Calgary Public Transit II

[Ferreth]

I'm going to be down there too to check out the LRT opening on Saturday. I'm hoping for a sunny afternoon to get some great pictures!

Thanks for the bike program info MasterG, I'll be sure to find them. I have some issues in my local area I'd like to bend their ear about.

Regarding the 8-9am commute, Calgary has been like this for years. Most people are in by 8am here, so 8-9am commute is relatively empty. I used to take advantage of that back in my university days in the '90s to take the train DT then out to the university, rather than taking the circle route 72/73.

[lubicon]

Most of the people downtown (at least in my line of work) start at 8AM at the very latest, and many come in before that, sometimes as early as 6 or 6:30. I have become so used to this that when 'flex' times were mentioned it did not even occur to me that someone would actually start work at 9. Honestly I don't know why someone would even do this - it jsut delays your end of day by another hour and who wants to work until 5:30, then head home. Or maybe it's just me and the life schedule I have. There's no way could work that late and still be able to get the kids to their various activities on time.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by Ferreth

Regarding the 8-9am commute, Calgary has been like this for years. Most people are in by 8am here, so 8-9am commute is relatively empty. I used to take advantage of that back in my university days in the '90s to take the train DT then out to the university, rather than taking the circle route 72/73.

It didn't used to be such a stark contrast, at least not when I first moved here. People really started going earlier and earlier and I guess the 8-9 crowd just thinned out.

I'd think the city has an interest in encouraging companies to promote the "slightly later" start. We're not talking 10 or 11 am either - just 8:30 or 9. Which used to be a common work start time. I highly, highly doubt that every single one of these workers is absolutely essential at 8am every day.

Put even 10 or 20% of the early crowd onto later trains, and suddenly 4 cars will come in time instead of several years too late.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by lubicon

Honestly I don't know why someone would even do this - it jsut delays your end of day by another hour and who wants to work until 5:30, then head home. Or maybe it's just me and the life schedule I have. There's no way could work that late and still be able to get the kids to their various activities on time.

Totally agree, and I don't even have the kidlets to deal with. I hate getting home at like 6 or later. I do think you've hit on a key point in the changing demographics in Calgary, though - with EVERYONE having young kids right now, I think we've seen a heaver-than-usual movement towards the "early shift".

Oddly enough though, the Park n Ride lot at Crowfoot still has a ton of cars in it at 6pm. So an awful lot of people are rushing to work in the early hours of the morning, but not necessarily so that they can get home any earlier. Kinda sad to see, actually.

[floobie]

I do the exact opposite... I come in late and leave early. Usually 9ish to 4:30ish. Working for a tiny company and having the ability to work from literally anywhere makes that a bit easier to pull off, though. I mean, if I need to, I can tether my laptop to my phone on the train and be fully functional. In a pinch, I can do like 90% of my job directly from my phone or tablet.

Loosely related rant follows:

Calgary's definition of "flex time" is a total joke. It needs to go much further. Simply "putting in your 8 hours" shouldn't be the main goal. Getting your shit done efficiently and to a high standard should be. If you don't need 8 hours to do that -and I think many people would be surprised to find out they don't- fine. I think workplace attitudes need to catch up to technology. Technology has enabled us to "be available" without physically being at the office. Technology has also enabled us to do the same tasks much, much faster. It's just a matter of recognizing it and exploiting it. As younger generations enter the work force, this will change. When having a meeting over Skype is completely trivial and simple for anyone under 40, but a gigantic pain in the ass easier solved by just meeting in person for anyone over 40 (arbitrary, don't read too much into it), it's pretty easy to see what will happen when the younger generation takes over.

[DizzyEdge]

I do 9-5, but I also have, if driving, a 12 minute commute, I can see how going in late and going home late wouldn't be too feasible if you have a longer commute, many dont want to work til say 5:30 and not get home until 6:30.

[Mazrim]

I work from 9-6, but I have no kids so I guess I never considered it might be more difficult for some. If I need to be at work earlier for whatever reason, it quite literally doubles my commute. Same thing with leaving earlier too. Offsetting your commute by 30 minutes can make a big difference in times!

[fusili]

Originally Posted by floobie

I do the exact opposite... I come in late and leave early. Usually 9ish to 4:30ish. Working for a tiny company and having the ability to work from literally anywhere makes that a bit easier to pull off, though. I mean, if I need to, I can tether my laptop to my phone on the train and be fully functional. In a pinch, I can do like 90% of my job directly from my phone or tablet.

