzyEdge]

I look at the issue with out of towners similar to people who live on the edge of the city. Some might argue that the LRT shouldn't even keep expanding, so as to not encourage sprawl.. But sprawl is likely to happen anyway unless you don't build roads too, and so not having LRT will simply cause the residents at the outer communities to just drive and clog the roads. In that case it's sort of a no brainer as not expanding the LRT will cause more issues than keeping it expanding. With out of towners you have the additional issue of them not paying tax for operations, but maybe what is needed there is not trying to prevent them from using it, but implementing a regional transit authority to make sure everyone is paying into the operations.

[Northski]

Not sure on the details but since business property taxes are much higher than residential rates its a net gain for Calgary to have people live outside the city but work in the city. St Albert has very few commercial business districts as a result it has to have much higher residential property taxes rates. St Albert losses out by having all its workers work in Edmonton.

http://www.stalbertgazette.com/article/2...ull-speed-ahead-for-economic-development

“Once the city can attract non-residential development and provide for future employment and housing needs, decreasing residential taxes will come naturally,” Boston said.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by RyLucky

I think this topic is more controversial than a lot of forumers take it for. Should CT service out-of-towners?

Transit operating budget is paid for by property taxes and user fees, and there is a limited passenger capacity during rush hour. This supports the notion that Calgarians should get first dibs on transit. The city also controls design and planning, so to an extent it is up to the city to decide whether it wants to make its system user-friendly to non-Calgarians. However, here are some counter arguments that in my opinion outweigh the notion of making transit only for Calgarians:
1) The majority of capital grants for transit infrastructure come from the province, not the city. That means that every Cochranite's income taxes helped build our Ctrain network.
2) Every person in a train is one less person in a car. Someone from Cochrane is currently able to use 15 lane-km of Calgary roads free of charge on their way to their downtown job, polluting the air and adding to the city's congestion the whole way. Might as well have them park at the city limits and get on a train.
3) Everyone has to pay user fees. The more people that ride the train, the closer user fees come to covering operating costs, REDUCING reliance on property tax subsidy.
4) It is good for the city to encourage a "transit culture" wherever it can. We want Cochranites to elect MPs that will support transit. We want fewer people to bring their cars downtown, instead interacting with their neighbours and adding to pedestrian environments. It's also good for the city to attract employees from wherever it can; more people buying food/entertainment/retail from within city limits is good for business.
5) There are two types of out of town transit users: one being those who commute from bedroom communities, and the other being those who come on business trips or as tourists. While I don't think anyone meant to argue that we should not encourage tourists to use transit, that is essentially what the above quote implies. We want to promote an image to the world as a city that makes getting around easy and safe. We should absolutely be accommodating to our guests (even if they don't pay property taxes).

Essentially, transit should be given every edge over driving that we can give it. I'm against fare zoning in Calgary (I don't care if a lot of cities do it). We should be encouraging "transit membership" for everyone - sell annual passes, discounted transit passes when you buy a car, incentives for employer mandatory passes at bulk discounts. Ok, now I'm getting off-topic, but my point is that if people from Cochrane want to ride transit, we should absolutely welcome them to do so. To paraphrase from Nenshi, having a transit system that is too popular is a good problem to have.

Good points

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

I look at the issue with out of towners similar to people who live on the edge of the city. Some might argue that the LRT shouldn't even keep expanding, so as to not encourage sprawl.. But sprawl is likely to happen anyway unless you don't build roads too, and so not having LRT will simply cause the residents at the outer communities to just drive and clog the roads. In that case it's sort of a no brainer as not expanding the LRT will cause more issues than keeping it short. With out of towners you have the additional issue of them not paying tax for operations, but maybe what is needed there is not trying to prevent them from using it, but implementing a regional transit authority to make sure everyone is paying into the operations.

This would help with integrating these communities into Calgary's transit system so as to provide a way for people to completely eliminate the need to drive from their commute. That said funding for projects should be determined by the usage if a project will be used primarily by the citizens of a small town there is no reason that capital funding from Calgary should support that initiative.

