Calgary Public Transit II

[Cage]

Originally Posted by Radley77

What about instead of a fare zone system that the following different monthly passes were provided on the Connect card:

Full Pass (full access to any component of the PT network)
Bus Pass (travel on basic bus)
BRT Pass (anywhere on BRT system, anytime)
LRT Pass (anywhere on LRT system, anytime)
Shorthaul Pass (less than 5 LRT stops from where they tapped in)
Offpeak Pass (allowed on system on contraflow routes, or defined intrapeak times)

Basically a transition to allowing for a smorgasbord of options for the user instead of having only one choice of a pass. Something like this would help to reflect costs, and encourage more sustainable choices (lower operational costs).

LRT is the only true money maker in the system. So unless the Bus options are going to be 2-3 times more expensive than then train, this option is a non starter.

[mersar]

Originally Posted by freeweed

Not keen on the idea of having to "tap in" with a pass though. Kinda defeats half the purpose of the pass (convenience). Even in months where using tickets might save me a few bucks (vacation), I always buy a pass anyway. I've missed too many trains in the past trying to stamp a ticket before the doors close.

We'll have to see how the smart card ends up working, but I'm pretty sure that the pilot that Edmonton Transit ran required everyone to tap their pass on a little pedestal in the LRT station. I don't think it would be too bad actually provided there were enough of them (put a row of them spaced across the access to the stations and you just tap it as you walk by, no waiting required, should be good IMO, putting them on the train would be interesting but could provide a vector for the cheats to evade the fare checkers). No different then how its going to work on the buses post next summer anyways.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by Cage

Tapping will be a thing of the future if all products move onto the Smart Card.

One possibility (borrowed from Melbourne Au) would be to put tap in machines onto the trains as well as the buses. This would remove the issue of missing a train because the doors closed before tap at station can be completed.

Yeah... and I'm sure "every other city does it"... just irritates me is all. It was so damn convenient to keep my pass in my wallet when it's -30 outside and not have to be fumbling around with gloves, etc. Just hop on the train and go!

Probably would be implemented regardless, because this way they can track pass users easier. And we all want to be tracked.

If they're going to go with this, then I say let's bring on turnstiles and stop fare evasion permanently. You're basically forcing me through one anyway.

I can't WAIT for the first dozen tickets I get because I forget that I now have to pull out my pass every single time I board a train.

[Radley77]

Originally Posted by Cage

LRT is the only true money maker in the system. So unless the Bus options are going to be 2-3 times more expensive than then train, this option is a non starter.

That's what I was thinking. I also understand the value of providing to low income people so I think there is also a need for that as well to be a component of pricing so that it is both progressive and somewhat reflective of the costs to maintain service.

Also, studies have indicated that buses require more energy per passenger mile than automobiles and so this is an area where would preferentially discourage as it relates back to the real costs of energy consumption. This kind of fare structure would help prioritize communities that are nearby LRT or transit orientated development. Some communities like Kincora are going to be incredibly expensive to provide with public transit, so I think it's important that the costs are reflective of the costs to operate.

I also think that given the gaps beween current fare and the fare required to cover operational costs, that should look at perhaps phasing it in over a period of time.

[Boris2k7]

On zones:

I'm against zones within Calgary. It would be an entirely arbitrary paywall that doesn't make any sense to me. If Calgary Transit were operated in a regional manner like Translink, then it begins to make some sense to me, but it would still be bothersome.

On seniors fares:

I think the regular seniors pass needs to be raised by quite a bit, but keep the low-income passes low. I was absolutely riled up when I read on Twitter the other night that Chabot was suggesting increasing the regular fare to 3.00 while keeping the regular senior's rate flat.

On smart cards:

After having used a couple different systems, RFID is the way to go if the card is just going to be used for transportation. Bring on the turnstiles at stations and the little readers on busses. And I don't see why you would even need to tap them, when on other system they work by merely passing the card a few inches over the reader. (note: I'll bring the smartcard I got in Paris to the Forum Meet)

[AgentGibb]

Originally Posted by freeweed

It was so damn convenient to keep my pass in my wallet when it's -30 outside and not have to be fumbling around with gloves, etc. Just hop on the train and go!

Originally Posted by freeweed

I can't WAIT for the first dozen tickets I get because I forget that I now have to pull out my pass every single time I board a train.

The "good" news is that these sorts of systems will typically work through your wallet, so you can just wave your wallet over the reader (at least, I've had success using this approach in London, Tokyo and Milan).

