Calgary Public Transit II

[VIce]

Here's hopeing the BlackBerry side-load doesn't break it all terribly.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by VIce

Here's hopeing the BlackBerry side-load doesn't break it all terribly.

Here's hoping for an android app...

[DizzyEdge]

Here's hoping for a Blackberry Bold app!








*crickets*

[Ramsayfarian]

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

Here's hoping for an android app...

Knowing CTS, I'm sure it will be only released on the Palm O/S. I'm hoping they tie it in with Wolfram Alpha and it will work like their planes overhead command.

[VIce]

Originally Posted by Ramsayfarian

Knowing CTS, I'm sure it will be only released on the Palm O/S. I'm hoping they tie it in with Wolfram Alpha and it will work like their planes overhead command.

WolframAlpha integration into Mathematica is the best for random curiosity driven nonsense.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by Ramsayfarian

Knowing CTS, I'm sure it will be only released on the Palm O/S. I'm hoping they tie it in with Wolfram Alpha and it will work like their planes overhead command.

Are we talking the original Palm OS or WebOS here?

[MalcolmTucker]

There are probably enough Palm Pres sitting somewhere to give a free one to every CT user. Connect them with free Shaw WiFi and we are on the way to the race.

Or strap one to each bus stop, with a solar panel to show next stop times.

[sim]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

I am extremely confident in my understanding and seek your approval of precisely nothing.



No, in this too I am also very comfortable. I just don't believe that land use and transportation are weapons to be used by eccentric minorities to impose their will on the public at large.



If you seriously believe that if the role of Centre Street as a vehicle and transit corridor was performed by some other more suitable road that Centre Street would be a less likely alternative you occupy a head space unreachable to most of us. Centre Street is too many things to be favoured to serve only one of them poorly.



Gridlock wasn't theoretical before the Glenmore interchange was built.

And since vehicles are how most people choose to move about the world that preference should be reflected in processes and planning. I realize you reject that on a deeply visceral level, but that's just the world we live in. Moving vehicles efficiently is a noble goal. If you have to strive to make driving terrible to make transit appealing, your failing on the transit side of the equation. (Edit: for the record I don't believe that is what Calgary has done.) Driving is not a vice, sin or moral failing. It is the primary way that people navigate their world and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that or that preference being reflected by government and society. If you make yourself tone deaf to that, you aren't going to find many looking to you for solutions.



And as I have always said I wear the scorn of the likes of you and your planning fad driven philosophy as a badge of honour.

To other posters on the thread, I apologize.

I know you hate facts, but assuming by preference you mean what people actually do, you better check the global mode share again. But you hate facts or knowledge. If you don't already know it, then it can't be true.

If by preference you mean how people would actually like to move around, then I suppose we better start a teleportation lobby - you know, derived demand and all. Nope, you don't know.

But since I don't aim to twist and or put words in your mouth, you likely mean what people realistically aspire to. The very short answer has already been addressed by another poster, but individual aspirations are not always societally optimal in terms of the environment, economics or even social structure, and those aspirations come at a cost. Costs drive preferences, because that's reality. I hope that head space was reachable for you.

You man or may not care about my approval, and because we want to be exceedingly childish, I just might not care if you care about my approval. That's why we both continue to post right? And for the record, you not "caring" about my approval doesn't make you any less wrong.

Call me whatever you want, and be childish about it some more: California is actively removing LOS from being a performance indicator that dictates infrastructure requirements. Even Phoenix has approved a Complete Streets ordinance. This city too is placing less and less stress on LOS among other things. Change will obviously be slow, but it's also just the beginning.

But I won't mention Europe because, and I'll withhold the sarcasm, you seemingly know nothing about it and write it off, well, because you write it off. What would be the point. Same goes for some Asian and South American jurisdictions. Wouldn't want to learn from them.

Honestly, it's actually impossible to have a real and non-childish discussion with you. If you disagreed the first time, learn how to approach that and state why you disagree or ask why I might disagree without trying to impose on to me, on my behalf, a supposed agenda that you would like me to have.

