Calgary Public Transit II

[para transit fellow]

Originally Posted by Radley77

I think this is a good topic for public conversation to help direct: Does Calgary build services that are solely to provide a safety net, to provide compelling and efficient service, or to build a handful of gold-plated showcase projects. Calgary can do one of these really well, or some combination to varying degrees.

The question has a very broad reach. Calgary Transit doesn't provide paratransit to neighborhoods that don't have fixed route transit. For example Alberta Health Services recently created some small group homes in New Brighton, but the residents were denied by Access Calgary because there was no transit service in the neighborhood (yet).

There is a statistic that $1 spent on increasing transit coverage yields about $5-7 in health care savings. The challenge is that local property tax pays for transit but the province gets the healthcare savings.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by para transit fellow

There is a statistic that $1 spent on increasing transit coverage yields about $5-7 in health care savings. The challenge is that local property tax pays for transit but the province gets the healthcare savings.

It isn't even that straight forward. Assuming the ratio is correct (and I don't know if it is), the $1 spent now (which you may not have) will save the $5-$7 60 years from now in old age. It is like believing in pensions. Hopefully it will come. Additionally, it may actually extend life and thus increase burden on society.

Okay, my comments are way out there ... but these are interesting if not important observations, no?

[MichaelS]

Originally Posted by para transit fellow

There is a statistic that $1 spent on increasing transit coverage yields about $5-7 in health care savings. The challenge is that local property tax pays for transit but the province gets the healthcare savings.

I would be very curious to see the source and context of this.

[armorand93]

Originally Posted by MichaelS

I would be very curious to see the source and context of this.

Same. I havent seen anything from the forum me, him and mersar are on either about this.

[para transit fellow]

Cost-Benefit Analysis of Providing Non-Emergency Medical Transportation


TRB’s Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Web-Only Document 29: Cost-Benefit Analysis of Providing Non-Emergency Medical Transportation (NEMT) examines the relative costs and benefits of providing transportation to non-emergency medical care for individuals who miss or delay healthcare appointments because of transportation issues. The report includes a spreadsheet to help local transportation and social service agencies conduct their own cost-benefit analyses of NEMT tailored to the local demographic and socio-economic environment. The executive summary of the report is available as Research Results Digest 75.


http://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/156625.aspx

[para transit fellow]

Originally Posted by suburbia

It isn't even that straight forward. Assuming the ratio is correct (and I don't know if it is), the $1 spent now (which you may not have) will save the $5-$7 60 years from now in old age. It is like believing in pensions. Hopefully it will come. Additionally, it may actually extend life and thus increase burden on society.

Okay, my comments are way out there ... but these are interesting if not important observations, no?

It isn't 60 year payback. a transit system that gets 1 person to dialysis 3 afternoons a week (about 300 one way trips a year), saves health care something like $450,000 / year

[para transit fellow]

there is an incredible transit resource availble here for folks interested in the fiddly details of transit

http://www.trb.org/Publications/PubsTCRPPublications.aspx

[Radley77]

Bike Rack Installation at University C-Train Station!!!!!!!!!!

[RicoLance21]

R.I.P. 10th Street West Station - Last day of service is today. Filmed on Sept. 14, 2012.

• Video Link

[para transit fellow]

[post delete]

[armorand93]

I've forgotten how ridiculously small 10 St Station was.

[Surrealplaces]

LRT by Calgary Construction 5, on Flickr

[5seconds]

Interesting info about the west LRT being done for December

http://blogs.calgaryherald.com/2012/08/28/west-lrt-open-by-december-by-transits-track-record/

Says most stations apart from Westbrook are finished.

[eggbert]

Future plans total up to 8 billion dollars
CBC News Posted: Sep 17, 2012 5:09 PM MT Last Updated: Sep 17, 2012 5:12 PM MT

City council is working on a 30 year plan to set priorities for future transit development.

The wish list, worth between seven and eight billion dollars, includes new LRT lines, extensions of current lines as well as bus-only roads and new bus rapid transit routes.

Read More: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/story/2012/09/17/calgary-transit-route.html?cmp=rss

[MalcolmTucker]

Some small changes I think would improve the network plan, but nothing huge.

Borrowing $8 billion over 30 years would cost $209,200,716.89 a year. A 10 cent gas tax would easily pay for this.