[Cage]

Originally Posted by freeweed

.....Probably would be implemented regardless, because this way they can track pass users easier. And we all want to be tracked.

.....

I can't WAIT for the first dozen tickets I get because I forget that I now have to pull out my pass every single time I board a train.

Requiring everyone to tap in and out (or atleast just tap in once every 90 minutes) would have its advantages. We (the citizens and transit users) could lobby the politicos to have quality of service benchmarks for Ctransit to meet. Something along the lines of trip refund if there is a mechanical problem or other major event. This would keep Ctransit honest about the service and make the 1 hour delays go down easier just cause a bike rider thought he could out run the train.

So that the trade off in my mind. Lowe (my Alderman) and Nenshi will start getting lobby list if Ctransit moves the Smart Card system to a tap in and tap out. Basic message - refund pax for poor service or delayed service. The airlines do it (and pay a hefty penalty if the service disruption regards the European Union), so C-transit should do it as well.

[MalcolmTucker]

so C-transit should do it as well.

Where would this money come from? Users. Whats the point - you don't get a refund for a traffic jam on Deerfoot caused by some looky lous...

As for having to tap in tap out with passes on the LRT, I would make it optional, but communicate that service levels will be adjusted according to demand and demand is measured using the tap system. I would bet that that alone, as long as there were enough readers, would get 95% compliance.

[Blader]

Senior passes - anecdotal

• I’ve paid income tax for 44 years - salaried with no loopholes aside from RRSPs.

• I’ve paid property tax for 40 years - maybe more if you allow that property tax is included in rent.

• I continue to pay income and property taxes as a senior.

• It could be argued that I have, in part, prepaid the discount.

• I recognize that yearly passes at this nominal rate is rare in most, if not all other, jurisdictions.

• I’m tickled!!

In mid June of 2011, I purchased a senior citizen pass for $35.00 and since then have used it twice - in non peak hours to go from McKnight/Westwinds to 7 Ave SW and then to walk to MEC to purchase articles suitable for wilderness canoeing. No-one was denied a seat.

If, as many are proposing here comes to pass, such as a 30 percent reduction off adult monthly rates, I can guarantee that I will not be buying the high priced senior pass, but will drive more and transit less - probably revenue neutral.

I felt honoured that the city chose to provide me with a senior pass at a price that was nominal. I purchased it as a right of passage rather than for its utility.

[MalcolmTucker]

If the seniors pass had restrictions on time of day to avoid peak, I think keeping it at the current rate would be good. An additional pass perhaps could be added for peak use at a more than nominal rate.

[AgentGibb]

Originally Posted by freeweed

That being said, I've never encountered fare enforcement outside of Calgary so maybe ever other city has this magically worked out and it's never an issue. It just strikes me as a possible logistical nightmare unless CT puts some serious effort into it.

I actually recently went through a fare checkpoint in the London Underground, and it was quite efficient. Didn't even have to stop walking. The transit officials had handheld readers that could scan your Oyster card and give them an instantaneous OK/Not OK.

If you think about it, this is actually quicker than visually scanning a ticket and trying to figure out if the numbers on it make sense. If my memory serves, they had about a dozen officials doing the checks.

That said, they also have fare gates on the Underground, so the incidence of fare evasion is likely rather low. It also means that people don't have the "oops, I forgot" excuse.

[sim]

I'm gonna go ahead and be blatant about this: Zones are not rocket science and they really aren't that confusing. I have trouble believing that anyone that made it this far in adulthood would find them more dissuading.

I agree, the zone boundary and the stations on either side of them can be problematic, but for incidental users at least, this could be solved by a "short trip" ticket.

Let's not forget that Calgary already has a zone structure. Does it make sense in user perception that one can go from one end of DT to the other for free, but from Sunnyside to 8 St W for 2.75?

However, that is precisely why a Smart Card sectional based fare is even more preferable. If we are gonna do it, do it right. Tapping takes less time than it does to validate a booklet, and as some have stated, they work through wallets and if the "tapper" or swipe machine is constructed right, you simply have to brush by with your pants (the side the wallet is on of course.) Turnstiles wouldn't even be needed considering we already have a self service fare collection system. Fare evasion on many turnstile systems in the type of cultures or demographic regions in which they find themselves often have just as high of fare evasion anyway. Simple spot checks with a neat little device.