If you would really like to know it, it happens to be the truth, especially when it comes to transportation.

For the record, I actually believe you make some valid points in this thread, but you wouldn't dare believe someone else (even if more qualified) might make the same.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

Even when downtown Calgary was not flourishing the issues were much the same. There is really no level of economic activity in which this city won't exceed the road and parking capacity into the core.

It is also true that until fairly recently downtown Calgary was generally affordable. There was always good but not great office space to be had downtown. Now unless you want to hop between irregular subleases or sign a headlease with a demolition clause in a C building, or on a Plus 15 level with constant "bathroom issues" the deals just aren't out there.

So high lease rates are a sign of failure? There is little affordable office space in the downtown, because it is so ridiculously desirable. You're falling into the Yogi Berra "no-one goes to that restaurant anymore, it is always full" line of argument.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by fusili

So high lease rates are a sign of failure? There is little affordable office space in the downtown, because it is so ridiculously desirable. You're falling into the Yogi Berra "no-one goes to that restaurant anymore, it is always full" line of argument.

It isn't a sign of failure, just a sign of change. The same degree of business centralization just won't be achievable as it once was when many businesses just can't afford it or justify it.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by sim

I know you hate facts, but assuming by preference you mean what people actually do, you better check the global mode share again.

I don't hate facts. It's just that some are inherently irrelevant in the scope we operate.

If by preference you mean how people would actually like to move around, then I suppose we better start a teleportation lobby - you know, derived demand and all. Nope, you don't know.

There are roughly three and a half million vehicle registrations in Alberta and growing. There are precisely zero teleporters. You just have to deal with that.

The very short answer has already been addressed by another poster, but individual aspirations are not always societally optimal in terms of the environment, economics or even social structure, and those aspirations come at a cost. Costs drive preferences, because that's reality. I hope that head space was reachable for you.

That doesn't really matter. Very few laws, policies or preferences result in any sort of equilibrium. But people, even ones you think are stupid, still get to vote and shape opinion.

And for the record, you not "caring" about my approval doesn't make you any less wrong.

And I will again reiterate I am extremely comfortable in my positions as shaped by my education and experience.

Call me whatever you want, and be childish about it some more: California is actively removing LOS from being a performance indicator that dictates infrastructure requirements.

I don't even have a problem with that. (Although I haven't read anything on the subject more recent than last fall.) But that doesn't mean that a proposal that is the worst possible of all alternatives will somehow be elevated in the process by "virtue" of screwing traffic. There is a lot of space between something being somewhat detrimental to traffic flow and the clusterfuck that Centre Street would be for all users in this scenario, including transit.

Even Phoenix has approved a Complete Streets ordinance. This city too is placing less and less stress on LOS among other things. Change will obviously be slow, but it's also just the beginning.

That is also fine. But Phoenix also has that luxury by way of building freeways. We have made ordinary surface streets indispensable to vehicle traffic.

Same goes for some Asian and South American jurisdictions. Wouldn't want to learn from them.

It might sound just a little, or a lot obnoxious. But the situations in countries that spent most of the 20th Century in pre-industrial poverty and or under dictatorship just might not have developed in a way that much applicable to our circumstances.

For the record, I actually believe you make some valid points in this thread, but you wouldn't dare believe someone else (even if more qualified) might make the same.

I find most people here make mostly valid points. Your's however I generally find to be highly theoretical, deeply ideological and with little regard to how they would relate to this city all wrapped up in a delivery so aloof and alienating that it would make Ezra Levant cringe.

Every generation there is a new cohort in every field who believe that they have uniquely figured things out in a way no one has before, yet believe it is so mind numbingly simple that the only reason your predecessors didn't get it was because they were stupid or backwards. When indeed these are rarely new ideas, their implications fairly well understood and recognized.

