Calgary Public Transit II

[fusili]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

^Because short bus trips, and short LRT trips in peak direction in peak hours are the most expensive trips to service.

I agree with everything else you said, but this I do not understand. How can a short trip cost more than a long trip? Marginal burden on the system is, by definition, less than a long trip. A long trip uses up capacity for the entire ride. That same capacity can serve 2 or 3 trips if they are broken up into smaller lengths. Perhaps I am missing something?

[5seconds]

Originally Posted by polishavenger

I love how people bitch and moan about zone based transit fares, but dont seem to mind the defacto zone based property tax scheme. "Wah, I'll have to pay more for using more of a given service" is all I hear from opponents of this. Its about paying your fare share. I dont like zones because they create a lot of unfair situations (depending on how its implemented of course), I prefer paying for the lenght of your ride, something which should be just as easy to implement and enforce as zones. Have a minimum fare of $1.50 or something, and then charge more the further you go.

Sometimes charges like that are designed to encourage/discourage certain types of behavior. you could look at it this way: Property taxes that charge more the further out you go is designed to encourage sustainability and limit sprawl. While flat-rate transit charges might be implemented to encourage ridership, especially from further out.

If we discourage people in further areas from taking transit (by jacking their rate), then the alternative is cars. It's probably cheaper to just stick with a flat rate and save the cost of dealing with the traffic burden that a higher rate might cause.

Just a thought.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by fusili

I agree with everything else you said, but this I do not understand. How can a short trip cost more than a long trip? Marginal burden on the system is, by definition, less than a long trip. A long trip uses up capacity for the entire ride. That same capacity can serve 2 or 3 trips if they are broken up into smaller lengths. Perhaps I am missing something?

Because of Calgary's magnet destination, downtown, a short trip usually does not result in more free capacity that is used, it results in more dead-heading. The cost I am talknig about also includes future capital burdens caused by over incentivizing suboptimal trips.

Outside of peak when there isn't system congestion it makes sense, but during peak we want people riding the system for the longest distance possible first (as long as the trip would have been made otherwise) since that is when society benefits most.

In Hong Kong and Washington DC you have spread out population, and spread out employment, so in peak you have travel in many directions, which makes a system of distance based incentives the main way to combat transit congestion.

In Calgary on the other hand almost every user of the C-Train contributes to congestion in the same place, the 7th Ave Transit Mall.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Because of Calgary's magnet destination, downtown, a short trip usually does not result in more free capacity that is used, it results in more dead-heading. The cost I am talknig about also includes future capital burdens caused by over incentivizing suboptimal trips.

Outside of peak when there isn't system congestion it makes sense, but during peak we want people riding the system for the longest distance possible first (as long as the trip would have been made otherwise) since that is when society benefits most.

In Hong Kong and Washington DC you have spread out population, and spread out employment, so in peak you have travel in many directions, which makes a system of distance based incentives the main way to combat transit congestion.

In Calgary on the other hand almost every user of the C-Train contributes to congestion in the same place, the 7th Ave Transit Mall.

Ah, that makes sense. Somewhat. But the one thing missing from that whole calculation (and this is often missed by transit and transportation planners) is that there is no consideration about the persons choice of where to live. Your model assumes that transportation considerations do not factor into home location decisions. That of course makes things a whole lot more complicated.

What if 90% of the entire south line lived within the distance from 39th station to downtown? Would someone taking the train from Somerset be cheaper to service? What would the capital cost implications of such a system be? When we incentivize and price our trips based on the model that looks at the greatest reduced burden on the roads, we are basically saying "move far away from downtown, because when you take the train, you are saving us so much more road capacity than if you lived in the inner city and took transit." You mention that an inner city dweller causes more dead-heading, but the person living far away causes the same amount of dead-heading, because the train has to travel to pick them up first (whatever the distance is between the two stations, both have to dead head that distance). However, for the inner city dweller, at least there is some ridership travelling on the way in, so it isn't a 100% dead head.

