Calgary Public Transit II

[MalcolmTucker]

It is a big rigamarole. http://www.calgarytransit.com/html/low_monthly_income_pass.html

[count0]

Originally Posted by mellbell416

I know that we have discussed inner city bus routes before, and this article lends sopport for the idea along with a proposal to toffer discounts based on means, not age..

http://www.calgaryherald.com/opinion/edi...it+should+implemented/9522096/story.html

Price discrimination based on age (student/senior) is just an indirect way to price discriminate based on means since those groups typically have low incomes (note that I use the word discriminate in the marketing sense, without negetive cannotations). I suspect it's just easier to do, because otherwise you would need people to submit proof of income or eligibility whenever they buy a bus pass.

[MalcolmTucker]

Senior's as a group have the lowest poverty rates. Thinking they are disadvantaged compared to average is a holdover from before we created minimum annual incomes for seniors.

That being said, there would still be seniors who qualify for a low income pass.

[UofC.engineer]

Disappointing news, check out page 33 of the report. The percent of auto ridership has increased, we are losing the war against cars(jking )

http://www.calgary.ca/_layouts/cocis/Dir...ing-report-2013-12.pdf&noredirect=1&sf=1

[Fuzz]

If they have any hope of getting 20% more cars off the road, they are going to have to do MUCH better at transit. They are looking at doubling transit use.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by UofC.engineer

Disappointing news, check out page 33 of the report. The percent of auto ridership has increased, we are losing the war against cars(jking )

http://www.calgary.ca/_layouts/cocis/Dir...ing-report-2013-12.pdf&noredirect=1&sf=1

Our growth in the inner city is off to a start, albeit slow. The decline in the out-ring suburbs (post-1960s from my looking at how they distinguish inner city vs established communities) is pretty significant, but the metrics they use are confusing because they don't illustrate population change within those communities, but a percentage of total city growth they represent.

Now I am going to bitch about metrics:

I don't like the housing/transportation balance metric, because it really is an input metric, and doesn't measure outcomes, which should be a multiple evaluation analysis of average commute time, daily average household trip generation and average household transportation spending. Having a balance of jobs and housing in each quandrant does not necessarily mean reduced travel times.

Second: always, always, always measure things per capita. I know transit use is increasing, but is it increasing faster than population growth? Without a per capita measurement, we have no idea.

And again, increasing transit service hours per capita just says we are doing more stuff, but doesn't say anything about what that accomplishes. It's easy to measure transit service hours, but that doesn't mean it is important. Isn't the ideal to get as much transit usage for the least amount of service hours?

Finally, regarding the point above, yes we are losing transit ridership, but not for the commute. Again, what this metric doesn't show us is the average number of trips per household. Is it increasing? If so, maybe transit use is staying steady, but car-dependent households are just making more trips. They have the numbers, why not report them?

Every person involved in this report needs a quick lesson on the logic model. The metrics are pretty bad.

[ByeByeBaby]

Originally Posted by fusili

Our growth in the inner city is off to a start, albeit slow. The decline in the out-ring suburbs (post-1960s from my looking at how they distinguish inner city vs established communities) is pretty significant, but the metrics they use are confusing because they don't illustrate population change within those communities, but a percentage of total city growth they represent.

Now I am going to bitch about metrics:

I don't like the housing/transportation balance metric, because it really is an input metric, and doesn't measure outcomes, which should be a multiple evaluation analysis of average commute time, daily average household trip generation and average household transportation spending. Having a balance of jobs and housing in each quandrant does not necessarily mean reduced travel times.

Second: always, always, always measure things per capita. I know transit use is increasing, but is it increasing faster than population growth? Without a per capita measurement, we have no idea.

And again, increasing transit service hours per capita just says we are doing more stuff, but doesn't say anything about what that accomplishes. It's easy to measure transit service hours, but that doesn't mean it is important. Isn't the ideal to get as much transit usage for the least amount of service hours?

Finally, regarding the point above, yes we are losing transit ridership, but not for the commute. Again, what this metric doesn't show us is the average number of trips per household. Is it increasing? If so, maybe transit use is staying steady, but car-dependent households are just making more trips. They have the numbers, why not report them?

Every person involved in this report needs a quick lesson on the logic model. The metrics are pretty bad.

It's very interesting that there are 13 metrics in this report, with seven moving in a positive direction. However, there is only one output metric - transportation mode split - and it is moving in a negative direction. Most of the other metrics are inputs that should be leading to improved sustainability, but they lead to improved sustainability by reducing auto travel.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by ByeByeBaby

It's very interesting that there are 13 metrics in this report, with seven moving in a positive direction. However, there is only one output metric - transportation mode split - and it is moving in a negative direction. Most of the other metrics are inputs that should be leading to improved sustainability, but they lead to improved sustainability by reducing auto travel.

Exactly. What most of these metrics are trying to show is reduced energy consumption (and cost), especially from transport. Others are trying to show improved quality of life. But there is not a single measure of energy consumption on transportation, or average household spending on transportation. So basically, this report is what would be the first half of any good evaluation report would be. They missed the whole outputs, and more importantly the impacts/outcomes.

Here is an example: Transit. Input: Money spent on labour, capital, maintenance, etc. Activity: Service hours per capita. Output: Number of trips (commuting/off-peak) Impact(s): Average household travel expenditures/Average household commute time/Average energy use for transportation per capita/Self-reported satisfaction with mobility.

[J-D]

Originally Posted by UofC.engineer

Disappointing news, check out page 33 of the report. The percent of auto ridership has increased, we are losing the war against cars(jking )

http://www.calgary.ca/_layouts/cocis/Dir...ing-report-2013-12.pdf&noredirect=1&sf=1

That does measure all trips though. I know that even my coworkers who take transit to work every day and are quite happy with it all own cars and use them for any other purpose outside of commuting. I still do think some headway is being made - especially since 2011.

