Calgary Public Transit II

[mersar]

Originally Posted by CTrainDude

Umm, they said July - and you guessed it - I believe it's the end of July, not by Stampede.

Might be sooner. Was talking with my brother tonight and his company got the contract to wire them up so I found out some more details since he's on the crew thats going to be working on them. Theres 80 signs in total, made by Daktronics (as someone on cptdb discovered) and they are starting next week and will have them all installed and working by the end of June. Whether CT turns them on then or is waiting for something else (such as the computer that controls them maybe) before turning them is unknown so it could be end of July possibly but by Stampede would be nice.

[YYCguys]

Originally Posted by polishavenger

I wonder how long it will take CT to get on a system like the octopus card in hong kong. It looks like a credit card, you preload money on it at any 7-11 and subway station, and you use it to pay your fair on the subway, busses, taxis, and some ferry's. Its so simple and convenient, I cant understand why its not everywhere. In addition it would also help track ridership without connecting it to any one person as no ID is attached to the card. The card also makes paying fares based on distance possible, which I think has some merit as Calgary grows outward and people need to commute further.

That system is used in all of Japan. At train stations, you look at the map and choose your destination and pay accordingly. On busses, you look at the screen that identifies the amount of the fare based on the stop and then pay as you get off the bus, allowing you to embark and disembark via either door. And you can use cash or fare card.

[CTrainDude]

Originally Posted by mersar

Might be sooner. Was talking with my brother tonight and his company got the contract to wire them up so I found out some more details since he's on the crew thats going to be working on them. Theres 80 signs in total, made by Daktronics (as someone on cptdb discovered) and they are starting next week and will have them all installed and working by the end of June. Whether CT turns them on then or is waiting for something else (such as the computer that controls them maybe) before turning them is unknown so it could be end of July possibly but by Stampede would be nice.

Yeah, it's more than just the physical signs that need to be in place. I could be wrong (and frequently am), but I'm still hearing end of July.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by YYCguys

That system is used in all of Japan. At train stations, you look at the map and choose your destination and pay accordingly. On busses, you look at the screen that identifies the amount of the fare based on the stop and then pay as you get off the bus, allowing you to embark and disembark via either door. And you can use cash or fare card.

The BART (the San Francisco/Bay Area Transit) uses differentiated fares as well. But I don't think the idea is necessary in Calgary. In a multi-jurisdictional municipality I think it makes sense so that the centre city is not subsidizing the surrounding towns etc, but until the train goes out to Cochrane and Airdrie (which I hope it never will), I think we should stick with a flat fare.

[polishavenger]

Originally Posted by fusili

The BART (the San Francisco/Bay Area Transit) uses differentiated fares as well. But I don't think the idea is necessary in Calgary. In a multi-jurisdictional municipality I think it makes sense so that the centre city is not subsidizing the surrounding towns etc, but until the train goes out to Cochrane and Airdrie (which I hope it never will), I think we should stick with a flat fare.

Is it fair to charge someone the same who goes 3 stops as the person who takes the train to the end of the line? The NW line is about 13k long from DT, the NE is about 13k, the south is 16k, and the west will be about 8k. You could conceivable be charging someone who goes one stop out of DT (sunnyside, bridgeland, victoria park, sunalta) the same as a person who takes the train almost 30km from Brentwood to Bridlewood, that doesnt seem right to me. Using a system like the hong kong octopus card makes all the sense in the world, because you pay for the distance you travel, not based on zones or a flat fair, thats as equitable as it gets.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by polishavenger

Is it fair to charge someone the same who goes 3 stops as the person who takes the train to the end of the line? The NW line is about 13k long from DT, the NE is about 13k, the south is 16k, and the west will be about 8k. You could conceivable be charging someone who goes one stop out of DT (sunnyside, bridgeland, victoria park, sunalta) the same as a person who takes the train almost 30km from Brentwood to Bridlewood, that doesnt seem right to me. Using a system like the hong kong octopus card makes all the sense in the world, because you pay for the distance you travel, not based on zones or a flat fair, thats as equitable as it gets.

This is nearly impossible to enforce without access gates. Everywhere I have been that uses distance-based fares has control gates. But I don't want to get into a 10 page discussion on zone based fares again.

[polishavenger]

Originally Posted by fusili

This is nearly impossible to enforce without access gates. Everywhere I have been that uses distance-based fares has control gates. But I don't want to get into a 10 page discussion on zone based fares again.

Access gates would be necessary, its kind of ridiculous that we dont have any as it is. The problem i see is how to control people coming into the free fare zone since the new platforms arent really set up for access gates.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by polishavenger

Is it fair to charge someone the same who goes 3 stops as the person who takes the train to the end of the line? The NW line is about 13k long from DT, the NE is about 13k, the south is 16k, and the west will be about 8k. You could conceivable be charging someone who goes one stop out of DT (sunnyside, bridgeland, victoria park, sunalta) the same as a person who takes the train almost 30km from Brentwood to Bridlewood, that doesnt seem right to me. Using a system like the hong kong octopus card makes all the sense in the world, because you pay for the distance you travel, not based on zones or a flat fair, thats as equitable as it gets.