Loosely related rant follows:

Calgary's definition of "flex time" is a total joke. It needs to go much further. Simply "putting in your 8 hours" shouldn't be the main goal. Getting your shit done efficiently and to a high standard should be. If you don't need 8 hours to do that -and I think many people would be surprised to find out they don't- fine. I think workplace attitudes need to catch up to technology. Technology has enabled us to "be available" without physically being at the office. Technology has also enabled us to do the same tasks much, much faster. It's just a matter of recognizing it and exploiting it. As younger generations enter the work force, this will change. When having a meeting over Skype is completely trivial and simple for anyone under 40, but a gigantic pain in the ass easier solved by just meeting in person for anyone over 40 (arbitrary, don't read too much into it), it's pretty easy to see what will happen when the younger generation takes over.

Agreed. The whole performance metrics for work need to change. Have you ever heard of ROWE (results only work environment)?

[lubicon]

Originally Posted by Mazrim

I work from 9-6, but I have no kids so I guess I never considered it might be more difficult for some. If I need to be at work earlier for whatever reason, it quite literally doubles my commute. Same thing with leaving earlier too. Offsetting your commute by 30 minutes can make a big difference in times!

Yup. I am officially 8-4:30 but it's more like 7-4:30. I come in early otherwise the traffic is a nightmare. Unfortunately I cannot leave equally early as our clients expect us to be available until the end of the business day.

Makes it a real challenge when you have a 40 minute commute to get home and your kid needs to be across town for a 5PM hockey practice. You literally have to leave work at about 3:30 to make it. Better hope you have an understanding boss

[fusili]

In case you missed it: I participated in a CBC live chat this afternoon with Neil McKendrick from Calgary Transit and Scott Dipple from CBC. You can check out the chat here: http://www.cbc.ca/calgary/features/lrt/ (You might have to navigate a bit to get a record of the live chat.

[floobie]

Originally Posted by fusili

Agreed. The whole performance metrics for work need to change. Have you ever heard of ROWE (results only work environment)?

I haven't, but I can infer what it entails. Is there really any of that to be found here?

[93JC]

Originally Posted by Radley77

It's so awesome that the City of Calgary decided to develop the Park Plus system before Calgary Connect when there are vastly more people who use public transit per day than who park in city owned lots per day. Good jorb stopping the war on cars!

The Calgary Parking Authority makes a profit ($17 million went back to the City in 2010), whereas Calgary Transit runs at a massive loss (the City funded 47% of Transit's operating budget in 2010 from general revenue (taxes); about $130 million). Park Plus also cost less money to develop than Connect.

Not saying it's 'right', just saying it's a lot easier to push through a project like Park Plus when the CPA already makes the money to pay for it.

Is that normal for transit to be running at such a loss? Is it the case in Edmonton, Vancouver, etc.?

[fusili]

Originally Posted by 93JC

The Calgary Parking Authority makes a profit ($17 million went back to the City in 2010), whereas Calgary Transit runs at a massive loss (the City funded 47% of Transit's operating budget in 2010 from general revenue (taxes); about $130 million). Park Plus also cost less money to develop than Connect.

Not saying it's 'right', just saying it's a lot easier to push through a project like Park Plus when the CPA already makes the money to pay for it.

Originally Posted by Acey

Is that normal for transit to be running at such a loss? Is it the case in Edmonton, Vancouver, etc.?

Every transit agency in the world runs at a loss except for Hong Kong, which really only makes its money from real estate. Calgary's 53% fare recovery is greater than most other jurisdictions, including Vancouver.

[ByeByeBaby]

Originally Posted by Acey

Is that normal for transit to be running at such a loss? Is it the case in Edmonton, Vancouver, etc.?

CT's farebox recovery ratio (the amount of their budget they recover from fares) is around 45-50%, which is totally typical for cities of our size in Canada. A good (but a bit old) comparison is on page 86 of this PDF.

It's sort of silly to be talking about a loss in any case; I'm pretty sure that building the 30 extra lanes of roadway into downtown to accommodate the C-Train and bus users would cost a hell of a lot more than Calgary Transit ever will.

[DarkKeyo]

Originally Posted by fusili

In case you missed it: I participated in a CBC live chat this afternoon with Neil McKendrick from Calgary Transit and Scott Dipple from CBC. You can check out the chat here: http://www.cbc.ca/calgary/features/lrt/ (You might have to navigate a bit to get a record of the live chat.

That was an interesting read, though Neil McKendrick didn't seem to have much info that you didn't already.

Neil McKendrick:
Scott is right about the disruption but the disadvantage of elevated stations is that they are not easily accessible like Sunnyside or Erlton, etc.