Edit: I think unless the BRT network is being counted on to expensively debottleneck the south LRT, the 8th Ave subway should be a higher priority. Of course, that is based on the assumption that a trip on feeder bus then LRT is cheaper than a bus only trip, and that the trip time via LRT, including transfers would average comparable or shorter. Both those things could be wrong, but I doubt it.

[Wooster]

Here's the draft proposed RouteAhead Network Plan.





Discuss

[charper]

It's a big plan at an estimated $8 billion bucks!

Overall I think the plan is a good start. They're doing the right things with engagement and the consultation component is taking an innovative approach which is refreshing and a welcome departure from the open house approach.

That said, plans are only as good as they are implemented. Clearly there will need to be a mechanism in place to be able to tweak the plan so that it can respond to emerging requirements.

The first test of Route Ahead will be the SETWAY and eventual LRT. As the NCLRT seems to be prioritized behind the SETWAY, it will be interesting to see how Route Ahead informs those decisions and whether the plan will actually be a plan, or just a suggestion.

[fusili]

Some initial thoughts on Route Ahead:

- Agree with the critique that a BRT connecting the South Hospital to the South LRT is a must. This line should also extend into Evergreen (we can call it the providence line)
- Why not connect a rail connection from the NE line to the NC line. Obviously it wouldn't be able to interline, but it seems funny that if someone was living in the NE and working at Aurora Park, they would transfer twice instead of just once.
- I also prefer the rail connection to the Airport to come from the NC line instead of NE. This allows a more direct connection to downtown
- The 52nd ST BRT and the Mount Royal BRT should connect. I think Quarry Park is a good place to do this. It does create a transfer for NE residents going to the South Hospital, but avoids 2 transfers for passengers using both.
- The North crosstown BRT doesn't really need to go to Saddletown. A transfer at what they call Rundlehorn should be sufficient
- The North crosstown BRT should be able to connect the UofC/ACH/FMC loop. No need for what we all know will be a gondola. The roads can easily handle it (i.e. wide median on 16th west of 29th street, blank slate essentially in west campus, punch through a transit-only lane just west of CCIT)
- That being said, the Westbrook-Foothills gondola is a fantastic idea
- I can think of at least 4 more crosstown BRT routes (but actually just limited stop). One more in the west (14th Street), north (32nd Ave/Northmount), east (Barlow) and South (42nd Avenue)
- The 3 on Elbow Dr. should be upgraded to a limited stop service (again, this is what they call a BRT)


I'll have a TransitCamp blog and a map showing some of these ideas later. But all in all, a great plan.

[RicoLance21]

Originally Posted by fusili

Some initial thoughts on Route Ahead:

- Agree with the critique that a BRT connecting the South Hospital to the South LRT is a must. This line should also extend into Evergreen (we can call it the providence line)
- Why not connect a rail connection from the NE line to the NC line. Obviously it wouldn't be able to interline, but it seems funny that if someone was living in the NE and working at Aurora Park, they would transfer twice instead of just once.
- I also prefer the rail connection to the Airport to come from the NC line instead of NE. This allows a more direct connection to downtown
- The 52nd ST BRT and the Mount Royal BRT should connect. I think Quarry Park is a good place to do this. It does create a transfer for NE residents going to the South Hospital, but avoids 2 transfers for passengers using both.
- The North crosstown BRT doesn't really need to go to Saddletown. A transfer at what they call Rundlehorn should be sufficient
- The North crosstown BRT should be able to connect the UofC/ACH/FMC loop. No need for what we all know will be a gondola. The roads can easily handle it (i.e. wide median on 16th west of 29th street, blank slate essentially in west campus, punch through a transit-only lane just west of CCIT)
- That being said, the Westbrook-Foothills gondola is a fantastic idea
- I can think of at least 4 more crosstown BRT routes (but actually just limited stop). One more in the west (14th Street), north (32nd Ave/Northmount), east (Barlow) and South (42nd Avenue)
- The 3 on Elbow Dr. should be upgraded to a limited stop service (again, this is what they call a BRT)


I'll have a TransitCamp blog and a map showing some of these ideas later. But all in all, a great plan.

..except the rail connection to the airport is proposed to be built before the NCLRT line. Also, I think it seems weird to transfer from rail to bus when traveling to downtown.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by RicoLance21

..except the rail connection to the airport is proposed to be built before the NCLRT line. Also, I think it seems weird to transfer from rail to bus when traveling to downtown.

I would change that priority and put the rail connection to the airport after the NC LRT is built to Coventry. But either way, the rail connection should continue all the way from NE LRT to NC LRT, regardless of where it originates.