It is a perverted model that uses metrics that assume the system first, and then say "oh look, this person places a burden on the system, because they don't fit it" rather than saying "what type of system is required to service this person? How much does such a system cost?" For the inner city dweller, the system is shorter, saving on both capital and operating costs. Using the model and metrics you suggest, an expansive system makes more sense.

Sorry for the rant. I hope it made some sort of sense.

[5seconds]

On that note, every flat I rented while I lived in London had 1 main location consideration. If it was not within 10 minutes walk of an underground station (or overground when I moved out of London) and a supermarket, I wouldn't even consider it.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Outside of peak when there isn't system congestion it makes sense, but during peak we want people riding the system for the longest distance possible first (as long as the trip would have been made otherwise) since that is when society benefits most.

Sorry to belabour the point, but this is a perverted metric. You want to disincent (is that even a word), those who burden the system the most, whether they are driving or taking transit. The metric should be based on what the total burden is on the transportation system per person, not what the differential is between taking transit and driving for each person.

That would be akin to (and this is probably a very convoluted and bad analogy) a situation where you are paying for everyone's lunch. One person wants a salad and another wants a steak. The person getting a steak can downgrade to chicken, and the salad can downgrade to a soup. If you had to choose which one downgraded, and gave them a small reward, who would you choose? Game theory says it is better to get the steak person to downgrade because the differential is greater, which only makes sense. But that is where game theory falls apart: the initial decision is assumed. You are basically rewarding expensive behavior. Would you say the steak/chicken person is somehow less of a burden than you that the salad/soup person because the cost difference between steak and chicken is greater than salad and soup? That sounds crazy to me.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by Northski

Also a distance based system would reward park and riders over people who taken the shuttle to an LRT station.

This is something I haven't even had time to ponder, but damn, you're right. It's an even stupider idea than I thought.

The only counter argument here will be to eliminate PnR, or make it so catastrophically expensive that no one would choose to do this. Which of course just pushes more people into their cars for the entire trip...

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by polishavenger

I love how people bitch and moan about zone based transit fares, but dont seem to mind the defacto zone based property tax scheme. "Wah, I'll have to pay more for using more of a given service" is all I hear from opponents of this. Its about paying your fare share. I dont like zones because they create a lot of unfair situations (depending on how its implemented of course), I prefer paying for the lenght of your ride, something which should be just as easy to implement and enforce as zones. Have a minimum fare of $1.50 or something, and then charge more the further you go.

If you pay attention, you'll hear a lot more than "I have to pay more, wah". I myself said in a post right above yours that I'm happy to have my monthly transit pass double in cost. My complaints about zone-based fares are anything but paying more.

I dislike zones because of the complexity, and your suggestion (metered) makes things even worse. Again, some of you guys seem to completely ignore the vast numbers of daily riders who own monthly passes, and focus on the infrequent users of the system (who are marginal contributors to revenue pretty much by definition). Do we entirely scrap that convenience simply to nickel and dime a bit more? Seriously, how do you do a flat monthly pass where the distance traveled has to be taken into account for every single trip?

Maybe those of you who don't use transit very much don't really "get" the monthly pass thing, I dunno. It just seems to be completely ignored in every one of these discussions.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by 5seconds

Sometimes charges like that are designed to encourage/discourage certain types of behavior. you could look at it this way: Property taxes that charge more the further out you go is designed to encourage sustainability and limit sprawl. While flat-rate transit charges might be implemented to encourage ridership, especially from further out.

If we discourage people in further areas from taking transit (by jacking their rate), then the alternative is cars. It's probably cheaper to just stick with a flat rate and save the cost of dealing with the traffic burden that a higher rate might cause.

Just a thought.

Pretty much my #2 concern. Just like the PnR charge of a few years ago - this continual "let's punish the suburbs" attitude is completely counter-productive. All you're doing is discouraging people from taking transit. And the very people you should be doing everything in your power to encourage! Far-flung suburbanites are always the last to give up their cars, the last to use transit. Why on Earth would we put in place policies that keep them in their vehicles??

