Calgary Public Transit II

[Surrealplaces]

A few Friday afternoon pics for the LRT fans


Oliver Bowen Maintenance Facility by tallisrh, on Flickr


Storage Lanes by tallisrh, on Flickr


CTrain Service Lane by tallisrh, on Flickr


CTrain Wash by tallisrh, on Flickr

[joe498]

Really like some of the ideas presented here in a nice analysis on transit funding titled: "paying our own way":

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8rBz38rfXdNaFJnSGZqNHdvR3c/edit?usp=sharing&pli=1

[ken0042]

I'd even say go so far as increasing fares to $3.50

Another idea- even bring them up to $4 on routes that would be eliminated by the new LRT routes. For example, I take the 151 to and from work, and if we had LRT to McKenzie Towne, that route would be gone.

[joe498]

Originally Posted by ken0042

I'd even say go so far as increasing fares to $3.50

Another idea- even bring them up to $4 on routes that would be eliminated by the new LRT routes. For example, I take the 151 to and from work, and if we had LRT to McKenzie Towne, that route would be gone.

I like that idea also. The key thing is, we have to deal with this stuff now even if it requires some tradeoffs as it only gets harder the longer we wait, prices will only be more costly and infrastructure / transit will only continue to get worse.

[Ferreth]

I'd support the idea of paying 7 cent/litre more province wide. Put the money more to LRT in the cities, bus to the 'burb communities. Don't forget pedestrian infrastructure either. Put the money towards road/sidewalk improvements in smaller centers, and targeted highway improvements.

[MalcolmTucker]

I don't think those transit and gas surcharges would pay off the needed $342 million a year. 10 cents per litre, ignoring consumption shifts, would get you to around $200 million a year. Doubling transit fares would close the gap (which is ridiculous and I am not proposing). Just illustrating how much money is needed.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by ken0042

I'd even say go so far as increasing fares to $3.50

Another idea- even bring them up to $4 on routes that would be eliminated by the new LRT routes. For example, I take the 151 to and from work, and if we had LRT to McKenzie Towne, that route would be gone.

I disagree. Transit tickets are already getting to high, especially for us short distance commuters. My Wife and I often take a cab downtown (outside of work trips) because its only a couple bucks more than the 2 bus tickets would cost. Keep hiking the fairs and there is no motivation to take transit over driving, taxi's or car2go's.

If fares are going to go up any further, we need a zone system, which I'd be fine with. People taking an LRT 20km should pay more than a 5km bus or LRT trip, especially if they are coming from other communities outside Calgary and we subsidize them with our taxes.

[speedog]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

If fares are going to go up any further, we need a zone system, which I'd be fine with. People taking an LRT 20km should pay more than a 5km bus or LRT trip, especially if they are coming from other communities outside Calgary and we subsidize them with our taxes.

And how would you propose how the system would ID these transit users who come from communities outside of Calgary?

[Fuzz]

Well, with a zone system, at least it would cost them more. Another way of handling a small part of it would be how they manage the monthly parking passes. If they are ordered to an address outside the city, you charge more. Obviously not perfect, but I'd imagine lots of the monthly passes are bought by out of town-ers. You could go further and charge more for monthly transit passes outside the city, but I admit this would be harder to handle. Perhaps once we get(if ever) a proper electronic system this might be more feasible.

[outoftheice]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

I don't think those transit and gas surcharges would pay off the needed $342 million a year. 10 cents per litre, ignoring consumption shifts, would get you to around $200 million a year. Doubling transit fares would close the gap (which is ridiculous and I am not proposing). Just illustrating how much money is needed.

I'm curious where the $342 million/year figure comes from and how it relates to the construction of the 2 LRT lines? You are correct in your assumptions that the annual amount raised by a combined fuel and transit surcharge would not come close to raising that amount. According to the report, the projected annual revenue from a 7 cent/L fuel surcharge would equal $101 million in the first year. It is estimated that this would increase to $233 million annually by 2047 using a conservative method of prediction that is based on 60% of the historical increase in gasoline sales based on population growth. In total, a 7 cents/L fuel surcharge is estimated to raise $5.5 Billion by 2047.

In regards to the transit fare surcharge, the report estimates that a 30 cent surcharge will raise $22 million in the first year if applied to all non subsidized fares (seniors passes and low income passes would be exempt). This is estimated to increase to $123 million/year by 2047 raising a total of $2.1 Billion by 2047. The report quotes a 2011 Calgary Transit Fare Strategy report that concludes that a small increase in fares would have a negligible impact on transit ridership and uses this conclusion to support the case that a 30 cent transit fare surcharge would not deter transit ridership either.