I can write a very long post (essay) about the meaning of accessible station. I think I can summarize it like this: An accessible station is one that fits the surrounding community, is designed for the volume of people using it, and that you don't have to cross busy 6 lane roads to access. NOT what the city seems to think, which is "a station that has just ramps to access it."

By this definition Erlton is NOT accessable, nor are Shaganappi Point or Sirocco, whereas Sunalta and Westbrook and Sunnyside are.

[sim]

Originally Posted by fusili

Every transit agency in the world runs at a loss except for Hong Kong, which really only makes its money from real estate. Calgary's 53% fare recovery is greater than most other jurisdictions, including Vancouver.

You can add Singapore, and several Japanese ones to that list. Additionally, you might be able to add Munich and London underground to it.

However, as alluded to, it's not always easy to disseminate exactly what specific department in the agencies or federations is responsible for what share.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by ByeByeBaby

CT's farebox recovery ratio (the amount of their budget they recover from fares) is around 45-50%, which is totally typical for cities of our size in Canada. A good (but a bit old) comparison is on page 86 of this PDF.

It's sort of silly to be talking about a loss in any case; I'm pretty sure that building the 30 extra lanes of roadway into downtown to accommodate the C-Train and bus users would cost a hell of a lot more than Calgary Transit ever will.

This is the key, the cost of Transit has to be measured against the cost of increased road maintenance and road widening if it didn't exist.

It's one of those situations where say a bill for $50 is annoying, but without paying it you'd be paying $100.

[MichaelS]

Originally Posted by floobie

I do the exact opposite... I come in late and leave early. Usually 9ish to 4:30ish. Working for a tiny company and having the ability to work from literally anywhere makes that a bit easier to pull off, though. I mean, if I need to, I can tether my laptop to my phone on the train and be fully functional. In a pinch, I can do like 90% of my job directly from my phone or tablet.

Loosely related rant follows:

Calgary's definition of "flex time" is a total joke. It needs to go much further. Simply "putting in your 8 hours" shouldn't be the main goal. Getting your shit done efficiently and to a high standard should be. If you don't need 8 hours to do that -and I think many people would be surprised to find out they don't- fine. I think workplace attitudes need to catch up to technology. Technology has enabled us to "be available" without physically being at the office. Technology has also enabled us to do the same tasks much, much faster. It's just a matter of recognizing it and exploiting it. As younger generations enter the work force, this will change. When having a meeting over Skype is completely trivial and simple for anyone under 40, but a gigantic pain in the ass easier solved by just meeting in person for anyone over 40 (arbitrary, don't read too much into it), it's pretty easy to see what will happen when the younger generation takes over.

There will be fewer jobs available because one person will now be able to do the work of 2-3, so companies won't bother hiring 2-3?...

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by MichaelS

There will be fewer jobs available because one person will now be able to do the work of 2-3, so companies won't bother hiring 2-3?...

More like nothing will change. Every generation for the past 100 years comes in convinced that technology is going to revolutionize the office, and every generation leaves with some things gained, and some things lost. We've already seen 90% of the productivity gains to be had from computers. Entire departments of people have been let go as a result in the past 50 years - only to be replaced with new departments. Hours get filled up with other work.

Also, anyone who thinks something like Skype is a game changer and means you can suddenly work from home... hasn't worked in an office very long, and obviously has missed the telephones that still sit on most desks. We could have been working from home 20, 30 years ago for many if not most jobs. I can't think of a single newish technology that changes that. Yet we didn't, because forcing you to be at work has little to nothing to do with necessity.

I think I'm mostly picking on Skype because I've seen modern videoconferencing in action. The old guys can hardly get the projector turned on, so instead give up after 5 minutes and end up having the meeting without the hassle. And the young guys struggle to understand why the corporate firewall isn't just wide open to the world, why they can't just install whatever the hell they want on their laptops, why can't the company just let any device of their choosing get into the corporate network, and why can't we just completely re-configure every single IT device on the spot.

Just so that we can accomplish a 15 minute discussion that could just as easily happen via face or phone (or is probably not needed at all).

TLDR; I haven't seen a game changing technology in decades. We had dumb terminals and dialup available long before most of the current incoming generation was even born, and we still trudged into the office each day. Of course, we also had touchscreen devices, but the kids wanna pretend that stuff is new and fresh as well and the only reason it's not everywhere doing everything is because of old people being old.

Oh, and in my experience as a semi-old fart - 90% of people who think they're the ones who can get stuff done in under 8 hours, aren't. Not by a long shot.