However the kids, for whom their only audience for their work product up to that point has been an echo chamber of like-minded peers and professors step out into the world with an evangelical zeal come into conflict with battle grizzled veterans, who regardless of their own believes are have developed a pretty solid grasp of what is and isn't possible within the system and community in which they work.

Take the NCLRT corridor review. The statement that the possible at-grade NCLRT alignments aren't suitable isn't based on whether or not in isolation the identified requirements are technically possible. It is whether they're acceptable to that vaster audience of bureaucrats, decision makers and politicians. Just because people who absolutely relish the possibility of depriving decedent motorists of traffic lanes and find the bill of materials acceptable doesn't mean that others will share that opinion (no matter how "right" you insist you are) or believe the outcome is worth the combined externalities and cost.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

Take the NCLRT corridor review. The statement that the possible at-grade NCLRT alignments aren't suitable isn't based on whether or not in isolation the identified requirements are technically possible. It is whether they're acceptable to that vaster audience of bureaucrats, decision makers and politicians. Just because people who absolutely relish the possibility of depriving decedent motorists of traffic lanes and find the bill of materials acceptable doesn't mean that others will share that opinion (no matter how "right" you insist you are) or believe the outcome is worth the combined externalities and cost.

This is true. And to ignore it would be at everyone's peril. Though having a detailed review of the trade-offs of at-grade means that the extra costs can be weighed against the benefits.

[sim]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

I don't hate facts. It's just that some are inherently irrelevant in the scope we operate.



There are roughly three and a half million vehicle registrations in Alberta and growing. There are precisely zero teleporters. You just have to deal with that.

So instead of the world as you said earlier, you've conveniently changed it to Alberta...

That doesn't really matter. Very few laws, policies or preferences result in any sort of equilibrium. But people, even ones you think are stupid, still get to vote and shape opinion.

Again, I've never said otherwise.

And I will again reiterate I am extremely comfortable in my positions as shaped by my education and experience.


I don't even have a problem with that. (Although I haven't read anything on the subject more recent than last fall.) But that doesn't mean that a proposal that is the worst possible of all alternatives will somehow be elevated in the process by "virtue" of screwing traffic. There is a lot of space between something being somewhat detrimental to traffic flow and the clusterfuck that Centre Street would be for all users in this scenario, including transit.

This is where I must reiterate, I have my doubts about surface LRT and have never said that is the solution.

That is also fine. But Phoenix also has that luxury by way of building freeways. We have made ordinary surface streets indispensable to vehicle traffic.


It might sound just a little, or a lot obnoxious. But the situations in countries that spent most of the 20th Century in pre-industrial poverty and or under dictatorship just might not have developed in a way that much applicable to our circumstances.

It's not obnoxious. Your finally posting something that's approachable and is in a roundabout way, what my original point was.

I get that. I understand that. I've been, lived, studied and worked in various parts of the world. I get it, whether you think so or not. I might just have a broader perspective than... well...

My point was, and to go right back to the beginning, that had Calgary not developed in the way that it did (including the, what you would presumably regard as, small amount of freeways) the feasibility of now implementing anything on Centre St, whether true BRT, Streetcar, surface LRT, Subway would be greater, and not the opposite way around.

I find most people here make mostly valid points. Your's however I generally find to be highly theoretical, deeply ideological and with little regard to how they would relate to this city all wrapped up in a delivery so aloof and alienating that it would make Ezra Levant cringe.

But this is what I take issue with. You want them [my points] to be what you said here. It may be because you don't understand the theory (and at this point I have no choice but to believe so, as you've not demonstrated otherwise, but merely contend that you do) or believe that only your ideology cannot be considered an ideology, because admittedly, for now, the status quo lends that belief. But then the world has never been a static place, especially if we actually would allow economics to work within transportation to the degree we do in other aspects of society (see the first part of this paragraph if you take issue with that).

I can assure you that everything I state is grounded in whatever reality you'd like to be selective of, as it's all empirically based. You usually don't even have to go overseas to find examples either, because I know we wouldn't dare do that. We're just so different than them that nothing they do could possibly apply here.

