Calgary Public Transit II

[MalcolmTucker]

Depends, I know Toronto has a split street furniture/bus helter advertising contract, and then the TTC advertising contract. The TTC contract made this much revenue over the past years:

While not a small source of revenue, it is certainly not large. Full details here.

I imagine Calgary, even when including bus shelters would be less.

[srperrycgy]

Just an FYI for you folks that check out my LRT website. I purchased my domain and have changed webhosts. The new address:

http://www.lrtincalgary.ca

[suburb]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

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)

That doesn't sound right. My understanding is that the public transit department is subsidized substantially from the city coffers, so at the departmental level, the budget would include a substantial revenue line-item from municipal taxes.

[EDIT]Never mind - I see that the net budget is negative nine digits, so that is likely where the municipal taxes come in. Massive jump in expenditures since 2007, and thus the net negative.

[You Need A Thneed]

At Whitehorn station, it looked like they were switching the crosswalk across 36th from the south side of Whitehorn Drive to the north side. I will check tomorrow whether that means that the south entrance is open.

[Riise]

Originally Posted by sim

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.

Exactly, a differential fare system during off-peak hours would allow the City to fully utilize the system and remove the discouragement from using transit to make short local journeys. It’s a bit funny that the City would like to get people out of their car more and encourage this sort of action but the fare structure, at times, needlessly discourages or even penalises those who try to do so. My journey to the Underwear Affair yesterday was a perfect example.

I'm staying by my mum in Rundle and I needed to get to the event, which was being held at Max Bell. I wanted to be a proper urbanist and use transit, which would have been rather convenient, but I simply could not justify paying $5.50 for a round trip that was four stations one-way with no transfers. If it was during the peak I could understand but it was off-peak! The City would like people to use transit for these simple local journeys, why not fully utilize the system to enable this?

Originally Posted by sim

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.

While it might look like a lot to take in the first time, when you have zones it is pretty straightforward and when you have SmartCards it is effortless and rather simple. Like you said, it can be a minor inconvenience for first time riders – imagine the horror of having to look at a map and make the simplest of calculations – but it would stop the City from moving backwards in the pursuit of their goal of taking people out of their cars and make transit a feasible option for short local journeys.

I'm not sure who suggested it, but keeping the 90-minutes $2.75 fare addition to the differential fare system might be a good idea if it could be worked into the system somehow. Maybe something like this:

Trip > 5 Stations: $2.75
Trip < 5 Stations: $1.25
Single Bus Trip: $1.00

[MalcolmTucker]

Trip > 5 Stations: $2.75
Trip < 5 Stations: $1.25
Single Bus Trip: $1.00

There is a simple problem with your fees. Bus trips cost the city in the neighborhood of $6 whereas LRT trips cost the city around $.39 (or at least they did last time Calgary Transit broke down numbers in 2006).

Any policy that reduces fares from what we have now on any part of the system would have to increase fares somewhere else or increase subsidy (unless the fares caused no marginal costs and lead to usage going up by the percentage lost in fares, an unlikely proposition).

I know the system you proposed has transfer penalties, leading to a higher differential fare for bus-->LRT commuters, which could be seen as a good thing. But just think there will be some people who decide to take a much slower bus --> bus trip instead, absorbing much more subsidy because of price incentives.

Differential fares also punish people taking the longest LRT trips, which is the opposite of what you want to do. People that free up the most road km travelled are the people you want to move to transit first. In no way do you want to incent people that could be biking instead, or walking to take transit in preference because it is way too cheap.

A good change would be a super cheap family day pass like exists in Toronto for weekend days, when the system is operating way below capacity and building transit habits is important. Outside of peak otherwise a system that punishes long distance users is the worst kind - not everyone that travels from suburb-suburb/outlieing industrial park is going home to a McMansion, there are plenty of economic battlers that gain a huge economic surplus by being able to move to the best job for them in the city for a fixed price. Changing the system too much could lead to perverse social outcomes as people respond to economic incentives.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

A good change would be a super cheap family day pass like exists in Toronto for weekend days, when the system is operating way below capacity and building transit habits is important.

This right here, solved it in one. Without having to deal with complex formula calculations, removing the "hop-on, hop-off" convenience passholders currently have with the LRT, or completely re-inventing our fare collection/evasion detection tools.

I honestly wonder if many people on this thread use transit on a regular basis. Every argument seems to be coming from the very infrequent user who honestly believes they'd massively change their transportation choices over a couple of dollars twice a month. Seriously? You're going to call a cab because transit costs a whopping 5 bucks round trip? Or you'll make your decision of driving vs transit based on a couple of dollars, and not the 15-20-30 minutes of extra travel time transit inherently entails? I'm assuming we're talking about short trips which are pretty much always faster via car.