Further to all this I would argue that all transportation agencies (Transit, Roads, Pathways, etc.) be integrated into a single agency so as to ensure overall mobility rather than each one focusing on a single mode and attempting to win funding over any other mode. City Hall has been doing an ok job of this when it comes to transit and active modes, but roads has kinda been on the outside for a while now (I'm not saying that's bad). I believe a balanced approach with all modes in mind would help this city and most north american cities. I also believe that until cities have a stable predictable source of capital funding it's going to be hard to make a real difference in mobility regardless of how priorities are set.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

Further to all this I would argue that all transportation agencies (Transit, Roads, Pathways, etc.) be integrated into a single agency so as to ensure overall mobility rather than each one focusing on a single mode and attempting to win funding over any other mode. City Hall has been doing an ok job of this when it comes to transit and active modes, but roads has kinda been on the outside for a while now (I'm not saying that's bad). I believe a balanced approach with all modes in mind would help this city and most north american cities. I also believe that until cities have a stable predictable source of capital funding it's going to be hard to make a real difference in mobility regardless of how priorities are set.

This would be interesting, although I can imagine the battles. I would be interesting since people sometimes lament that fares only cover half of the operations cost of transit, but don't include in that calculation the reduced wear and tear on roads and the increased maintenance required to mitigate that, not to mention the reduced pressure to create costly new freeways and expand existing roads. If all modes of transport were in one agency they would be forced to get the real numbers on all of this.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

This would be interesting, although I can imagine the battles. I would be interesting since people sometimes lament that fares only cover half of the operations cost of transit, but don't include in that calculation the reduced wear and tear on roads and the increased maintenance required to mitigate that, not to mention the reduced pressure to create costly new freeways and expand existing roads. If all modes of transport were in one agency they would be forced to get the real numbers on all of this.

Then it becomes corridor planning rather than looking at how to expand roads or transit on their own to deal with demand, they would start looking at solutions to mobility within the corridor without a bias to one mode or another.

Take the Crowchild study, with a single agency you would have all modes represented maybe there would have be a train line included the corridor or dedicated bus lanes or a bus way.

In a single agency priority would be set on the basis of the number of users or amount of goods that it moves, and on that basis transit and truck only lanes would start popping up all around the city. Sure it would seem like a war on cars but you'd be hard pressed to argue against the numbers.

[Cruzer]

I guess the main point I'm trying to make, being a butt-hurt Scenic Acres resident who has already been shafted by access to the Crowfoot LRT save for a couple pedestrian access points... would like BETTER ACCESS to Tuscany Station and furthermore to the actual communities serving it, PLAINLY to AVOID any such future outrage brought to the table by poor planning and designing. I've already stated it, this type of "backwards thinking" needs to stop when we are a city sprawling out at full steam. Currently Tuscany stands to be the last station on the line right at City Limits. I can't predict the future nor do I know of any plans to extend the line, but I can surely tell City Limits will be further expanded, Crowfoot LRT already at max capacity for parking, any out-of-towners looking to use the LRT will not think to drive further down to Brentwood where parking is very available... They'll look to the closest "viable" solution being any such side street in RO/RR/Tuscany where they can snag a spot and hop on the train... SIMPLE AS THAT. I don't see how telling people from out-of-town that they're meant to use Crowfoot LRT because that's what it was built and designed for, will actually make them use Crowfoot LRT?

Anyways... Better access to LRT, even if it's just a kiss 'n' ride loop off the main arterial is my main beef..... the other being access to the communities in the most inconvenient of locations - but that beef will start cooking when the population starts to rise.
I get the idea of a community trying to be more communityish/neighbouresque rather than allowing more access and traffic, but it's these little things left out that contribute to overall HORRIBLE design quality that is very common and welcomed in Calgary...

[Cruzer]

I'm not sure if this discussion belongs in this thread or the Roads thread.... It is fairly related to transit however majority of the beef is directed to the road planning side of things along the transitway... Either way, I feel the topic should be touched on so..... Carry on

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by Cruzer

I guess the main point I'm trying to make, being a butt-hurt Scenic Acres resident who has already been shafted by access to the Crowfoot LRT save for a couple pedestrian access points... would like BETTER ACCESS to Tuscany Station and furthermore to the actual communities serving it, PLAINLY to AVOID any such future outrage brought to the table by poor planning and designing. I've already stated it, this type of "backwards thinking" needs to stop when we are a city sprawling out at full steam. Currently Tuscany stands to be the last station on the line right at City Limits. I can't predict the future nor do I know of any plans to extend the line, but I can surely tell City Limits will be further expanded, Crowfoot LRT already at max capacity for parking, any out-of-towners looking to use the LRT will not think to drive further down to Brentwood where parking is very available... They'll look to the closest "viable" solution being any such side street in RO/RR/Tuscany where they can snag a spot and hop on the train... SIMPLE AS THAT. I don't see how telling people from out-of-town that they're meant to use Crowfoot LRT because that's what it was built and designed for, will actually make them use Crowfoot LRT?