So if you do know all these things, it must mean you don't believe them. Fair, not everyone "believes" in climate change either.

Every generation there is a new cohort in every field who believe that they have uniquely figured things out in a way no one has before, yet believe it is so mind numbingly simple that the only reason your predecessors didn't get it was because they were stupid or backwards. When indeed these are rarely new ideas, their implications fairly well understood and recognized.

However the kids, for whom their only audience for their work product up to that point has been an echo chamber of like-minded peers and professors step out into the world with an evangelical zeal come into conflict with battle grizzled veterans, who regardless of their own believes are have developed a pretty solid grasp of what is and isn't possible within the system and community in which they work.

I can't say I disagree with this in it's entirety, but I can say that, yes, while not stupid, a lot of the people don't actually understand the things they are meant to. I enjoy that it always comes down to an eventual polarization of academia vs the real world. The real world is first of all only as real as those in it shape it to be and very much a matter of perspective. But aside from the philosophy, it's always another way of saying that because the "masses" don't understand it, it shouldn't apply. Why do we even have education at all really? Might it be to change things - for the better?

Secondly, the general understanding has been rather flipped on it's head in the last years. It gained little traction at first, but, as I've previously stated, just watch it continue to do so. There was a time when vehicle LOS meant everything. Lots of projects don't even regard it anymore... It's one small, but meaningful step. Since you have alluded to not having a problem with that, surely you must see that if this takes greater hold, what happens to traffic on Centre St given 2 less lanes is less and less "objectively" justifiable. No question that it will politically remain an issue.

The FHWA just endorsed NACTO Urban Streets Design btw. I don't think you'd label them zealots too, no?

It would be nice if I could take credit for all these ideas as somehow being mine. Unfortunately I take my cues from very reputable people the world over, whether they are in the "real-world" or academia.

Take the NCLRT corridor review. The statement that the possible at-grade NCLRT alignments aren't suitable isn't based on whether or not in isolation the identified requirements are technically possible. It is whether they're acceptable to that vaster audience of bureaucrats, decision makers and politicians. Just because people who absolutely relish the possibility of depriving decedent motorists of traffic lanes and find the bill of materials acceptable doesn't mean that others will share that opinion (no matter how "right" you insist you are) or believe the outcome is worth the combined externalities and cost.

Yeah, I think everyone here full well knows that, despite whether you want us to or not. The discussion, as far as I can tell, has always been about where and how it should be (and, just to be absolutely clear I have never stated it should go at grate all along Centre St), you could say, in a perfect world.

If you aim to never effect change, never do anything a little better, never think a little "outside" the box, and take the easy path then let's just end this discussion right here and say "Policy Wonk, you were right, we should do what is the easiest, thereby necessarily, the least optimal just so something gets done, so it can be called optimal in retrospect on account of it getting done."

And to the latter part, just apply market economics and internalize those externalities (or are they not applicable for car driver's) and we'll see what happens. Or what if we allocated space equitably down that corridor... Or is the car driver a higher class citizen?

[mellbell416]

It is amazing how dead the progress on transit is rght now even as the growth of the city continues to accelerate. Houses and condos are mushrooming everywhere, office towers are going up at a crazy rate and TOD projects place place increasing demand on our transportation infrastructure and yet transit projects seem to follow a plodding, slow pace over the past few years with no apparent regard to hurry things along ....just... a...little...bit!

I do hope that they manage to get the SETWAY projects complete far sooner than the advertised 2021 date. - that is ridiculously far away! Who know when we will see another LRT line (a lot of us are likely to be retired by then)...I understand all the arguments why these things take time (money, time required to complete all the work blah blah bah), but it is striking how strikingly quiet the city has been since this Spring when all the new funds were secured for transit.