People can dress it up with "fair share" and "short trippers" arguments all they want, but the simple fact is the LRT lives and dies in this city on the basis of how many people are using it for long distance travel (both in terms of revenue and in terms of political - ie: tax dollar - support). Not the guy who is too lazy to walk from SAIT to Lion's Park. Why the hell we'd want to specifically alienate Transit's largest support base is beyond me, but as I pointed out earlier - you can tell that no Aldermen take transit to work when you look at what comes out of their mouths.

[MalcolmTucker]

The rant makes sense. The easiest answer is that the least distortionairy system ensures there is no congestion for anyone. Any system that accepts congestion has to accept that reducing it without increasing capacity means reducing demand.

If we make driving too competitive with transit for outlying people, how long will it be until there are loud calls for a revived downtown penetrator and Bow Trail connector?

The solution is to build more transit, and we are. I don't think any changes should be made until 4-car trains are actually operating to see if they are really needed.

If you want to disincentivize people living in the suburbs, increasing the cost of their commutes by $400 a year isn't going to be a very big incentive. Is $33 a month really going to change people's habits? I don't think so.

[polishavenger]

None of your arguments make sense to me. The system runs on fixed costs so regardless of where a person starts using the system, the cost to run it stays the same (not factoring in body weight of people on the bus causing higher fuel usage). So someone going 20km to DT vs someone going 10km is utilizing twice the cost of fuel, capacity, depreciation of vehicles, driver time etc, so it stands to reason they should pay more (not necessarily twice as much).

People are also missing the main point in that alternatives to transit are not very appealing in Calgary. A reasonable increase to charge for utilization of transit wont send people running for the roads because the roads are congested, the parking in DT is over subscribed and expensive.

Other than cost of implementation being potentially prohibitive, the only other argument against this is that people are greedy little pigs who want to get a free ride.

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Because of Calgary's magnet destination, downtown, a short trip usually does not result in more free capacity that is used, it results in more dead-heading. The cost I am talknig about also includes future capital burdens caused by over incentivizing suboptimal trips.

Outside of peak when there isn't system congestion it makes sense, but during peak we want people riding the system for the longest distance possible first (as long as the trip would have been made otherwise) since that is when society benefits most.

In Hong Kong and Washington DC you have spread out population, and spread out employment, so in peak you have travel in many directions, which makes a system of distance based incentives the main way to combat transit congestion.

In Calgary on the other hand almost every user of the C-Train contributes to congestion in the same place, the 7th Ave Transit Mall.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

The rant makes sense. The easiest answer is that the least distortionairy system ensures there is no congestion for anyone. Any system that accepts congestion has to accept that reducing it without increasing capacity means reducing demand.

If we make driving too competitive with transit for outlying people, how long will it be until there are loud calls for a revived downtown penetrator and Bow Trail connector?

The solution is to build more transit, and we are. I don't think any changes should be made until 4-car trains are actually operating to see if they are really needed.

If you want to disincentivize people living in the suburbs, increasing the cost of their commutes by $400 a year isn't going to be a very big incentive. Is $33 a month really going to change people's habits? I don't think so.

Definitely a good point. I definitely do not want to discourage suburbanites from taking transit. I think there are better solutions. Location-efficient mortgages (a banking and lending issue, so not a municipal issue) are one. Another one (depending on capacity issues) is to build a complementary street car and BRT system for the inner city, which connects previously unconnected parts of the inner city, helps with crosstown routes, but also provides a system for inner-city residents that is not full by the time it gets to their station.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

If you want to disincentivize people living in the suburbs, increasing the cost of their commutes by $400 a year isn't going to be a very big incentive. Is $33 a month really going to change people's habits? I don't think so.

Bingo.

Another point I forgot to add - apparently CT is trying to increase fare revenues to get them to 50% of its operational budget. 50%! That means fully half of revenues aren't even fare-associated. And more today, if I'm hearing this right.

