Calgary Public Transit II

[Wooster]

Frinkprof - I'm trying to send you a private message, but your inbox is full. Re: Transit.

[sim]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

That brings us to the great urban impasse, the type of urban development that is championed by most of those on this website is the very thing that makes any tenable urban community unaffordable. There is no land-use pattern conducive to high density affordable housing in the adult urban playground aspired to here.

It is the white collar gaze, most of us were or will be earning the median income within five years of graduation. It is a world of Apple products, cupcake boutiques and sincere outrage at the amount of paperwork you have to do to make a dental claim.

Although depending on this girls circumstances it is quite possible she really couldn't afford to live independently anywhere in the city.

So you essentially mean to say, that no high or higher density city is affordable, or at least the urban part of said city? Presumably, by affordability you also mean only the cost of housing or, more precisely, ownership.

What I find is an unrealistic dream, and I will well struggle to put as elegantly as you did, is that we should/could all be living in 3000 sq ft houses, driving a big expensive car(s,) and wasting resources and energy like its free. In the case of the land-use I believe you are instead, championing, it damn near is. However, in end effect, we are sort of making the same point only differently.

What higher density cities tend to do, is internalize all those many nice, almost free things. It gets, or will get paid for one way or another eventually.

I would never argue the case of pro-urbanity on the basis of lifestyle only. I've still spent more of my life on a farm, and wouldn't it be nice if everyone just had that much space. It's not realistic, and it costs money, whether we are paying for it directly or not.

And as to Freeweed's point about not being able to have convenient, reliable and quick service for any and every single route - well that is never going to be the case, that is for sure. However, density would for sure help. The budget could be increased four-fold; but you also wouldn't have them running empty. Then this girl might indeed be able to cut her travel time down by half, just like she would, her square footage of living area.

Sorry, but transit and land-use are inextricably linked, so I don't feel this to be off topic.

[freeweed]

I always find it amusing around here that when anyone who says anything about density is immediately assumed to be living in 3000 sq ft McMansions and driving Hummers, but I digress...

Only one comment to make here, really: I've visited several incredibly dense cities. And I've personally experienced 90+ minute commutes in them, if you were going from one improbable point to another (with side-trips in between). Density won't solve this girl's issue with transit, because her issue isn't really transit.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by sim

So you essentially mean to say, that no high or higher density city is affordable, or at least the urban part of said city? Presumably, by affordability you also mean only the cost of housing or, more precisely, ownership.

Their are plenty of affordable high-density communities, but I don't think anyone here would aspire to live in one. I have never seen anybody around here arguing for rebuilding Cabrini Green in the East Village. People are aspiring to the "luxury city" but that can not be reconciled with affordable anything.

I don't recall a great deal of concern about Sears being replaced with an enormous Holt Renfrew.

Then this girl might indeed be able to cut her travel time down by half, just like she would, her square footage of living area.

The chick lives with her parents, probably in her childhood bedroom... what did you have in mind? A bed in a shelter?

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

I don't recall a great deal of concern about Sears being replaced with an enormous Holt Renfrew.

We're getting rapidly off-topic (OK, 90% my fault) - but yeah, I found this one odd. If anything, people here were cheering it on. Our densest area continues to get more and more unaffordable with every year.

Hell, my 3000 sq ft house and Hummer can barely hold any more Holt Renfrew clothing. The 17 Prada purses she owns take up like half of one of my 27 closets!

[UofC.engineer]

Originally Posted by freeweed

Hell, my 3000 sq ft house and Hummer can barely hold any more Holt Renfrew clothing. The 17 Prada purses she owns take up like half of one of my 27 closets!

Funny guy! Good to see some forumers have a sense of humour

[sim]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

Their are plenty of affordable high-density communities, but I don't think anyone here would aspire to live in one. I have never seen anybody around here arguing for rebuilding Cabrini Green in the East Village. People are aspiring to the "luxury city" but that can not be reconciled with affordable anything.
I don't recall a great deal of concern about Sears being replaced with an enormous Holt Renfrew.

This I can 100% agree with. I'm not at all advocating for all that luxury and class stuff.

The chick lives with her parents, probably in her childhood bedroom... what did you have in mind? A bed in a shelter?

As for this girl, she really likely can't afford much else if she is still living with her parents, but I meant it more generally. She seems to be in a position, socially, that doesn't leave her with all too many options anyway. So without knowing her financial details, I really wouldn't be able to say. However, perhaps a single room apartment with shared washroom facilities or even kitchens - if something like this even exists in Calgary?