[ClaytonA]

Like most people, I only agree with only some of the politicians (and any other private individuals) priorities. Everyone would allocate resources somewhat different and it's self evident plans do not have to be followed. I read in the Herald (can't find article unfortunately) about current council wanting to double the number of wards (14 currently) on the next ballot because they feel they are overwhelmed in terms of workload and other Canadian cities have "much better voter representation." Personally it seems fine - if you need to hire more support staff that's got to be cheaper than more politicians. The cost IIRC was $600,000 per year. Provincially our governing party has admitted to mis-spending our resources that could have been put into things we all need/want versus benefiting only a very narrow (and self-interested) constituency.

On non-vehicular transportation related things... any affordable rail (generally agree, although why just highspeed if it could have a higher volume, lower frequency version with cost and safety advantages at 125km/h for much less investment? - oh we're only replacing airplane flights b/c the studies say that's only where it works, driving's nice and inexpensive...) or presumably more subsidized bus service service (Greyhound gets a subsidy IIRC) between Edmonton-Calgary doesn't make sense yet. Justifies spending for further improvements to hwy 2. Airport Trail (agreed with tunnel portion) from Metis Tr into Harvet Hills? What about asking for re-allocation of ring road funds to transit before it was committed to the ring road? Around the time the SW ring road was announced in 2007/8? I recall people here making that observation (SELRT vs SE ring road) and now we're on to the SW. Massive amounts of construction of industrial properties and otherwise at the edges of the city to take advantage of the ring road is happening - lots of induced demand. Crowchild Tr over the Bow is just starting up again? Lots of road improvements.

There are planning documents. What are our priorities? (other public goods police and fire budgets don't seem to have to fight as hard for funding - we don't just make do/muddle through) Do we all really want it? What's the implementation plan? How could we get the province/federal gov't aligned? What can we afford? OK, how can we afford it? There are always ways to get things done faster if we really want to. How much change is too much, too fast? Why do we plan for roads and transit seperatly? It is a transportation system, not just one mode. How much complexity is too much? (hard to understand is a type of cost too). Any investment we make in the transportation system affects (influences) people's behaviour. Focusing primarily on walking or roads or bikes or transit at the expense of other modes is social engineering too.

• *Congestion.
  *Transit fares going up.
  *Bike locker rental costs up.
  *Should we have a regional gas tax?
  *Partial contributions from a regional carbon tax?
  *Road pricing?
  *Annual vehicle registration levies remitted to the City?
  *Different fare transit zones?
  *More traffic and bylaw enforcement?
  *Tolls on Bow River bridges?
  *Tolls on Deerfoot, Glenmore, and Crowchild?
  *City-wide street parking permits that cost money? Surcharges on municipal taxes for parking spaces in condos, etc?
  *Higher property taxes?
  *Re-allocation of road improvements to transit (ie fewer new interchanges, additional lanes, etc)?
  *More bike improvements to get more out of under-utilized roads? Bike lanes supposedly are chearper to build and have higher capacity than a traffic lane - invest more in those?
  *Surcharges on redevelopment fees to help pay for transit? Presumably if the people along Centre Street want a grade seperated solution bad enough or people in the SE want LRT sooner, then within a 10 minute walk of the stations the City could re-zone for enough density to help pay the extra amount for cut-and-cover/improve timing/whatever and once some threshold of the fund is full, built it. You could make an argument that we are all subsidizing those in North Hill, Banff Trail, Whitehorn, Rundle, Shagnappi Point, etc because they can walk to a higher quality transit mode.
  *Re-allocate money from low cost recovery bus routes to where we could recover more.
  *Reallocate money from road maintenance - fewer sidewalk replacements when they're cracked, paving, paving of alleys, etc?
  *Higher transit related surcharges on new development on the edge of the city?
  *Different procurement models (P3's) to change the timing of the costs?
  *Facilitating more transit purchases - ie you have to opt out of the annual cost of a transit pass when paying municipal taxes? What if an amount was just automatically added to municipal taxes and a pass/fare card was mailed for residents (ie Corvallis, OR it's $3.80/household)? It'd reduce transaction costs/nuisance to users. It'd make it more of a sunk cost, like how a car purchase isn't considered for each car trip. Apparently "free" transit doesn't always increase transit use - sometimes service improvements are more important (http://www.governing.com/columns/assessments/gov-free-ride.html).
  *More aggressive corporate employee selling of transit passes?
  *What about people that live in Cochrane, Airdrie, Okotoks, Chestermere, etc that use Calgary infrastructure - what includes them?
  *I'd say go off the honour system on LRT (ie turnstiles), but from what I understand the payback periods are generally really long - anyone have a solar panels on their roof yet - payback in 30 years. http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/08/17/are-turnstiles-worth-their-cost/