Anyways... Better access to LRT, even if it's just a kiss 'n' ride loop off the main arterial is my main beef..... the other being access to the communities in the most inconvenient of locations - but that beef will start cooking when the population starts to rise.
I get the idea of a community trying to be more communityish/neighbouresque rather than allowing more access and traffic, but it's these little things left out that contribute to overall HORRIBLE design quality that is very common and welcomed in Calgary...

How do you propose that you accommodation access to this K'n'R? Given that there are limits on the minimum distance between exits on the class of road (I'm not sure of the exact name) that is the ring road and Crowchild.

[lubicon]

Originally Posted by Cruzer

I guess the main point I'm trying to make, being a butt-hurt Scenic Acres resident who has already been shafted by access to the Crowfoot LRT save for a couple pedestrian access points... would like BETTER ACCESS to Tuscany Station and furthermore to the actual communities serving it, PLAINLY to AVOID any such future outrage brought to the table by poor planning and designing. I've already stated it, this type of "backwards thinking" needs to stop when we are a city sprawling out at full steam. Currently Tuscany stands to be the last station on the line right at City Limits. I can't predict the future nor do I know of any plans to extend the line, but I can surely tell City Limits will be further expanded, Crowfoot LRT already at max capacity for parking, any out-of-towners looking to use the LRT will not think to drive further down to Brentwood where parking is very available... They'll look to the closest "viable" solution being any such side street in RO/RR/Tuscany where they can snag a spot and hop on the train... SIMPLE AS THAT. I don't see how telling people from out-of-town that they're meant to use Crowfoot LRT because that's what it was built and designed for, will actually make them use Crowfoot LRT?

Anyways... Better access to LRT, even if it's just a kiss 'n' ride loop off the main arterial is my main beef..... the other being access to the communities in the most inconvenient of locations - but that beef will start cooking when the population starts to rise.
I get the idea of a community trying to be more communityish/neighbouresque rather than allowing more access and traffic, but it's these little things left out that contribute to overall HORRIBLE design quality that is very common and welcomed in Calgary...

That point got me thinking. Once Tuscany Station opens there would be no real point of anyone wanting to shortcut through Scenic Acres to get to Crowfoot Station. Really, it is mainly Tuscany and possible Silver Springs residents who might save time by doing so and once Tuscany is open you have probably eliminated the majority. Maybe the people of Scenic Acres should petition CT to convert the bus only access point and allow full access seeing as it will mainly be Scenic Acres residents who would be using that access point.

[Northski]

My feeling on park and ride fees is that the city should have charged a more market price for the lots. Basically charge whatever price is necessary so that the lots fill up around 9 am. This means that every lot would have to have a different price and even a different price depending on the time of year and which day of the week. Its a way of maximizing ridership and revenue since people who have good bus routes and who are a walk-able distance from the stations will choose those methods and people who have a bad bus routes will be able to pay for the right to park rather than have to park downtown if they can't wake up early.

The problem with the first trial of park and rides fees was that 3$ was too much for some lots (under utilization) and not enough for others (you had to pay but you weren't guaranteed a spot).

[Trogdor]

Instead of charging everyone the same rate for parking (ie monthly parking pass) why don't they use the lots to encourage more monthly parking passes. Sell two passes - one that gets you a bus pass and into a parkade (using swipe card access) and one that just gets you on the train/bus. Charge more (say $30-50/month) for the parkade access bus pass and then put a gate and a card reader at the parkade entrance (if the city could get a smart card system working). put an incentive around it to do with city lots (maybe free parking downtown after 6pm to try and encourage people to come back after work...)

for lots that are under utilized, the gates could only be in effect from 6-9am and then open the rest of the day. for high use lots, then gates could be in use throughout the day. this would help boost transit revenues (you could potentially sell more passes than parking stalls) and help encourage people to take the bus to the train stations.... as well as being administratively much simpler

[Cage]

Originally Posted by lubicon

That point got me thinking. Once Tuscany Station opens there would be no real point of anyone wanting to shortcut through Scenic Acres to get to Crowfoot Station. Really, it is mainly Tuscany and possible Silver Springs residents who might save time by doing so and once Tuscany is open you have probably eliminated the majority. Maybe the people of Scenic Acres should petition CT to convert the bus only access point and allow full access seeing as it will mainly be Scenic Acres residents who would be using that access point.

