Calgary Public Transit II

[UofC.engineer]

Originally Posted by fusili

No. But to say that the SE is the only quadrant without LRT is false.

If we split hairs chinook, 39th ave, stampede and Victoria park are in the SE. So if we are being really technical every quadrant has an LRT station.

[Northski]

The other cost benefit analysis that needs to be done for the SETWAY/SELRT is cost of upgrades to Deerfoot, Glenmore, Memorial, and 17 ave to support the 100,000 new people that will move in to the deep SE over the next 15 years.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by UofC.engineer

If we split hairs chinook, 39th ave, stampede and Victoria park are in the SE. So if we are being really technical every quadrant has an LRT station.

But then we are just getting caught up in terminology and not the actual geographic layout of the city.

Let's define the SE as the area south of Peigan and East of the River/Deerfoot. North Central is between 14th Street/Nose Hill Park and Deerfoot, north of the river. Those are definable geographic boundaries that create a meaningful separation of areas. NW/NE/SW/SE is pretty useless in this discussion. We need to talk about actual geographic separations if we are going to talk about transit service. Otherwise it is just semantics.

[ByeByeBaby]

Originally Posted by Northski

The other cost benefit analysis that needs to be done for the SETWAY/SELRT is cost of upgrades to Deerfoot, Glenmore, Memorial, and 17 ave to support the 100,000 new people that will move in to the deep SE over the next 15 years.

If we're broadening the analysis, then if we want to talk about quadrant fairness, we should note that there is an $800 million road project (Stoney Trail) currently being built in the SE. Over the next 10 years, the City's capital spending on roads is planned to be less than half of that; $360 million. Oh, and the single largest City road project? In the SE. (Glenmore/Ogden interchange).

It's sort of interesting that the area that is getting 77% of the roads spending over the next decade is crying foul if they don't also get 100% of the transit spending.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by fusili

No. But to say that the SE is the only quadrant without LRT is false.

I fell into the S/N-E vs East of Deerfoot trap.

[Allan83]

Originally Posted by fusili

It is hard sometimes for people to devolve themselves from their particular interests and see the broader picture. Of course Keating is going to support the SE LRT, and of course Macleod is going to support the NC LRT. The question is what the others will view as the most prudent use of money. Let's be honest, the SE LRT is very expensive, serves a small population far away from downtown and has to travel through areas with very little density. The transit report is pretty close to an objective assessment of costs and benefits.

I have no doubt that there are political factors at play, but I would suggest that the most obvious one is seen in the rankings of that report. Ranking routes that provide a few minutes in time savings ahead of one that saves 13 minutes each way, or almost a half hour per day for commuters, in the way that this report does is perhaps the most glaring example. I don’t have time right now to dig up that report but there were a number of other issues with the rankings as well, and in the projections for future development and area that the SETWAY would serve, that were very questionable as well, and they all undervalued the SETWAY. Maybe I’ll dig them up later. I live near the Westbrook C-Train station, btw, so not close to the SE or south central parts of Calgary which would benefit the most from the SETWAY.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Allan83

I have no doubt that there are political factors at play, but I would suggest that the most obvious one is seen in the rankings of that report. Ranking routes that provide a few minutes in time savings ahead of one that saves 13 minutes each way, or almost a half hour per day for commuters, in the way that this report does is perhaps the most glaring example. I don’t have time right now to dig up that report but there were a number of other issues with the rankings as well, and in the projections for future development and area that the SETWAY would serve, that were very questionable as well, and they all undervalued the SETWAY. Maybe I’ll dig them up later. I live near the Westbrook C-Train station, btw, so not close to the SE or south central parts of Calgary which would benefit the most from the SETWAY.

Ok, it saves 13 minutes. It is also the most expensive project by an order of magnitude and has lower ridership projections than most of the other projects.

As a thought exercise: would you rather save 10K people 30 minutes per day for $3 billion, or save 30K people 15 minutes per day for $50 M?

[UofC.engineer]

Originally Posted by ByeByeBaby

It's sort of interesting that the area that is getting 77% of the roads spending over the next decade is crying foul if they don't also get 100% of the transit spending.

The ring road forms a ring around the city and thus all quadrants are more or less equally benefited by the construction and operation of the road.

I find it interesting that a solid LRT route has yet to be established in the NC, yet people think it should get green lighted ahead of a route that has been planned 25 years ago.

Just out of curiosity, do you think the SE LRT would be successful if it were up and running by tomorrow?

[ByeByeBaby]

Something that would be productive would be if a project could be identified that improved service in the SETWAY corridor for a more reasonable budget. It's going to be hard to compare cost vs. benefit when six of the seven projects are in the $50-150M range and the seventh is more like $700M. It has to provide a hell of a lot of benefit to be competitive.

I don't know if there is an improvement or package of improvements priced in the $100M range that would make sense and not need to be removed when a full SETWAY or SE LRT is built. (It's also interesting to note that the SETWAY plan is in part this sort of initiative already; it's a slimmed down version of the $2B SE LRT that provides some of the improvement.) It might be worth CT's while to investigate if there is something like that -- either it would be a good project, or it could help show that the SE can't be effectively served by transit without a megabuck investment compared with other areas.