Just ideas and I sure don't even have all the questions, never mind the answers. Lots of these are politically, well, difficult. Plans are but drawings in sand. Easily made and just as easily changed even if 2021 is only six years away - doesn't it seem like the WLRT... there should be a lot more happening for 2021. Change is also a process or perhaps better visualized as a trend, with leaps ahead and concomitant set backs. It needs champions, leadership. In that sense this council been any better than Klein's or Bronconnier's in terms of transit? Is it too early to tell? 4 car trains do seem to slip under lots of people's radar; it'll be interesting when that's finished.

[MalcolmTucker]

A couple things, Greyhound gets no subsidy. No market protection either (that changed in 2012). High speed because it would actually take billions of dollars to get to a workable mid speed rail between Calgary and Edmonton, and the economics of paying off the lower amount for mid speed is worse than paying off the higher amount for high speed.

Crowchild Tr over the Bow was restarted since the plans out of it were a bit much. I imagine a minor debottleneck will come in at a bit more reasonable price.

As for your policy ideas:

*Congestion. > I assume you mean either a downtown levy or congestion based road tolls. The first is a sledge hammer, the second isn`t so bad, but the implementation costs vs surplus revenue vs generated consumer surplus is likely pretty awful given the short hours of congestion and few points where it would be needed.
*Transit fares going up. > Council is trying to do this with senior's fares and look at the hubub.
*Bike locker rental costs up. > Given the positive externalities of cycling to other commuters, and to the transit system (if you bike to the LRT instead of bus), this is a bad idea
*Should we have a regional gas tax? > Yes. That goes only to capital projects. And is eliminated after the project is done. Approved at the ballot box.
*Partial contributions from a regional carbon tax? > Carbon emissions reductions from transit are pretty small. It is hard to justify this transfer. Ottawa is reducing emissions by 34,000 tonnes for an investment in transit of $2 billion plus.
*Road pricing? > inevitable with the coming move away from gasoline, but we aren't there yet
*Annual vehicle registration levies remitted to the City? > The lost revenue to the province would have to be replaced, so you mean raising the levies. I'd be ok with that. Even if it is awfully distortionairy and unfair, it is easy to administer.
*Different fare transit zones? > There is no logic to this when you think of how the system preforms. Someone boarding the lrt closer to downtown generates less of a positive externality than someone boarding further out. So you disincentivize ridership in outlying areas, and replace it with ridership in the centre city. But the space that the shorter distance rider is riding on road the entire length of the line. If the core as destination model changes significantly it might make sense, but until then it would be inefficient.
*More traffic and bylaw enforcement?
*Tolls on Bow River bridges?
*Tolls on Deerfoot, Glenmore, and Crowchild? >Gas taxes would be cheaper to implement.
*City-wide street parking permits that cost money? Surcharges on municipal taxes for parking spaces in condos, etc? > Condo parking already pays city taxes. Street parking in most places wouldn't be worth the administrative cost.
*Higher property taxes? > Not the most fair way to go about making more revenue, but our property taxes are reasonably low.
*Re-allocation of road improvements to transit (ie fewer new interchanges, additional lanes, etc)? > Capital wise, at the city level spending is already tilted in transit's favour. It is easy to forget that our city is growing a lot, and that includes industrial growth which no matter what our land use policies will not turn into 6 story loft warehouses. If we stop industrial growth instead of local distribution all our groceries will just come from a cross dock somewhere else.
*More bike improvements to get more out of under-utilized roads? Bike lanes supposedly are cheaper to build and have higher capacity than a traffic lane - invest more in those? > We can do so, though land is the biggest cost if we are talking about adding lanes. I'd like to see the city be serious about twining the paths on the north and south sides of the bow most of their lengths, and filling in the gaps.