Carrying any user into downtown has the same opprotunity cost, that is they take up the amount of room one rider into downtown takes up. When your system is close to capacity, it makes little economic sense to introduce distance based fares unless you want to decrease ridership.

Once the system has adequate spare capacity again, which isn't likely until the construction of the downtown subway, it may make sense to reduce user fees to marginal costs. It must be known however that distance based costs are rather unrepresentative of reality unless you also charge fees for transfers between modes. A walk up customer to Fish Creek going downtown costs the system a lot less than a person taking a bus to connect to downtown via Lion's Park.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Carrying any user into downtown has the same opprotunity cost, that is they take up the amount of room one rider into downtown takes up. When your system is close to capacity, it makes little economic sense to introduce distance based fares unless you want to decrease ridership.

Once the system has adequate spare capacity again, which isn't likely until the construction of the downtown subway, it may make sense to reduce user fees to marginal costs. It must be known however that distance based costs are rather unrepresentative of reality unless you also charge fees for transfers between modes. A walk up customer to Fish Creek going downtown costs the system a lot less than a person taking a bus to connect to downtown via Lion's Park.

Great points. Was going to say the same, but probably much more awkwardly and disjointedly.

[sim]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Carrying any user into downtown has the same opprotunity cost, that is they take up the amount of room one rider into downtown takes up. When your system is close to capacity, it makes little economic sense to introduce distance based fares unless you want to decrease ridership.

Once the system has adequate spare capacity again, which isn't likely until the construction of the downtown subway, it may make sense to reduce user fees to marginal costs. It must be known however that distance based costs are rather unrepresentative of reality unless you also charge fees for transfers between modes. A walk up customer to Fish Creek going downtown costs the system a lot less than a person taking a bus to connect to downtown via Lion's Park.

The Octopus card, I do believe, takes care of this or at the very least could. From my time living there, I do indeed remember paying seperately for each mode. I can't, however, speak to exactly the rates charged per each and how representative they were exactly of true costs or whether purely distance related.

Secondly, while I do think your first point (opportunity cost, etc.) is a good one and reflects our current system and what it is, that is to say, more or less a commuter only system, non-differential fare payments discourage other activity trips. Furthermore, the system runs at capacity for a relatively short period of the day.

However like said, as is, the current fare collection method is probably sufficient but I do think that differential fare payment is something that could and should be further investigated in the future.

[freeweed]

Dear lord, I don't really want to have a fare system where I have to break out a slide rule just to figure out how much it's gonna cost. Bus vs no bus. Train vs no train. Transfer at a busy station vs transfer in the boonies. Multi-mode vs single mode. Rush hour vs off-peak hours. Add in the number of stops you're travelling, divided by the square of the radius from the downtown core, but factor in the "economic enhancement zone" (exaggerated for comedic effect, but as soon as we get into what's "fair", these ridiculous things come about - just look at our income tax system).

I've seen this confusing nonsense on the British rail system. Why do people argue in favour of this?

[floobie]

The distance-based fares don't make much sense to me. Not at this point, at least. Others have argued the point better than I could.

I am, however, in favour of significantly upgrading the payment system. A sea critter card of some sort that you can charge up as needed (without having to buy a new pass constantly, or fumble with change), and swipe to gain entry to the platform/train/bus would be very nice indeed. I have to wonder if implementing a system like that would ultimately cost less than what it costs now in lost revenue from riders not paying. Failing that, ticket machines that actually give change and take credit cards would be a huge step up.

[MalcolmTucker]

swipe to gain entry to the platform/train/bus would be very nice indeed. I have to wonder if implementing a system like that would ultimately cost less than what it costs now in lost revenue from riders not paying.

Unless there is a lot of fare evasion going on that the system can't account for, that hasn't been found in audits, there is no way fare gates would pay for themselves. Especially since so many of Calgary's stations would be incredibly hard to retrofit. Just look at Vancouver's oft delayed fare barrier project for an idea on costs ($100 million on hard capital costs for faregate installation and station retrofit, out of a total budget of $171 million). And that is for stations that all have controlled access points.

Plus fare gates are not some fare evasion panecea, audited fare evasion rates are higher on many fully gated systems around the world. I think it would be pretty hard to get lower than the current level, without an incredible amount of costs versus a small amount of benefits.

Vancouver is getting gates because of a public perception a couple years ago that the Skytrain was unsafe due to some high profile incidents. It was announced right before the provincial election by the Premier. There was also a NIMBY angle, of trying to keep people of lower socioeconomic status within the neighborhoods where they live, since the percepition was they travelled without paying fares to go cause trouble in other areas.