So the bulk of CT's revenues today, and fully half in the future, already have nothing to do with distance traveled, where you live, etc. They're more tied into how much property tax a person pays, which is heavily weighted based on land/building value, which is strongly correlated to overall wealth. Now, I may be completely out to lunch here, but in my experience the more wealthy a person is, the less likely they are to take transit (overall, obviously there are countless exceptions).

So basically, those arguing for "fair share" should really be arguing for massive property tax hikes for the less wealthy in this city. If this really is about paying your "fair share" for transit use and all. Edit: well, and we should put a property tax levy on folks within catchment areas of the C-Train. THAT will sure encourage people to live near transit!

Y'all may have noticed, I LOATHE that phrase. Because I've never once seen it used logically and consistently. It's pretty much always been used in the context of "GIMME".

Just food for thought.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by polishavenger

People are also missing the main point in that alternatives to transit are not very appealing in Calgary. A reasonable increase to charge for utilization of transit wont send people running for the roads because the roads are congested, the parking in DT is over subscribed and expensive.

Um... zone based fares are being argued for, in this thread and at council, on the very premise that fares are too expensive for "short trippers" and that they're all far more likely to not take transit over a few dollars.

I actually agree with you on this one. But it entirely invalidates why we're looking at fare differentiation in the first place.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by polishavenger

None of your arguments make sense to me. The system runs on fixed costs so regardless of where a person starts using the system, the cost to run it stays the same (not factoring in body weight of people on the bus causing higher fuel usage). So someone going 20km to DT vs someone going 10km is utilizing twice the cost of fuel, capacity, depreciation of vehicles, driver time etc, so it stands to reason they should pay more (not necessarily twice as much).
.

Again, you are assuming the system first and then calculating how much people burden it afterwards. That leads to perverted metrics (and not the Toronto band members who oogle women). The operational costs of the system should not be assumed to be fixed.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by polishavenger

Other than cost of implementation being potentially prohibitive, the only other argument against this is that people are greedy little pigs who want to get a free ride.

Only if you continue to ignore the arguments.

For the third time, I'll point this out - I'm happy to pay double what I currently do for transit. I'm not greedy, I'm not a pig, and I'm not trying to get a free ride. DOUBLE MY FARES. Please. But not through fare differentiation.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by fusili

Sorry to belabour the point, but this is a perverted metric. You want to disincent (is that even a word), those who burden the system the most, whether they are driving or taking transit. The metric should be based on what the total burden is on the transportation system per person, not what the differential is between taking transit and driving for each person.

That would be akin to (and this is probably a very convoluted and bad analogy) a situation where you are paying for everyone's lunch. One person wants a salad and another wants a steak. The person getting a steak can downgrade to chicken, and the salad can downgrade to a soup. If you had to choose which one downgraded, and gave them a small reward, who would you choose? Game theory says it is better to get the steak person to downgrade because the differential is greater, which only makes sense. But that is where game theory falls apart: the initial decision is assumed. You are basically rewarding expensive behavior. Would you say the steak/chicken person is somehow less of a burden than you that the salad/soup person because the cost difference between steak and chicken is greater than salad and soup? That sounds crazy to me.

If you believe cost will change behaviour on transit you should also believe cost would change behaviour on traffic. The major cost in traffic is time. Adding a marginal traffic user can have a severe detrimental effect on traffic, slowing down everyone by a massively disproportional amount compared to the effect of an average traffic user.

The marginal transit user presents a burden when the system is near capacity for sure (slower boardering times mostly) but the effect on average users is very small. The effect is no where near the effect of a marginal user on traffic.

This creates a huge price mismatch that economics can help solve. If a road user (all examples during congestion) will cause a cost over 10 kilometers, or a road user will cause a cost over 2, which one will create the most cost (a negative externality)? The 10 kilometer user.