*Surcharges on redevelopment fees to help pay for transit? Presumably if the people along Centre Street want a grade seperated solution bad enough or people in the SE want LRT sooner, then within a 10 minute walk of the stations the City could re-zone for enough density to help pay the extra amount for cut-and-cover/improve timing/whatever and once some threshold of the fund is full, built it. You could make an argument that we are all subsidizing those in North Hill, Banff Trail, Whitehorn, Rundle, Shagnappi Point, etc because they can walk to a higher quality transit mode. > this is more a question of fairness. how do we do that equitably considering it wasn't implemented for past improvements. Also, this shows a fundamental misunderstanding about how property taxes work. The mill rate is set to generate a fixed amount of money. If the value of all properties in the city goes up because new buildings are built, the city does not make more money unless it decides to raise taxes. New developments lower the tax bill of everyone unless taxes are increased.
*Re-allocate money from low cost recovery bus routes to where we could recover more. > Yup. City of Edmonton is trying to do this with often hilarious results.
*Reallocate money from road maintenance - fewer sidewalk replacements when they're cracked, paving, paving of alleys, etc? > Have you seen the roads this year? Worst I have ever seen them.
*Higher transit related surcharges on new development on the edge of the city? > I am not sure why it would be fair to tax young families and new arrivals more than people living in Mount Royal.
*Different procurement models (P3's) to change the timing of the costs? > Will already happen, you still need a revenue stream though.
*Facilitating more transit purchases - ie you have to opt out of the annual cost of a transit pass when paying municipal taxes? What if an amount was just automatically added to municipal taxes and a pass/fare card was mailed for residents (ie Corvallis, OR it's $3.80/household)? It'd reduce transaction costs/nuisance to users. It'd make it more of a sunk cost, like how a car purchase isn't considered for each car trip. Apparently "free" transit doesn't always increase transit use - sometimes service improvements are more important (http://www.governing.com/columns/ass...free-ride.html). > Including a ticket book in the property tax notice would be a neat idea, but then again renters pay even higher property taxes usually compared to the value of the property they are renting and would be left out.
*More aggressive corporate employee selling of transit passes?
*What about people that live in Cochrane, Airdrie, Okotoks, Chestermere, etc that use Calgary infrastructure - what includes them? > Calgary REgional Partnership regional gas tax divided up by population.
*I'd say go off the honour system on LRT (ie turnstiles), but from what I understand the payback periods are generally really long - anyone have a solar panels on their roof yet - payback in 30 years. http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2...th-their-cost/ > hard to implement, and no payoff. Calgary's fare evasion rate is really lower, lower than many turnstile systems.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by mellbell416

It is amazing how dead the progress on transit is rght now even as the growth of the city continues to accelerate. Houses and condos are mushrooming everywhere, office towers are going up at a crazy rate and TOD projects place place increasing demand on our transportation infrastructure and yet transit projects seem to follow a plodding, slow pace over the past few years with no apparent regard to hurry things along ....just... a...little...bit!

I do hope that they manage to get the SETWAY projects complete far sooner than the advertised 2021 date. - that is ridiculously far away! Who know when we will see another LRT line (a lot of us are likely to be retired by then)...I understand all the arguments why these things take time (money, time required to complete all the work blah blah bah), but it is striking how strikingly quiet the city has been since this Spring when all the new funds were secured for transit.

To be fair, we did have two reports on the NCLRT fairly recently so stuff is going on behind the scenes. You're right it is quiet though.

[andasen]

Originally Posted by mellbell416

It is amazing how dead the progress on transit is rght now even as the growth of the city continues to accelerate. Houses and condos are mushrooming everywhere, office towers are going up at a crazy rate and TOD projects place place increasing demand on our transportation infrastructure and yet transit projects seem to follow a plodding, slow pace over the past few years with no apparent regard to hurry things along ....just... a...little...bit!

