Calgary Public Transit II

[floobie]

I think temporal zones make sense.

Spacial zones, I'm not fully convinced. If they were to be implemented, I think they would have to be dead simple, and really only affect a handful of stations. Maybe have the outer zones consist of the last 2 or so stations at the terminus of each line.

In either case, I think how and why they're used is more important than anything. They should encourage use, not discourage it. Really, the idea is to reward people for helping out the system, either by taking shorter trips or using it during off-peak hours. Punishing people for not doing that will just make hordes of people say "fuck it" and drive instead. Now, I'm not convinced that you can reward a group without sort of implicitly punishing another group. If that's the case, I'm not a fan of the idea.

[mersar]

We can add Erlton to the stations under construction list soon. As of the 29th the south access to the platform is closed while they start extension work according to the city news site. So that makes Whitehorn, Brentwood, Erlton and Canyon Meadows all under construction, and Southland is believe is completed.

[DarkKeyo]

This is a headache of a discussion, and yet I've read most of it and am now caught up.

My first thought is that some of you are making this way, way too complicated. My second is that you all have different ideas about how everything actually works, and some of you have ideas that are a little sideways to what is working right now. The "you" I'm referring to extends beyond this forum and includes people in general, and city council.

Freeweed, thank you for writing things that I actually enjoyed reading, and often agree with. Such as, that some people don't actually use the system much and therefore don't understand it well. I'll be using that point in a second here.

So, I'll throw a few of my own ideas out. I occupy an odd demographic; A captive transit user (who uses transit to go all over the city, often), low income, downtown worker, who is just moving from a near-LRT suburb to a near-LRT somewhat inner-city community.

I currently use a monthly pass. It is convenient; I get on a train and/or bus and go where I'm going. When Smart Cards are implemented, I will do more or less the same thing, depending on how they set it up. I would like to do more or less the same thing. As a captive user, I make short, trips, long trips, trips across downtown, trips from one terminus to the other (although not living near one will lessen that), etc...

Geographical zones: Where? How? What boundaries, in a city that is radial and has few natural barriers? How do you include students, as the 3 main post-secondary institutions are not downtown? It's a headache just to think about, and no-one has explained how it could work. So, it won't. Forget about it.

Distance based: doesn't cause a headache, but makes it inconvenient and potentially costly to make the variety of trips I make, or the variety of trips the variety of transit users make. Everything here (as has been pointed out) leaves some group with the short end of the stick. Requires changes anyways. Worth it?

Fares: What we have is not the most efficient setup, with cost or logistics, or flexibility. Or fairness. Most of the ideas I've read aren't either. When going anywhere with someone who doesn't have a pass like I do, or when I don't get a pass purchased by the first of the month (and since they sell low income passes at four places, two downtown which have the same hours as I work, and two in far-flung suburbia where I can't easily take transit to), then a lot of money is spent on tickets and fares. If you change it radically, that is enough of a disincentive right there to compete with any gains. So, slow down and think.

I've now typed far more than I should have. I'll respond if there's something I want to comment on, but ultimately I have no more idea what I'm talking about than most of you

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by DarkKeyo

When going anywhere with someone who doesn't have a pass like I do, or when I don't get a pass purchased by the first of the month (and since they sell low income passes at four places, two downtown which have the same hours as I work, and two in far-flung suburbia where I can't easily take transit to), then a lot of money is spent on tickets and fares. If you change it radically, that is enough of a disincentive right there to compete with any gains.

This is another one I'm pondering heavily. I *always* have a pass these days. Many of my friends do not. When it comes time to make the transit vs car vs cab decision, for things like Flames games, Stampede, etc etc etc - I'm not entirely sure what would be the best solution. I can say that knowing my friends, with zoned fares they'd almost always choose to drive halfway down, park, and get a "cheaper" train ticket. Cheaper in quotes because obviously the drive ain't free, but people honestly don't think about that. Now during weekdays parking is either expensive or non-existent, so your daily commuters won't be doing this obviously. But all of that non-peak traffic... there could be discouraging effects here. It's also heavily dependent on how many of us there are. 2 guys with me - cheaper to train it pretty much no matter what. 5 or 6 of us, we'll generally end up cramming into a car. Which leads me back to thinking that peak/off-peak fare differentiation could be much more productive.