I always find it amusing around here that when anyone who says anything about density is immediately assumed to be living in 3000 sq ft McMansions and driving Hummers, but I digress...

Only one comment to make here, really: I've visited several incredibly dense cities. And I've personally experienced 90+ minute commutes in them, if you were going from one improbable point to another (with side-trips in between). Density won't solve this girl's issue with transit, because her issue isn't really transit.

First of all, I'm fighting a generalization with a generalization. I would, however, wager a guess that Calgary's per capita Hummer ownage is likely higher than even most American cities. Anyway, not really the point.

Yes, but you are speaking in superlatives. Of course there will always be improbable destinations and not every single one can be covered. It would look like any asymptotic function. However, it's going to be a lot more likely that it isn't as improbable that such a trip would subsequently be serviced (publicly.)

I totally agree her issue isn't with transit. It's with lack of density and she just doesn't know it yet. A couple of years ago they had a woman on the news from Auburn Bay heavily complaining about the lack of transit service...

Out of curiousity, what is the square footage of your house, and how many people live in it?

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by sim

However, perhaps a single room apartment with shared washroom facilities or even kitchens - if something like this even exists in Calgary?

Their called flop houses, there is one on my street.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

Their called flop houses, there is one on my street.

Bingo. Or hostels. Yummy. I had a friend who lived in one for a short period of time, which is how I discovered the exact dollar amount welfare paid at the time.

Suggesting that the poor should live like this reminds me of people who think that McDonald's shouldn't be allowed to throw out their expired food, that instead we should just feed it to the poor.

[Cage]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

^I was trying to figure out the routes this person takes, at least what is implied. At the start, the house is on route 56 (Woodbine), they take the train from Southland, then they take the 2 to somewhere around Signal Hill or Westside Rec Centre. Makes me wonder where the kid goes to school, and why a school nearby Cedarbrae or Braeside or wherever they live wouldn't be adequate. Not a judgement call, as I'm not familiar with special programs, etc. that might be offered at a school near Westside Rec. Just curious. Alternatively, the college student mom might go to Ambrose, which is up in that area.

At any rate, interesting video, and captures the difficulty of a commute involving more than one transfer.

Something about the video screamed Spanish Immersion for the kid. If so, then the kid could be going to Westgate, which is fairly close to Route 2.

But then it makes me wonder why the kid is not going to Canyon Meadows Elem as they also have Spanish Immersion.

[Radley77]

One of the things I was thinking about the other day regarding improved public transit service would be dynamic pricing throughout the day.

It seems that there are a couple problems with public transit that it seems almost as if the system is designed around 'peak periods'. Bus routes can be horribly packed during peak transit periods and then relatively empty through the rest of the day.

Imagine a bus that is cruising around say at 2 AM with only a couple of people on board being able to offer free service at that time of day, only to be increased to basic rates when the bus is at 100% capacity during rush hour peak periods.

The only extra cost involved would be the incremental fuel consumption due to the weight and acceleration\deceleration of the one person (very small). I think this would help improve the utilization of money associated with public transportation as well as being great for the environment.

What do you think? Has anyone heard of any jurisdictions that offer different public transit pricing based on time of day or studies on time-differentiated transit fare schemes?

[UofC.engineer]

Originally Posted by Radley77

What do you think? Has anyone heard of any jurisdictions that offer different public transit pricing based on time of day or studies on time-differentiated transit fare schemes?

I think it's a good idea and would work if Calgary had a more sophisticated fare collection payment system.

Vancouver has a similar plan in place. They charge by zones. Zone 1 is the cheapest and zone 3 is the most expensive. I believe all zones cost the same fare as zone one after six on weekdays and all day on weekends.

[mersar]

Close.

Vancouver has three zones, traveling within any one zone is the same rate. If you travel across a zone boundary then the fare goes up. And if you cross through all 3 thats the most expensive. But you are right, after 6:30pm the fare drops to a single flat rate no matter how many zones you pass through. Other cities have had zones, I know Victoria did at one point but they scrapped it. It can be a slightly frustrating system and can be perceived as unfair by some.

[sim]

Originally Posted by freeweed

Bingo. Or hostels. Yummy. I had a friend who lived in one for a short period of time, which is how I discovered the exact dollar amount welfare paid at the time.