I do hope that they manage to get the SETWAY projects complete far sooner than the advertised 2021 date. - that is ridiculously far away! Who know when we will see another LRT line (a lot of us are likely to be retired by then)...I understand all the arguments why these things take time (money, time required to complete all the work blah blah bah), but it is striking how strikingly quiet the city has been since this Spring when all the new funds were secured for transit.

Dead??

Let's see what's currently underway and funded.

Tuscany extension (opens at the end of this month) UC
Four Car Train Upgrade, upwards of a 33% capacity increase in network capacity - Completion Early 2015 UC
Quarry Park - Glenmore SETWAY segment, Significant time savings for the 302 - 2016 (site prepping)

What we will likely see in that time frame.

Before 2021 we could reasonable expect and extension of the 306.
If another extension for the NE line isn't at minimum under construction I will be flabbergasted.
Extensions on the west line and the south line come on the funding radar.

Things that are less certain in their timing but have some likelihood of occurring before 2021
16th Ave BRT
52nd street BRT
SW BRT
17th ave BRT improvements

[MalcolmTucker]

If finances at the province continue to stay stable I'd guess there is a follow on agreement to MSI finished before or in next spring's budget, covering finishing the original MSI years on time, and then an increase from there for 5 years, or perhaps indexing it to revenues with a floor.

Wouldn't it be great to be able to do a ground breaking on the SE LRT, even if only symbolic, before the next provincial election? Edmonton may choose to accelerate its west LRT as well.

Announcing a ten year deal last time led to all the money being allocated and a lot of it being spent in the first 5, and I think the province would be wise to avoid that. Heck Calgary has already spent post 2017 money (airport tunnel). Plus if we keep growing at this pace, a major increase might be needed for the 2022-27 time frame.

It isn't money the city can officially plan for, but there will be some.

[Policy Wonk]

I don't know why on earth I would return from holidays to pick this up...

Originally Posted by sim

So instead of the world as you said earlier, you've conveniently changed it to Alberta...

My world, for the purposes of my work in Alberta and a couple US states. I have remarkably little interest, indeed absolutely no interest in the transit systems and modal share of the developing world and post-Soviet Eastern Europe.

My point was, and to go right back to the beginning, that had Calgary not developed in the way that it did (including the, what you would presumably regard as, small amount of freeways) the feasibility of now implementing anything on Centre St, whether true BRT, Streetcar, surface LRT, Subway would be greater, and not the opposite way around.

And you're just taking for granted that the this wouldn't have just given rise to either a more dysfunctional status quo and or shifted development Interstate style along Highway 1 and Highway 2 much sooner and would have rather forged some sort of political and cultural consensus that massively favoured mass transit over roads? That's quite the leap.

It may be because you don't understand the theory

You seem to be unable to distinguish between understanding an academic argument and unquestioning adherence to it.

Since you have alluded to not having a problem with that, surely you must see that if this takes greater hold, what happens to traffic on Centre St given 2 less lanes is less and less "objectively" justifiable. No question that it will politically remain an issue.

I don't have a problem with the deprecation of LOS because that isn't a get out of jail free card for horrible ideas. Proposals still have to stand on their merits and those horrible ideas will die a natural death. I also don't believe that the status of all roads should be sacrosanct. But in Calgary and especially Centre Street we have elevated certain roads in importance above that of mere city streets. And we're stuck with them just like we're stuck with 7th Ave for the foreseeable future. Decisions made (or not made) decades ago leave a legacy of dysfunction with no easy solutions.

Or what if we allocated space equitably down that corridor... Or is the car driver a higher class citizen?

Because combining transit lanes, vehicle lanes, a cycle track and wider sidewalks is such a realistic possible outcome for Centre Street.

Centre Street is what it is, it shouldn't be. But we're stuck with it.