And of course how much would be counterbalanced by people making these same decisions but already in the inner zones... up for debate.

Incidentally, in terms of the "get vehicles off the road" motivation for transit, my friends and I are pretty much exactly why I'd love to see the free fare zone extended to the Stampede stations. At least during Stampede itself and Flames games. I know a ton of people who would take the train if it didn't turn out to be "cheaper' to just drive a carload down and park. But that would be a huge revenue hit for CT, so again it comes down to what we're actually trying to accomplish - increase ridership or revenues.

[suburb]

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.

Good idea - Have two types of adult passes as well as seniors passes. Actually, upgrade that to great idea!

[Doug]

How about a two tier pass:

1) $120/month or $4.50/ trip targeted at downtown commuters. This would be the only pass valid between 6:30 - 9:00 am and 3:30 - 6:00 pm on weekdays. Compared to downtown parking, it would be a steal. Would only apply to LRT, BRT, express buses.

2) $80/month or $3.00 / trip only valid outside rush hour or any time on regular (non BRT or express) bus routes.

[freeweed]

I don't have an issue with something like that (hell, make the fare differentiation even higher). Only thing is, it doesn't represent the true cost of service which I thought was the point here. I keep reading that LRT costs less to run than an equivalent bus route.

Of course in terms of "value for money", it makes total sense. Pay more for the better service - of which LRT, BRT, and express buses unquestionably qualify.

To be honest, if we're tying to spread the load and help capacity on the C-Train, you could tighten those hours considerably. 7:00-8:30 in the morning, 4:00-5:30 evenings would be sufficient. At least in my experience (I'd love to see actual numbers by 15 minute chunks to see if I'm completely out to lunch here).

[The Chemist]

Rather than setting up a zone system, why not distance-based fares? That's what Shanghai does - there's a base fare on the Metro that covers distances up to 10km, and then beyond that it increases based on the amount of extra distance you travel. Some bus routes, especially in the suburbs, have a similar system.

[You Need A Thneed]

Some iPhone pictures from this evening: (all pictures mine)

Brentwood Station extension:


Centre Street Station - fencing for extension area:


Olympic Plaza Station demolition:


64th Ave tunnel - North of MKWW station:



Martindale Station outbound (inbound station lights are not on yet):
You can see the shiny curvy substation in the background in the first and third pictures. These tracks are brand new, the fresh paving I'm standing in was only installed yesterday. They are already hard at work on the other crossing of Martindale Blvd, they closed the road there immediately after the one seen here opened, and were working there after 11pm this evening.




I got off the train at MKWW, walked the wrong direction to halfway over the pedestrian bridge to take the tunnel pic, then started walking home, stopping for a slurpee, and taking some pics of Martindale station before getting on the bus close to Martindale Station - the very same bus I'd have got on had I just waited for it at MKWW.

Ticket stamped at Brentwood at 8:50 pm, got home at 10:35 pm.

[mersar]

Looks good. I was up at Saddletowne tonight and took some pics I'll try to get uploaded this week. Its looking good up there, level crossing north of the station is in, one to the south isn't yet. Tail tracks are mostly done as well, though still some work to be done. Overall I'm impressed with where things are at seeing it in person.

[Koolfire]

Originally Posted by Doug

How about a two tier pass:

1) $120/month or $4.50/ trip targeted at downtown commuters. This would be the only pass valid between 6:30 - 9:00 am and 3:30 - 6:00 pm on weekdays. Compared to downtown parking, it would be a steal. Would only apply to LRT, BRT, express buses.

2) $80/month or $3.00 / trip only valid outside rush hour or any time on regular (non BRT or express) bus routes.