I think people seriously misjudge how transit is used in a city like Calgary. But then again this reminds me of fare evasion - some folks just insist that we should spend millions of dollars and make everyone's life less convenient just to bring in a lesser amount of money.

I've been a regular transit user both at home and abroad for nearly 30 years now, and I've never once had the thought of "damn, I'd take the train, but it's the same price to go further so screw that". I guess I don't worry about what other people are getting for their money, and focus on if it makes sense for me at the time.

[bookermorgan]

Not too sure if this is old or not...
mapnificent.net/calgary/

Drag and drop the pin to your location. The map will highlight where you can go in the amount of time specified in the bottom right corner, using public transit.
Apparently you can also use two start locations, and find where the time intersects. Good for two people meeting for coffee. Or even, I work here, wife works there, 20 minute transit ride, buy house in middle
Would love to see the same using driving data.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by bookermorgan

Not too sure if this is old or not...
mapnificent.net/calgary/

Drag and drop the pin to your location. The map will highlight where you can go in the amount of time specified in the bottom right corner, using public transit.
Apparently you can also use two start locations, and find where the time intersects. Good for two people meeting for coffee. Or even, I work here, wife works there, 20 minute transit ride, buy house in middle
Would love to see the same using driving data.

Mapnificent is pure awesome.

[Radley77]

I bike commute on a daily basis to work because public transit is 10 minutes more time (opportunity cost of my time) plus cost of fare. Not having differentiated pricing schema makes it such that a 'potential' rider take other modes of transportation who have other viable alternatives. Airlines, taxis, trains and bus lines all have some sort of differentiated pricing schema generally because they are all in competition with one another as well as those in the same industry.

I would be interested in purchasing a nonpeak card booklet that I could time stamp and that allows to only travel during specific times of the day, or in nonpeak directions. Or purchasing a shorthaul card booklet that could be timestamped on my entry point and only allows one to travel only a couple of stations.

I guess my experience is similar to Riise where I simply choose not to use public transit because there are more compelling alternatives. It happens in business all the time, charge too low, and your business loses it's shirt, charge too high, and you lose the bid, but charge close to the actual cost plus a small profit margin and you win the work and make a tidy sum. A flat fare does not reflect the actual costs of the services used, nor opportunities to optimize service or increase ridership or profitability.

[Koolfire]

Originally Posted by freeweed

removing the "hop-on, hop-off" convenience passholders currently have with the LRT, or completely re-inventing our fare collection/evasion detection tools.

Wouldn't be so bad. So instead of showing your pass to the bus driver you scan the card in your wallet. The RFID card I have for work, I don't need to take it out of my wallet to unlock the doors. As for the C-Train you can have scanners on polls that you can swipe/wave as you pass through the doors. And the 7th ave station you could have scanners there to make it easy to scan. As for enforcement they could have portable scanners to see when the last scan was. If it was in the last 90mins your good. If not then it's a fine. (Within reason, ie no breakdowns or extraordinary situations)

Now this may sound a bit big brotherish but the system would be able to track users from start to finish which could help improve service by tightening up transfers. But most people would fill the cards by credit card which means that it would be traceable to a person/household. It would also give very accurate ridership number helping with forecasting.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by Koolfire

Wouldn't be so bad. So instead of showing your pass to the bus driver you scan the card in your wallet. The RFID card I have for work, I don't need to take it out of my wallet to unlock the doors. As for the C-Train you can have scanners on polls that you can swipe/wave as you pass through the doors. And the 7th ave station you could have scanners there to make it easy to scan. As for enforcement they could have portable scanners to see when the last scan was. If it was in the last 90mins your good. If not then it's a fine. (Within reason, ie no breakdowns or extraordinary situations)

Now this may sound a bit big brotherish but the system would be able to track users from start to finish which could help improve service by tightening up transfers. But most people would fill the cards by credit card which means that it would be traceable to a person/household. It would also give very accurate ridership number helping with forecasting.

That's fine as long as that data is stored anonymously.

[MalcolmTucker]

We are getting tap cards, that will require exactly that (at least for boarding buses). Just by tracking the return trip you can figure out demand patterns. For LRT only trips it doesn't really matter - only non-pass holders will likely need to scan for LRT.

[UofC.engineer]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

We are getting tap cards, that will require exactly that (at least for boarding buses). Just by tracking the return trip you can figure out demand patterns. For LRT only trips it doesn't really matter - only non-pass holders will likely need to scan for LRT.