Suggesting that the poor should live like this reminds me of people who think that McDonald's shouldn't be allowed to throw out their expired food, that instead we should just feed it to the poor.

I'm really starting to not understand. What does this have to do with being poor? Because PW put a negative connotation on it? It's done, and not just for people that are "poor." Obviously, they probably aren't rich either, or they wouldn't have that kind of an arrangement as a first choice.

There is (or would be) a sizeable room with perhaps even a sink or some other facilities. It would essentially be like living in a house with flatmates, albeit with more privacy. What, in god's name makes that "poor." It's an option for someone that maybe has fewer. Just because it might be perceived in Calgary to be "poor" doesn't make it so.

Wasn't it just being preached that people nowadays have an unrealistic sense of entitlement and that you actually have to work for the things you want in life?

I see my question has gone unanswered.

[sim]

Originally Posted by Radley77

What do you think? Has anyone heard of any jurisdictions that offer different public transit pricing based on time of day or studies on time-differentiated transit fare schemes?

Yes, Munich has a monthly ticket that is cheaper, but then doesn't allow the person to take transit between 6 and 9 in the morning. This is to encourage a more spread out trip demand.

[MalcolmTucker]

Your assumption here is whether service is being offered at all at night. After the bar rush, and until early morning service it would likely be cheaper for the city to just pay taxi fares for everyone traveling than trying to run a somewhat functional bus network.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by sim

I'm really starting to not understand. What does this have to do with being poor? Because PW put a negative connotation on it? It's done, and not just for people that are "poor." Obviously, they probably aren't rich either, or they wouldn't have that kind of an arrangement as a first choice.

There is (or would be) a sizeable room with perhaps even a sink or some other facilities. It would essentially be like living in a house with flatmates, albeit with more privacy. What, in god's name makes that "poor." It's an option for someone that maybe has fewer. Just because it might be perceived in Calgary to be "poor" doesn't make it so.

Wasn't it just being preached that people nowadays have an unrealistic sense of entitlement and that you actually have to work for the things you want in life?

I see my question has gone unanswered.

I'm going on the government-defined use of the term "poverty". People in this country who are above the "poverty line" can easily afford a place to live wherein they have their own bathroom facilities, ergo if you're forced to live without, by the government's own definition you are poor.

Also as evidenced by the fact that the only place you will see such shared facilities is in (as PW says) flop houses, halfway houses, and substance abuse clinics. And hell, even there we try as hard as we can to provide at least the bare minimum for people. Maybe there's some segment of society desperately crying out for shared bathrooms but in my experience the only people who end up there are the very bottom of the economic ladder.

I grew up in the socialist paradise known as Manitoba and even there hardly anyone lived like that, except the most extreme poor. It wasn't out of a sense of entitlement either - in fact it was the exact opposite. As a society, Manitobans are mostly happy to provide enough social assistance so that no one is forced to live like that. I see even less of it here in Calgary, now whether that's due to government programs or just a better off situation for most people, I'm not sure.

But hey, if you think there's a large demand for dormitory-style accommodations by people with money, by all means build some. You could make quite the small fortune in doing so if the demand is there (and donate your proceeds to worthy causes if you're not in it for the money).

PS: Not sure which question was unanswered, PW pointed out that there is a flop house on his street.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

Your assumption here is whether service is being offered at all at night. After the bar rush, and until early morning service it would likely be cheaper for the city to just pay taxi fares for everyone traveling than trying to run a somewhat functional bus network.

I actually saw a study based on that very premise once, and in that particular case it did in fact turn out to be true. It wasn't for Calgary though, perhaps we have more night owls.

[Radley77]

Originally Posted by sim

Yes, Munich has a monthly ticket that is cheaper, but then doesn't allow the person to take transit between 6 and 9 in the morning. This is to encourage a more spread out trip demand.

That sounds like a good idea if they could apply that here in Calgary. Fairly easy to implement and would help make more effective use of pre-existing spare capacity during offpeak periods.

This just strikes me as a way to be more effective with the use of public transit resources. Lots of examples could be drawed from both the public sector (i.e.: Calgary Parking Authority - free street parking downtown after 6 pm) and private sector (i.e.: Alberta Electric System Operator - electricity prices fluctuate based on demand load during time of the day; least expensive electricity sources come on first).

[freeweed]

Maybe I'm missing something, but how would a monthly pass work in this scenario? As a daily transit user (and huge transit booster), I can tell you I'd be against just about anything that makes it more of a pain in the ass to use it.