And to answer the one question about why no one has suggested any zones yet, is because that is something that does in fact, take a lot of work and is complex (especially when taking into account busses.) That is in the background and not something a rider sees or needs to worry about. For the NW, for example I might suggest (based on a simple two zone structure as more really might not be needed,) that the University act as a station that sits in both, with Brentwood being in the outer and Banff Trail in the inner.


Reducing non-peak trips, or conversely increasing peak trips would be an interesting start in fare differentiation.

[Blader]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

If the seniors pass had restrictions on time of day to avoid peak, I think keeping it at the current rate would be good. An additional pass perhaps could be added for peak use at a more than nominal rate.

Given a nominal rate, one could not reasonably quarrel with peak use restrictions.

[Cage]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

If the seniors pass had restrictions on time of day to avoid peak, I think keeping it at the current rate would be good. An additional pass perhaps could be added for peak use at a more than nominal rate.

This idea works for today, but not for a few years down the road when North American society is knee deep in the baby boom retirement years. The first baby boomers reach 65 next year. Senior pass flood levels will start to rise next year and then become a torrent of new passes in about 5 years.

For the reason of baby boom retirement alone, the Seniors pass at $35/annum needs to be drastically increased.

Heres another example for you regarding what is to come. Air Canada with its pension problems caused in part by numerous early retirement offers for the past 14 years is now left with a situation whereby 26,000 active employees pay into a scheme that pays out to 29,000 retirees. Think about this for a second, the number of retirees is larger than the active employee input base. At least in Air Canada's case there are billions saved up to cover most of the retirement payouts, but Calgary Transit does not have a bank of cash from which to cover the senior annual passes.

[MalcolmTucker]

If enough seniors started using the system that additional routes/service hours during offpeak hours were needed then changes would be needed. I doubt even with super cheap transit the system would be overwhelmed during off peak hours requiring more service. Of course with smart cards one could track users and know if this was happening.

[Blader]

Originally Posted by Cage

This idea works for today, but not for a few years down the road when North American society is knee deep in the baby boom retirement years. The first baby boomers reach 65 next year. Senior pass flood levels will start to rise next year and then become a torrent of new passes in about 5 years.

For the reason of baby boom retirement alone, the Seniors pass at $35/annum needs to be drastically increased.

Heres another example for you regarding what is to come. Air Canada with its pension problems caused in part by numerous early retirement offers for the past 14 years is now left with a situation whereby 26,000 active employees pay into a scheme that pays out to 29,000 retirees. Think about this for a second, the number of retirees is larger than the active employee input base. At least in Air Canada's case there are billions saved up to cover most of the retirement payouts, but Calgary Transit does not have a bank of cash from which to cover the senior annual passes.

Air Canada's skewed numbers, are not a statistical reflection of the percentage of seniors to the Calgary population at large. You are also assuming that Calgary Transit is losing tons of money by offering the nominal senior discounts. Unfortunately, I don't have the numbers - I would like to see them and other revenue scenarios.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by Blader

Air Canada's skewed numbers, are not a statistical reflection of the percentage of seniors to the Calgary population at large. You are also assuming that Calgary Transit is losing tons of money by offering the nominal senior discounts. Unfortunately, I don't have the numbers - I would like to see them and other revenue scenarios.

Someone posted them just a few pages back. Seniors currently are, and will continue to be a tiny demographic in Calgary. At least until people stop moving here mostly in their 20s.

[mersar]

Most of the concrete supports for the platform extension are poured at Brentwood now (they were pouring this evening which looked to be a fun process of pour some concrete, then move the pipe out of the way and let the ctrain pass, then move it back and repeat). At least everything to the west edge and the ramp/stairs down to grade for the emergency exit looked to be poured.

[Blader]

Originally Posted by freeweed

Someone posted them just a few pages back. Seniors currently are, and will continue to be a tiny demographic in Calgary. At least until people stop moving here mostly in their 20s.

Tnx, when I search this thread I find:
in this post by frinkprof:
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=4688938&postcount=2
and within this post a link referencing May 2009 Transit Funding Press Release:
http://www.calgarymayor.ca/files/pressreleases/2009/transit_funding_announcement_brochure.pdf
which yields:
404 not found

and then I find this post by Cage referencing a study and this post by you replying.

With respect to Cages reference to, I assume, maybe wrongly, the above study, which I cannot access, I don't understand the simplistic analysis with respect to revenue loss and revenue gain. It seems to be straight line. Nothing is that simple.

[freeweed]

Yeah, it was Cage's post I was referring to. Not sure what level of detail you were after - to me it at least gives a good picture of how broad the scope of the issue is.