You might as well target all the commuters then. If your going across town your likely going to go through Downtown and/or take a future crosstown BRT. Your better off just making it like the airport and make boarding a bus or train $6 if it's downtown, require $120 monthly pass or have a transfer slip. (It's free to travel up and down 7th ave but will cost double to leave downtown )

The whole zone vs non-zone discussion is pointless until there are goals set. Without knowing what the goal is how can you come up with a plan. I'm right now leaning towards no multiple zones as I don't see a net positive benefit. If there was a large transit usage/cost difference between suburbanites and inner residents, where inner residents scale of use results in the cost of providing suburban trips being more than double the net cost of an inner city trips. Then maybe. But currently the LRT is a money maker and that success is because of suburban users which leads me to think the net cost difference between a suburban trips and inner city trips isn't that much.

This sadly will require a study by a consulting firm to figure out all the changes caused by implementing a zone fare system in transit demand, change in traffic, change in order of capital projects (both road and transit), etc before we can make a good decision.


Edit: Ironicly because 7th ave is free and therefore free to board, the only way one would be able to catch someone not paying $6 or having the correct pass is if the passenger gets checked before they reach stampede, bridgeland or sunnyside stations. So, it's not going to work either. At least not well.

[fusili]

One thing I can add to the whole debate is the influence of the free fare zone on downtown ridership. I take the train from 8th street station to City Hall station every morning (and usually, but not always, the reverse trip in the pm). If there was a cost for that trip, I might pay, but not much more than $1. One thing I can say though is that there are a lot of people who do this. Trains coming from 10th street in the morning are sometimes 1/2 full after 8th street. For 2 downtown stops, that to me is some pretty high ridership.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by fusili

One thing I can add to the whole debate is the influence of the free fare zone on downtown ridership. I take the train from 8th street station to City Hall station every morning (and usually, but not always, the reverse trip in the pm). If there was a cost for that trip, I might pay, but not much more than $1. One thing I can say though is that there are a lot of people who do this. Trains coming from 10th street in the morning are sometimes 1/2 full after 8th street. For 2 downtown stops, that to me is some pretty high ridership.

Yeah, and you guys are the ones that make the train extremely difficult to get off of in the mornings. I ride early enough that generally the train is never full. There are hardly any people even standing. Yet we hit 8th, and suddenly 5-10-15 people jump in at each set of doors - AND STAND IN THE ENTRANCE. Because they're "only going a few stops". And then 6th and 3rd are complete cluster fucks because no one can get off. I've seen many times when literally every single person who got on at 8th has to leave, let people get off, and then they all cram back in again.

It's remarkable how much use there is in the mornings on 7th Ave. So much so that a half-empty train can almost completely fill up - as people are getting off, too. I love, repeat LOVE the free fare zone. For many reasons. This is about my only complaint with it. I think it should have a peak use fare as well... some days.

[sim]

Now that it's been said a few times:

Would the LRT be a money maker or profit generating if the feeder buses into suburban communities didn't exist? Or if they never did?

Pretty hard to say for sure, because they do exist and have, but it's also rather obvious that if it then still did [make money] (doubtful) it wouldn't be at the same level or our land use and mobility patterns would have looked drastically different at this point - (also doubtful as they were going that way before any LRT existed.)

Or course feeder buses should exist, that isn't the point though. The point is that it has to be regarded as one integrated system. While the LRT operates profitably, the system as a whole doesn't, but the system as a whole depends on the financial inefficiency to run the LRT portion profitably.

[armorand93]

Just wondering (as a Winnipegger), why do you guys have two routes (CW and CCW) for ONE neighborhood? Wouldn't it be better to just have one route?

[Rational Plan3]

Originally Posted by Ferreth

From the Calgary Herald

Transit passes may be based on sliding scale

"Calgary Transit officials are set to investigate a "sliding scale" low-income pass that could see some of the city's poorest pay less than the current low-income rate of $40 a month."
[...]
"Some on council are also balking at the prospect of raising the cost of the dramatically subsidized seniors pass. Currently, Calgary seniors, no matter their income, pay just $35 a year for a pass, a rate that hasn't changed since 1995."

I have no problem with poor people paying less for transit. Hell, I'd look at charging nothing as a means of helping them make ends meet, and hopefully getting ahead;, at $17K income (for a single), you certainly are not rolling in cash!