[holhm22]

New info on North Central LRT: http://www.calgarytransit.com/pdf/NCLRT_StudyBackgrounder%20March%202014.pdf

[Fuzz]

That's a very quick timeline, though I wonder, is the spring "short list route options" what we have already seen? If so its seams wildly inadequate since they really didn't present any viable planning for how to implement the route. It seams implementation plans would be very important to deciding on a final route.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by holhm22

New info on North Central LRT: http://www.calgarytransit.com/pdf/NCLRT_StudyBackgrounder%20March%202014.pdf

Originally Posted by Fuzz

That's a very quick timeline, though I wonder, is the spring "short list route options" what we have already seen? If so its seams wildly inadequate since they really didn't present any viable planning for how to implement the route. It seams implementation plans would be very important to deciding on a final route.

We saw the short list for the section north of 16th, but they still have to develop a short list for routes from DT to 16th.

What are you hoping for regarding implementation plans? Surface, below grade, etc.? Or are you looking for outcomes from a detailed engineering plan, like renderings of stations, ROW's, fly throughs, etc.?

[Fuzz]

I think it is mostly the DT to 16th ave section they need to have all the options in a lot of detail. North of that it isn't nearly as important.

[H.E.Pennypacker]

Originally Posted by holhm22

New info on North Central LRT: http://www.calgarytransit.com/pdf/NCLRT_StudyBackgrounder%20March%202014.pdf

Wow so they're aiming to have the entire route planned out and approved from council by years end??

[ByeByeBaby]

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

We saw the short list for the section north of 16th, but they still have to develop a short list for routes from DT to 16th.

What are you hoping for regarding implementation plans? Surface, below grade, etc.? Or are you looking for outcomes from a detailed engineering plan, like renderings of stations, ROW's, fly throughs, etc.?

There are two possible downtown alignments, connecting to the two possible north-of-16th alignments; four options seems a pretty short list to me.

The downtown alignments in the short list are:

• Option 1 (page 5.22 of the report) is a tunnel running from 16th Ave or so all the way through downtown; it is like the proposed SELRT tunnel to Eau Claire, except with the tunnel going more at an angle; stops are at Riverfront/2nd St, 4th Ave/2nd St, 7th Ave/Centre St, 10th Ave/1st St E and 4th St SE.
• Option 3A (page 5.23) would have the LRT come down the Centre Street Bridge at grade, turn on 3rd Ave and enter a tunnel down 1st St W, with stops at 4th Ave/1st St W, 7th Ave/1st St W, 10th Ave/1st St E and 4th St SE.

The report is a pretty confusing document, though, so it's easy to miss. Skip the entire workshop chapter; it's not really relevant.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by ByeByeBaby

There are two possible downtown alignments, connecting to the two possible north-of-16th alignments; four options seems a pretty short list to me.

The downtown alignments in the short list are:

• Option 1 (page 5.22 of the report) is a tunnel running from 16th Ave or so all the way through downtown; it is like the proposed SELRT tunnel to Eau Claire, except with the tunnel going more at an angle; stops are at Riverfront/2nd St, 4th Ave/2nd St, 7th Ave/Centre St, 10th Ave/1st St E and 4th St SE.
• Option 3A (page 5.23) would have the LRT come down the Centre Street Bridge at grade, turn on 3rd Ave and enter a tunnel down 1st St W, with stops at 4th Ave/1st St W, 7th Ave/1st St W, 10th Ave/1st St E and 4th St SE.

The report is a pretty confusing document, though, so it's easy to miss. Skip the entire workshop chapter; it's not really relevant.

From my reading the section from the river to 16th still had more study required, but you are correct that, that report and the north of 16th report impose restrictions on the options in the Bow river to 16th report to the two options you listed.

I suppose one could argue that at grade down Edmonton trail could be considered too. I suspect we'll see similar changes as occurred on the westlrt with this leg and we'll end up with a trenched/buried line till 40th or Mcknight.

[Fuzz]

I think ideally the line needs to run as close to the centre of the city as possible. If it skirts up the east side, you are going to have loads of people needing to transfer onto the red or blue line onto and off of already packed trains. By keeping it farther west, it will be more likely people will walk to it. Ideally closer to 3rd st w.

[H.E.Pennypacker]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I think ideally the line needs to run as close to the centre of the city as possible. If it skirts up the east side, you are going to have loads of people needing to transfer onto the red or blue line onto and off of already packed trains. By keeping it farther west, it will be more likely people will walk to it. Ideally closer to 3rd st w.

Agreed .. I hope within their decision they account somehow for a large central LRT station between the at grade 7th Ave line, the future 8th Ave subway, and the Green line for a connections and transfers

One central station for the LRT hub in the core would be an awesome way to bring the entire network together

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I think ideally the line needs to run as close to the centre of the city as possible. If it skirts up the east side, you are going to have loads of people needing to transfer onto the red or blue line onto and off of already packed trains. By keeping it farther west, it will be more likely people will walk to it. Ideally closer to 3rd st w.

I agree, in Centre City it should be on/under 2nd/3rd st and align with Centre st from around 12th Ave N, this equalizes the catchment on either side of the line.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by H.E.Pennypacker

Agreed .. I hope within their decision they account somehow for a large central LRT station between the at grade 7th Ave line, the future 8th Ave subway, and the Green line for a connections and transfers

One central station for the LRT hub in the core would be an awesome way to bring the entire network together

Agreed, to bad it'll be primarily underground, preventing us from having a grand station.