[MalcolmTucker]

The SE LRT wasn't planned 25 years ago. Only in the last decade (maybe 15 years) did it become obvious that the south LRT wouldn't have enough capacity for a branch line heading down Anderson to the east, then to serve the SE residential. That change in thinking orphaned the SE LRT north/west of Douglasdale. A big difficulty in building the line is until the ultimate phase (or at least until beyond Glenmore) it will be a bit short on the trip generation side.

Edit, in reading it says 1987 a report (Reid Crowther & Partners (Currently Earth Tech (Canada) Inc.)) concluded the above, but a spur of sorts was kept in the mid 90s Go Plan.

[5seconds]

Originally Posted by UofC.engineer

The ring road forms a ring around the city and thus all quadrants are more or less equally benefited by the construction and operation of the road.

I find it interesting that a solid LRT route has yet to be established in the NC, yet people think it should get green lighted ahead of a route that has been planned 25 years ago.

Just out of curiosity, do you think the SE LRT would be successful if it were up and running by tomorrow?

A north central route was one of the original 4 lines envisioned by the City in 1967. It may not have been a functional plan, but the need has been recognized since the origins of the system.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by UofC.engineer

Just out of curiosity, do you think the SE LRT would be successful if it were up and running by tomorrow?

I think so. While I agree with other posts that ridership is currently low; and that should factor into the decision- I question why ridership is low. For example, I can drive into work from Copperfield in about 30-35 minutes in rush hour. You have to double that time on the current BRT.

Then look at the NC route. Being shorter it might take 20 minutes to drive, and 30 minutes on the bus. Seeing as the difference isn't significant, I might be inclined to use the bus more often.

That's why I like the idea of the SETway; put the "rapid" back into BRT, and then see how it goes from there.

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by Allan83

I think that bombshell was a dud. While the report did contain some valuable information, most notably the huge time savings the SETWAY offers, the overall ranking system was utter nonsense, imo. It was so bad and illogical that I’m sure most people dismissed it almost as soon as they saw it. What the details of that report showed, otoh, were that the SETWAY should be one of our top priorities

Originally Posted by fusili

It is hard sometimes for people to devolve themselves from their particular interests and see the broader picture. Of course Keating is going to support the SE LRT, and of course Macleod is going to support the NC LRT. The question is what the others will view as the most prudent use of money. Let's be honest, the SE LRT is very expensive, serves a small population far away from downtown and has to travel through areas with very little density. The transit report is pretty close to an objective assessment of costs and benefits.

While objectively comparing capital projects is a worthy goal, this study came short of delivering (as did routeahead, but that's another rant). Explicit methodology could have justified the numbers, but it was omitted. Lack of explanation in a novel ordinal ranking system is a cardinal sin! Pun intended. No offense, but why not have somebody who understands statistics create this kind of study. It looks and smells like science, but it offers fewer challengable conclusions than a TED talk. I'm not saying the outcome of the study is incorrect; I'm saying it is impossible to tell from what was shown, and as a result this "objective study" comes across as a breath short of biased propaganda, consciously or otherwise.

Calgary Transit and RouteAhead, if you are reading this, I will happily proofread your future studies before they go public. Transparency is impossible with McStudies like this one.

[RyLucky]

Woah, I think that was my most negative post ever. That's how much I hate shoddy analysis.

[MichaelS]

Originally Posted by RyLucky

Woah, I think that was my most negative post ever. That's how much I hate shoddy analysis.

It was a very good post and did a great job highlighting the problems with that study. Very well said.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by fusili

But then we are just getting caught up in terminology and not the actual geographic layout of the city.

Let's define the SE as the area south of Peigan and East of the River/Deerfoot. North Central is between 14th Street/Nose Hill Park and Deerfoot, north of the river. Those are definable geographic boundaries that create a meaningful separation of areas. NW/NE/SW/SE is pretty useless in this discussion. We need to talk about actual geographic separations if we are going to talk about transit service. Otherwise it is just semantics.

It is fine to do that, as long as you don't then stipulate that the sliver that results should get 25% of the city resources.

Personally, I think a SE street car (international avenue) should be prioritized ahead of a prospective underutilized SE LRT

[ByeByeBaby]

Originally Posted by UofC.engineer

The ring road forms a ring around the city and thus all quadrants are more or less equally benefited by the construction and operation of the road.

I find it interesting that a solid LRT route has yet to be established in the NC, yet people think it should get green lighted ahead of a route that has been planned 25 years ago.

Just out of curiosity, do you think the SE LRT would be successful if it were up and running by tomorrow?

The people who use the ring road to go all around the city past all quadrants by definition are the people who don't live here. (Remember, it's not a City project.) Calgary residents will use it for shorter segments. Does the section from Crowchild to Deerfoot get heavy use from SE residents? No. Will the section from 17th to 22X? Yes. The vast majority of residents using that section will be SE residents.