Yea, we're suppose to Tap-in & Tap-out. But what is the incentive to Tap-out? I've never used an electronic fare payment system before. Does anyone know?

If it were a flat-rate like CT who would bother Taping out? Or is that the whole purpose of the Tap-in Tap-out, to charge people by length of journey?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKBRSwfT-u0

[sim]

Originally Posted by UofC.engineer

Yea, we're suppose to Tap-in & Tap-out. But what is the incentive to Tap-out? I've never used an electronic fare payment system before. Does anyone know?

If it were a flat-rate like CT who would bother Taping out? Or is that the whole purpose of the Tap-in Tap-out, to charge people by length of journey?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKBRSwfT-u0

The easiest way to solve that problem is "over-charge" the customer as they tap in - as in charge for the highest graduated fare possible (in a system that uses graduated fares) or in a flat-fare case, some price that is deemed as something the customer would want to recover - which would basically not have to be much more than the flat fare. That way, the rider when the rider taps in or swipes or whatever, they are charged more for their ride and actually get partially refunded as they tap out.

In Calgary's case, to avoid having to install turnstiles or gates at all stations, spot checks would simply be done. There would be no tapping in and out, at least at the C train stations.

[You Need A Thneed]

The south ramp entrance at Whitehorn Station could be open any day now, I couldn't see anything obvious missing. Ticket machines are installed, all the proper railings, etc are in place. I'd be surprised if they don't open it this week.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by Radley77

Airlines, taxis, trains and bus lines all have some sort of differentiated pricing schema generally because they are all in competition with one another as well as those in the same industry.

Well, it's mostly because the costs involved are significant. It makes sense to differentiate a $500 airfare from a $200 airfare - that's the kind of cost difference that will most certainly change behaviour.

Very small charges rarely have cost differentiation, because it's just not worth the effort (and really, no one cares). Look at concerts - sure, U2 have different price categories. They're charging $50-100-200+ per seat depending on where you sit and other potential perks. But a general show that takes $5 at the door in a local pub? They could have a $3 ticket for people who only watch the opening act or something. Yet no one bothers because it just ain't worth it.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by sim

The easiest way to solve that problem is "over-charge" the customer as they tap in - as in charge for the highest graduated fare possible (in a system that uses graduated fares) or in a flat-fare case, some price that is deemed as something the customer would want to recover - which would basically not have to be much more than the flat fare. That way, the rider when the rider taps in or swipes or whatever, they are charged more for their ride and actually get partially refunded as they tap out.

Again - this is an improvement to our existing service *how* exactly?

Not picking on you but your description outlines exactly why I'm so mystified by people asking for this. Why complicate things needlessly? I'm seriously having a hard time figuring out why we want to overhaul an entire transit system just because a small minority would take the train if it was 50 cents cheaper to go a shorter distance.

Tap-on when boarding a bus makes sense, it's as quick or quicker than showing the driver/inserting payment into the hopper. But this convoluted tracking where suddenly we have to include the LRT, and make sure everyone taps out as well.. no thanks. It's bad enough running to try to make a train or bus transfer as it is, never mind having to remember every single bloody time to tap a card somewhere.

[freeweed]

On another topic.. the electronic signs are up (but not working) at Crowfoot. I have to comment CT here - I figured they'd only be on the platform itself but they've installed one right within the station. This will be a godsend on those cold winter mornings when the train is delayed. I assume other heated stations are getting them as well. Brilliant idea.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by freeweed

Tap-on when boarding a bus makes sense, it's as quick or quicker than showing the driver/inserting payment into the hopper. But this convoluted tracking where suddenly we have to include the LRT, and make sure everyone taps out as well.. no thanks. It's bad enough running to try to make a train or bus transfer as it is, never mind having to remember every single bloody time to tap a card somewhere.

Yeah, for monthly pass holders (or pass holders of anyother length for that matter) you only really need to tap on entry to buses. All other taps might give you more data, but it really isn't worth both the time and physical cost in my mind.

LRT trips you know easily if the train is full using the door counters. If it is full, you need more LRVs in service end of story. It is pretty easy planning!

Bus networks since such a large portion of our traffic is LRT destination or source you don't need to track both sides of a trip. Plus, with a weeks of boardings, you can easily figure out what likely 90%+ of peoples regular commutes are, even if they are 100% on buses.

Unless there is a real need to do tap out for distance based travel, which there isn't in Calgary due to cross subsidization of trips across modes, and because our network only functions well because there are forced transfers onto the LRT.