Now think of transit users outside of traffic, taking the same trips. The main point of congestion is boarding, and the user's externality on boarding is only applied once, no matter how long the trip. At the point of new users not being able to board the train, only those new users suffer, not everyone already on the train. While the cost to the user left behind is high, the average cost across users is much lower compared to congestion in a traffic system. The longer trip certainly causes a larger negative to the system, but proportionally the negative is quite small.

Moving on to implementing demand control fares on each system, which one makes sense to control demand on? The one where demand hurts everyone while hurting the demander the same amount? Or the one where demand hurts almost exclusively those demanding it?

Now think about a system that imposes costs on both traffic and transit to reduce congestion. In a traffic system, the cost causes a direct benefit to all users of the system. In transit the benefit is very concentrated amongst a few while the cost falls on almost all.

Putting the two together since even in Calgary the modal share very heavily favours the car, and for every transit trip there is a direct subsidy from taxpayers at large (I am talking only operational side here) equal to the transit fare at minimum, where should benefits fall in our system? Should benefits go to those providing the minimal net welfare gain to society at large, or should they go to those providing the maximum welfare gain?

Fortunately we don't need to control demand using price like Washington DC does due to our build form. The city's structure solves this economic problem for us by giving those with the highest positive externalities the likelyhood that they will not be hit by extremely high individual transit imposed costs.

Not saying it is equitable, just that it is optimal.

[Radley77]

I agree with Malcolm's comments that peak users should have to pay the same cost if they are passing through a bottle neck.

However, I think that reduced fares could be used in contraflow modes, or also at the end of the lines where there is still ample capacity, even when the system is fully burdened.

There is more capital costs required to expand capacity and there are even more capital costs required to expand capacity and add length.

To really get the most out of the system, could have it so that one taps in and taps out and has to pay based on the travel route and time of day.

There are other far reaching benefits of a differentiated system that would encourage better use of TOD's, as well as having prices that are reflective of energy costs and therefore more sustainable. The last point is that since the suburbs have greater per capita household income than inner city, that the currently policy is actually regressive. A differentiated system that is equally accomodating in that it doesn't punish one type of rider at the expense of another type of rider, instead it makes the service available to everyone based on being a reflection of costs.

Imagine if Air Canada was to suddenly move to a flat fare system across Canada. On day one, they just take the average of all fare prices. The next day people who take short trips (say Calgary to Edmonton) would stop using the service because other alternatives are available. The next day, operational costs rise and Air Canada has to increase the fares. This causes other people who take short trips to discontinue using the service. Eventually the only feasible route for the airline company is the Vancouver to Toronto. i.e. long distances with most users.

If Calgary Transit wants to offer exceptional service, then it must look at fare differentiation.

The other aspect I think that the public transit system is missing out on that you could also offer some premium services at a higher fare as well. Say crosstown BRT's, etc....

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by fusili

Again, you are assuming the system first and then calculating how much people burden it afterwards. That leads to perverted metrics (and not the Toronto band members who oogle women). The operational costs of the system should not be assumed to be fixed.

The operational costs of the system, unless you are taking a very long bus trip, are so close that the difference would never be big enough to change demand. The increase in administrative burden would likely more than the take of increased fares. Since long distance trips are LRT based for the most part, with feeder buses, and the LRT operational cost is so incredibly low, if you assume most station's feeder bus mix is roughly similar in length, the cost difference is likely in the nickle to dime range.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Putting the two together since even in Calgary the modal share very heavily favours the car, and for every transit trip there is a direct subsidy from taxpayers at large (I am talking only operational side here) equal to the transit fare at minimum, where should benefits fall in our system? Should benefits go to those providing the minimal net welfare gain to society at large, or should they go to those providing the maximum welfare gain?

You just covered my entire thought process in a short, concise paragraph. I can't believe that *I* of all people have to be arguing the socialist side of things on this forum.

Although I shouldn't be too surprised - people think of themselves as fair and equitable until they think someone else is getting a better deal. Then their principles go out the window. Seriously, people arguing for what are in effect user fees for a taxpayer-funded public service, on this forum?? Wow.