The card system in Calgary will hopefully reduce the amount spent processing fares, retail margins lost of passes and the like. If the system could be held to debit only for large deposits on the card at the same time, Calgary Transit could potentially save millions of dollars. The benefits of a gate system on the other hand is one of those common sense things that doesn't turn out to be true when implemented in the real world.

[floobie]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Unless there is a lot of fare evasion going on that the system can't account for, that hasn't been found in audits, there is no way fare gates would pay for themselves. Especially since so many of Calgary's stations would be incredibly hard to retrofit. Just look at Vancouver's oft delayed fare barrier project for an idea on costs ($100 million on hard capital costs for faregate installation and station retrofit, out of a total budget of $171 million). And that is for stations that all have controlled access points.

Plus fare gates are not some fare evasion panecea, audited fare evasion rates are higher on many fully gated systems around the world. I think it would be pretty hard to get lower than the current level, without an incredible amount of costs versus a small amount of benefits.

Vancouver is getting gates because of a public perception a couple years ago that the Skytrain was unsafe due to some high profile incidents. It was announced right before the provincial election by the Premier. There was also a NIMBY angle, of trying to keep people of lower socioeconomic status within the neighborhoods where they live, since the percepition was they travelled without paying fares to go cause trouble in other areas.

The card system in Calgary will hopefully reduce the amount spent processing fares, retail margins lost of passes and the like. If the system could be held to debit only for large deposits on the card at the same time, Calgary Transit could potentially save millions of dollars. The benefits of a gate system on the other hand is one of those common sense things that doesn't turn out to be true when implemented in the real world.

Fare enough (HA!). I really have no idea. Just pondering out loud. The card system alone sounds nice.

[DizzyEdge]

Does anyone have a link to Calgary Transit's budget? like annual collected fares? Annual collected fares on the ctrain specifically would be ideal.
Not sure why it seems impossible to find this sort of basic information.

[sim]

Originally Posted by freeweed

Dear lord, I don't really want to have a fare system where I have to break out a slide rule just to figure out how much it's gonna cost. Bus vs no bus. Train vs no train. Transfer at a busy station vs transfer in the boonies. Multi-mode vs single mode. Rush hour vs off-peak hours. Add in the number of stops you're travelling, divided by the square of the radius from the downtown core, but factor in the "economic enhancement zone" (exaggerated for comedic effect, but as soon as we get into what's "fair", these ridiculous things come about - just look at our income tax system).

I've seen this confusing nonsense on the British rail system. Why do people argue in favour of this?

I'm not so sure that swiping a card twice is really that complicated, or having to place where your residence and workplace lie (and the location of a few non-commuting trips that might occur) on a zonal map is really that tricky. Yes, it is more complicated, but it really isn't very complicated. Generally, it is mostly an inconvenience for incidental riders (such as tourists,) but it does have the added benefit of having the potential to attract ridership and increase revenue. That is why people argue in favour of it and a pretty large majority of transit-oriented cities implement it.

At the end of the day, it is also generally more expensive to fly to Toronto than it is to Edmonton as well, so I'm not sure how the same shouldn't or couldn't be applied. Again, I'm not arguing in favour of this for Calgary as the system in Calgary currently is.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

Does anyone have a link to Calgary Transit's budget? like annual collected fares? Annual collected fares on the ctrain specifically would be ideal.
Not sure why it seems impossible to find this sort of basic information.

I would assume almost all Tranist revenues are fares, or in some cases charters. So approximately $160 million this year (if this hasn't changed from the 2009 3 year budget)


As for

Annual collected fares on the ctrain specifically would be ideal.

it really isn't a number that is useful. The C-Train operational cost is less than 10% of the total budget unless something has significantly changed in the past 5 years.



Getting back to fare evasion, when something like 80% of LRT riders take the bus as well during the same trip, we already have a huge base of checked fares to start with.

[MalcolmTucker]

double post

[DizzyEdge]

Probably vehicle-side and in-station advertising in that figure as well though.

[Koolfire]

Originally Posted by freeweed

Dear lord, I don't really want to have a fare system where I have to break out a slide rule just to figure out how much it's gonna cost. Bus vs no bus. Train vs no train. Transfer at a busy station vs transfer in the boonies. Multi-mode vs single mode. Rush hour vs off-peak hours. Add in the number of stops you're travelling, divided by the square of the radius from the downtown core, but factor in the "economic enhancement zone" (exaggerated for comedic effect, but as soon as we get into what's "fair", these ridiculous things come about - just look at our income tax system).

I've seen this confusing nonsense on the British rail system. Why do people argue in favour of this?

I'm okay with distance based system that rewards short trips with lower fare. The way I see the system would be that there is still a cash fare for those that don't have a card (currently $2.75). This amount is now that maximum charge per trip regardless of distance. Also the amount if someone forgets to swipe on the way out. I would also make the card that once a $100 (or whatever the monthly pass would cost) then all trips for the rest of the month are free. This would avoid the need for people to go out and get a new monthly pass every month.

With current technology you could have an app on your smartphone or online website that could get you a quote on your expected trip.