But the seniors $35/year thing. Give me a break. I really don't care to be subsiding those who can afford a pass, regardless of age. At least raise it to 1/2 the cost of a full pass, and have a low income level that would allow for a free pass.

Interesting discussion today, BTW. I'd much rather see a time-based fare increase rather than a zone based fare. We only have capacity issues at specific times. If such a move were to alleviate the crunch (debatable - how many people can pick their start time?) then you wouldn't give a rats ass about potential extra revenue - the real book balancer would be moving out the capital costs for service expansion.

The thing is, old people vote.

Now it's not quite the same thing, but in the UK the free bus pass for people over 60 is seen as almost as a rite of passage these days. It's restricted to travel after 9.30am hence their description as Twirlies. If your on the bus at 9.30, you'll see old people shuffle on and say "Am I too early?"

Anyway it's vastly popular and it does keep them out of cars. The old scheme used to be restricted to the county you lived in. A couple of years before the last election in a big election bribe they made the scheme national.

Now anyone can catch a bus free anywhere in the country. It has been vastly popular. There are tales of pensioners effectively backpacking across the country with a clutch of timetables jumping from rural town to town. It's most noticeable in the summer amongst the UK'S prettier counties. Google the stories amongst the UK press of old ladies having the time of their lives, exploring every nook and cranny.

Of course things have changed now, big cuts are needed in spending to control the deficit. The scheme cost almost £2 billion now and pensioners are the richest they have ever been, but do think anyone dreams of cutting it! No.

[Ferreth]

Originally Posted by Rational Plan3

The thing is, old people vote.

Now it's not quite the same thing, but in the UK the free bus pass for people over 60 is seen as almost as a rite of passage these days. It's restricted to travel after 9.30am hence their description as Twirlies. If your on the bus at 9.30, you'll see old people shuffle on and say "Am I too early?"

Yep, old people vote, and people vote for bread and circuses. Doesn't mean I have to like it. I think the city should approach it from a stance of "free for poor old people, other old people get a discount". The discount would be similar to what stores give, not what seniors are getting now. The idea of time restricting it could be added in too, would tie into the idea of moving the demand to times where there is extra capacity.

[Rational Plan3]

Also re fare system, just do what London does. Have a flat fare for Buses, which you just need to tap once on entry. With the LRT you can have zones with people either taping in and out or fare gates.

This can work as bus trips are not that long, especially in Calgary where most of the buses seem to focus LRT stations rather than straight to the city centre. As the LRT system expands this will only increase.

[Rational Plan3]

Originally Posted by freeweed

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.

Wow 50%, that seems low to my British eyes. Nearly all bus services are commercially run in the UK, hence the price in fares. Local authorities tend to subsidise weekend and evening services and particularly rural services.

London Buses used to run at 100% fare recovery rate Until Ken massively expanded night bus services and bus frequencies, combined with big expansion free travel to the unemployed, children under 16 , as well as the existing over 65's. At the worst it was £600 million in the red, thats due to halve over the next five years mainly due to faster fare increases.

The one advantage of high fare recovery ratio gives you, is you are not subject to the vagaries of budget cuts during recessions.

I do think fares can be too low, if it's too cheap people will over consume it. It might be more equitable to have higher fares, but give deeper discounts on passes to poorer residents.

Mind you UK public transport has the advantage of high fuel prices, heavy restrictions on parking and small roads, so the tip over point is probably much higher than in North America. The problem is the bigger subsidy for running services the less there is available for investment in capital. At the end of the day there is only so much tax revenue that will be diverted to transit. If fares raised an extra $200 million a year, for example what could the transit authority do with it?

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by armorand93

Just wondering (as a Winnipegger), why do you guys have two routes (CW and CCW) for ONE neighborhood? Wouldn't it be better to just have one route?

Winnipeg has these too, or at least used to. Windsor Park had one for sure, I took it all the time when I was a teenager (OK, this was 20 years ago).

The 2 routes mean that everyone is serviced equally. If you live at exactly the end of the loop, you don't care - but for everyone else, at least you have a 50% chance of getting somewhere quicker. Otherwise you might always be stuck 2 stops before the end of a route or something.