There would still be lots of reasons to shortcut through Scenic Acres - Crowfoot Station bus trap.
1) Tuscany Station will be PIA for anyone dropping off pax at ctrain and then going elsewhere. Main reason being that the driver would have to backtrack through Tuscany to get out of the community. Whereas Crowfoot will have access to Stoney, Crowchild, NoseHill.
2) IIRC there is only a provision for 200 stalls on the Tuscany side of the PNR. Parkers after 7am may still have to go tp Crowfoot.
3) Southern Scenic Acres residents will cut through their own community to get to Crowfoot shops, Arbour Lake, Crowchild and Stoney.
4) Artbour Lake residents would save 1-2 minutes using the Scenic Acres cut through vs going around Crowfoot Station.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by RyLucky

I'm just arguing that Cochranites should have a right to use the system ...

They can use the system. Suggesting otherwise is inaccurate. It isn't like there is a toll to enter Calgary.

Wait ... maybe there should be a toll to enter Calgary.

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by Northski

My feeling on park and ride fees is that the city should have charged a more market price for the lots. Basically charge whatever price is necessary so that the lots fill up around 9 am. This means that every lot would have to have a different price and even a different price depending on the time of year and which day of the week. Its a way of maximizing ridership and revenue since people who have good bus routes and who are a walk-able distance from the stations will choose those methods and people who have a bad bus routes will be able to pay for the right to park rather than have to park downtown if they can't wake up early.

The problem with the first trial of park and rides fees was that 3$ was too much for some lots (under utilization) and not enough for others (you had to pay but you weren't guaranteed a spot).

I basically agree with you. I get why a PNR is useful in a city like Calgary, but I still have a problem with them. The issue last year with the fees was that they were perceived as one more obstacle to prevent people from riding transit, especially those who are on-the-fence in their mode choice between driving and Ctrain (ie those who won't or can't bother taking the bus to the Ctrain station). In general, I think park and ride lots need to be thought of as something transient that could be redeveloped when there is demand for high-density. So yes, I agree that market should determine parking prices, but I'd further that to say that the market should determine what the land could be used for. Next to LRT stations, everything (including parking lots) should be zoned CC-XXX (a zoning type I just invented with absolutely no rules about anything except the most basic requirements for safety and emergency access).

I've mentioned this before, but I'm serious when I suggest that every parking lot, whether publically or privately owned, within 100m of an LRT station should be automatically for sale at property-assessed value to anyone who will develop it to a certain standard. If the owner is serious about retaining the land, they should have the choice of using the space for something other than parking or redeveloping into a multi-level parkade. Otherwise, they can take the money from the sale and buy land further from the LRT. Hard line, I know, but that's how you do TOD.

Originally Posted by suburbia

They can use the system. Suggesting otherwise is inaccurate. It isn't like there is a toll to enter Calgary.

Wait ... maybe there should be a toll to enter Calgary.

Lol.

[DizzyEdge]

Obviously Calgary just needs to annex every municipality within a 100km of our borders

[frinkprof]

Originally Posted by RyLucky

1) The majority of capital grants for transit infrastructure come from the province, not the city. That means that every Cochranite's income taxes helped build our Ctrain network.

I have to comment on this one as it is only part of the story and I've seen it trotted out quite a few times by the parasite town dwellers.

The provincial taxes (whether it be of a random person living in Cochrane, Calgary, Oyen or High Level) also go pretty well proportionally towards projects in Cochrane, Chestermere and MD of Rockyview too. Highways, hospitals, clinics, schools, etc. If you live in Calgary, you have a similar claim to a school in Medicine Hat or a hospital in Cold Lake.

Now, there are some people from Calgary that will go to emergency rooms in Okotoks due to shorter wait times, but the argument is still valid that, on balance, more people from the nearby parasite towns use the provincially-funded resources of the city on an ongoing basis than the other way around. By their very nature, a large portion of the residents of "bedroom communities" have their livelihoods depend on the large municipality whereas what real reason does the average Calgarian have to go to Crossfield or Chestermere for 5 or more days a week?