Yes, a detailed design for an LRT route or transitway in NC Calgary hasn't been created. If the rough designs used performed about as well as the SELRT, this would be a valid point. They aren't even close -- twice the ridership increase, one fifth the cost as far as BRT goes, and probably similar cost for LRT. If a more detailed design turns out to have very different assumptions from the rough design; if the rough design used for analysis assumes separated ROW and a detailed design has mixed ROW for example, then this is a valid point. But if one restaurant is selling steak and the other one is selling skunk, you don't need to know what the garnish on the appetizer is to choose one.

Honestly, it depends on what you mean by successful. Will it have greater ridership than the 302? Yes. (Of course, there are probably 50 bus lines with greater ridership.) Will it have the same level of ridership as the South LRT? No. My guess, back of the envelope, would be 15,000-17,000 weekday trips if it opened today. IIRC, the West LRT is around 30,000 as is the NE LRT.

I don't think that would generally be called a success, given the cost. The cost is similar in the ~$2.5B range (and the project similar; 25 km, tunnel in the downtown) to the Central Link LRT in Seattle, which is a success at 30K weekday trips. The ridership (my unscientific - but not uninformed - guess) is similar to the Lynx light rail in Charlotte or the O-train in Ottawa. Both of those are successes, but Lynx only cost $500M, and the O-train $40M(!). And, of course, there are some cost-benefit studies I think Calgary Transit did recently.

If we're ignoring cost, something that increases ridership by twelve people one time is a success. But unless you have a bank account with billions of dollars in it and are waiting to sign a cheque, why would we ignore cost? Frankly, the representative of the SE, Ald. Keating, voted to turn away $52M in tax revenue this week, so he (and by extension, his constituents, and others nearby in S Calgary, like those in Demong's and Colley-Urquhart's wards) don't want the City spending more money. They seem to be the most sensitive people in the City to costs.

[ByeByeBaby]

Originally Posted by RyLucky

While objectively comparing capital projects is a worthy goal, this study came short of delivering (as did routeahead, but that's another rant). Explicit methodology could have justified the numbers, but it was omitted. Lack of explanation in a novel ordinal ranking system is a cardinal sin! Pun intended. No offense, but why not have somebody who understands statistics create this kind of study. It looks and smells like science, but it offers fewer challengable conclusions than a TED talk. I'm not saying the outcome of the study is incorrect; I'm saying it is impossible to tell from what was shown, and as a result this "objective study" comes across as a breath short of biased propaganda, consciously or otherwise.

Calgary Transit and RouteAhead, if you are reading this, I will happily proofread your future studies before they go public. Transparency is impossible with McStudies like this one.

What metric or metrics would you propose for this sort of a cost-benefit study?

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by ByeByeBaby

What metric or metrics would you propose for this sort of a cost-benefit study?

The metrics seem reasonable, just explain the assumptions used to reach their estimates and define what earns something 1 pt vs 2 pts vs 3 pts.

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by ByeByeBaby

What metric or metrics would you propose for this sort of a cost-benefit study?

For more detail, here's my original critique.

Originally Posted by RyLucky

Interesting report. Thanks for posting! This has been a good reminder of how far money could go to improve crosstown and 17th ave SE commutes relative to the SELRT. Here are my initial critiques of methodology:

1) In scoring, each of their 8 criteria are weighted equally, although surely certain criteria are more relevant than others. One downside of doing it this way is that the same benefits are counted multiple times to rack up score. For example, population density is related to density of youth, seniors, and low-income citizens. Job density is essentially counted twice too. A candidate project that would rank highly gets to double it's score in this way. This is often a problem with ordinal scoring.

2) Every criteria is divided by capital cost per rider. This is fine, except projected capital cost and projected ridership are independently difficult to predict. Margins of error are likely around 50% of data value for each, and when you compound this and then use this value for every criteria, there is potential for huge mistakes. The rank of projects could be completely different if capital cost per rider prediction is incorrect.

3) Other data values and ordinal cutoffs are difficult to justify. For example, in total emission reduction in kg (which is already difficult to predict with any accuracy), 75 500 scores a 3, but 71 900 scores a 2.

4) Why does a higher future expense (Cost of programmed or anticipated 10- year lifecycle improvements divided by capital cost per rider) earn a candidate more points?

Overall, I like how this report was done. A more detailed/transparent methodology and/or citations to where the number come from would help. Please, routeahead, get better at this! Also, bang per buck is important, but it shouldn't necessarily be the only consideration. Should we give the most funding to schools that perform better? Should we build more parks in areas where parks are most utilized? Should we open a banana stand on the part of the boardwalk that is known to already sell the most frozen bananas? Different questions, I know, but I hope you get my point.

That was before council voted on it. My problem now is that it seems as though councilors, media, and members of the public are making arguments based purely on the so-called conclusion of this study, which is based on a dubious ordinal rank. I've heard no councilors demonstrate critical understanding of this study but only claim to accept or deny the validity of this study in accordance to what they already believed. This is easy for them because of the nontransparent methodology.