Hell, Calgary has it lucky in this regard with the MSI funding vis-a-vis Edmonton, where it gets less provincial money due to having much more of the metropolitan population living outside the municipal border. They are expected to provide regional amenities such as LRT and internal road networks to places that will not use their corresponding and proportional provincial funds to contribute to those projects.

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

I have to comment on this one as it is only part of the story and I've seen it trotted out quite a few times by the parasite town dwellers.

The provincial taxes (whether it be of a random person living in Cochrane, Calgary, Oyen or High Level) also go pretty well proportionally towards projects in Cochrane, Chestermere and MD of Rockyview too. Highways, hospitals, clinics, schools, etc. If you live in Calgary, you have a similar claim to a school in Medicine Hat or a hospital in Cold Lake.

Now, there are some people from Calgary that will go to emergency rooms in Okotoks due to shorter wait times, but the argument is still valid that, on balance, more people from the nearby parasite towns use the provincially-funded resources of the city on an ongoing basis than the other way around. By their very nature, a large portion of the residents of "bedroom communities" have their livelihoods depend on the large municipality whereas what real reason does the average Calgarian have to go to Crossfield or Chestermere for 5 or more days a week?

Hell, Calgary has it lucky in this regard with the MSI funding vis-a-vis Edmonton, where it gets less provincial money due to having much more of the metropolitan population living outside the municipal border. They are expected to provide regional amenities such as LRT and internal road networks to places that will not use their corresponding and proportional provincial funds to contribute to those projects.

You're right that only Calgary residents have a claim to city owned infrastructure but I'm under the impression that we are probably coming out a head when residents of other municipalities use the LRT to commute to downtown Calgary. If the capital expense of the LRT was going to be spent either way, then that only leaves operational expenses. I would assume that the vast majority of out of town Calgary Transit customers are of the single LRT ride variety with no transfers. With three dollar fares and operational costs of, last I heard, less than thirty cents a ride, we would seem to be coming out well ahead. That pretty much just leaves the cost of providing parking and I'd assume empty land in Crowfoot is worth considerably less than empty land at more central stations.

There would also be the more complex issue of how out of town residents who work in Calgary are probably a net financial benefit to the city. Since residential property taxes fail to cover the costs of servicing residents but commercial property taxes more than cover the costs of servicing the business, then anything that limits our resident population while increasing our employment population is probably a net positive.

The only real problem I can see is the capacity strain from out of town residents that might force additional capital spending that, as you've outlined, is Calgary money whether it comes from the province or not. It probably isn't a major issue today when capacity increases mean the odd additional LRV and four car platforms but in the future, as the proportion of the metro population outside of the city increases and boosting capacity means building the 8 Ave Subway, it could be a much bigger deal.

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

I have to comment on this one as it is only part of the story and I've seen it trotted out quite a few times by the parasite town dwellers.

The provincial taxes (whether it be of a random person living in Cochrane, Calgary, Oyen or High Level) also go pretty well proportionally towards projects in Cochrane, Chestermere and MD of Rockyview too. Highways, hospitals, clinics, schools, etc. If you live in Calgary, you have a similar claim to a school in Medicine Hat or a hospital in Cold Lake.

Now, there are some people from Calgary that will go to emergency rooms in Okotoks due to shorter wait times, but the argument is still valid that, on balance, more people from the nearby parasite towns use the provincially-funded resources of the city on an ongoing basis than the other way around. By their very nature, a large portion of the residents of "bedroom communities" have their livelihoods depend on the large municipality whereas what real reason does the average Calgarian have to go to Crossfield or Chestermere for 5 or more days a week?

Hell, Calgary has it lucky in this regard with the MSI funding vis-a-vis Edmonton, where it gets less provincial money due to having much more of the metropolitan population living outside the municipal border. They are expected to provide regional amenities such as LRT and internal road networks to places that will not use their corresponding and proportional provincial funds to contribute to those projects.

You're right. Cochranites rely on Calgary's infrastructure more than Calgary relies on Cochrane's infrastructure. The same could be said about how people from the Crowfoot area rely on Kensington/sunnyside's infrastructure more than the other way around. I believe the solution is to invest disproportionately high where the dollars will bring greatest value. Regardless, Cochrane is good for Calgary, just as Crowfoot is good for Kensington. Therefore the solution is to invest disproportionately rather than to limit access.