Combined, the two surcharges would raise approx. $7.6 Billion over the life of the program (ending in 2047). Based on the estimates published in Route Ahead, the total cost of building the NC LRT to North Pointe and the SE LRT to Seton comes to $5.95 Billion. Therefore the total construction cost should be easily covered by the program. The long duration of the program is based on the fact that the Route Ahead plan has the 2 LRT lines being built in phases and estimating that it will be around 30 years before the 2 lines will be complete to North Pointe and Seton. The report takes the view that instead of relying on traditional funding and building start/stop in phases over the next 30 years, why don't we build the whole thing now and just take the next 30-35 years to pay for it. (The exact same philosophy behind buying a house now, raising your family in it and paying off your mortgage over the following years).

I'd also point out that the federal government just decided to contribute almost $700 million to subway construction in Toronto. Reading the press releases, the key to their contribution seems to be the fact that the Feds were waiting for the City of Toronto and the province to put up the money first. I think it's fair to assume that if the City of Calgary adopted this program, it wouldn't be long before the Feds offered a large contribution towards construction which could be used to reduce the amount of the surcharges or shorten the timeframe of the repayment program, or both. The key is we need to come to the table first instead of hoping that the federal government will just drop money in our laps.

There is also the matter of the SETWAY. We're about to drop $667 million on a Busway that nobody in the city really wants... people are just willing to settle for it because they think construction of the SE LRT is impossible in the current funding environment (and they're right!). However go straight into building the SE LRT (and NC LRT) using an alternative funding structure and now the City has an additional $667 million to play with as it's no longer needed for the SETWAY.

To me, the program makes a lot of sense. There is a quiz on the website that does a good job at putting things in perspective and testing just how much you know about where transit in this city is heading. It takes 2 minutes to do, I'd encourage people to check it out.

http://www.smartercity.ca/quiz.html

[Spring2008]

Both the fuel and transit surcharges make sense in general. Everybody pitch in a little extra to fund these much needed infrastructure upgrades. At this point are these legitimate ideas being discussed at city hall, or more just ssp pipe dreams?

[Surrealplaces]

Calgary LRT at night by Surrealplaces, on Flickr

[J-D]

I was just thinking to myself on transit the other day... and wondering if anyone else thinks the 90 minute validity of tickets might need to be raised sometime in the near future? It's not overly hard to have a journey of over 90 minutes on CT these days if you are going from Bus->Train->Bus to reach a destination.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by outoftheice

I'm curious where the $342 million/year figure comes from and how it relates to the construction of the 2 LRT lines?

$342 million is the yearly cost of financing $6 billion over 30 years. The document referred to freeing up $6 billion for other projects. All in charges for $6 billion now is $10.219 billion over 30 years (given the predicted rates from the provincial government of 3.890%).

Originally Posted by outoftheice

You are correct in your assumptions that the annual amount raised by a combined fuel and transit surcharge would not come close to raising that amount. According to the report, the projected annual revenue from a 7 cent/L fuel surcharge would equal $101 million in the first year. It is estimated that this would increase to $233 million annually by 2047 using a conservative method of prediction that is based on 60% of the historical increase in gasoline sales based on population growth. In total, a 7 cents/L fuel surcharge is estimated to raise $5.5 Billion by 2047.

I wouldn't increase the tax like that. 5 cents raised $90 million in 2003, and $100 million in 2010. The grant is now at $119.6 million. So 2.88% compounded. But growth has been lumpy. I wouldn't count out technological change holding that number back, even with population and miles travelled growth. Plus you need the revenue at the front end of a loan, not the back end. Unless you want to pay even more interest.

Originally Posted by outoftheice

In regards to the transit fare surcharge, the report estimates that a 30 cent surcharge will raise $22 million in the first year if applied to all non subsidized fares (seniors passes and low income passes would be exempt). This is estimated to increase to $123 million/year by 2047 raising a total of $2.1 Billion by 2047. The report quotes a 2011 Calgary Transit Fare Strategy report that concludes that a small increase in fares would have a negligible impact on transit ridership and uses this conclusion to support the case that a 30 cent transit fare surcharge would not deter transit ridership either.

The biggest issue with the fare surcharge is how to apply it to pass holders. 157325300 trips last year according to APTA. So a $0.14 per average trip. Again, the issue is you need the money near the front end, not the back end.

Originally Posted by outoftheice

Combined, the two surcharges would raise approx. $7.6 Billion over the life of the program (ending in 2047). Based on the estimates published in Route Ahead, the total cost of building the NC LRT to North Pointe and the SE LRT to Seton comes to $5.95 Billion. Therefore the total construction cost should be easily covered by the program. The long duration of the program is based on the fact that the Route Ahead plan has the 2 LRT lines being built in phases and estimating that it will be around 30 years before the 2 lines will be complete to North Pointe and Seton. The report takes the view that instead of relying on traditional funding and building start/stop in phases over the next 30 years, why don't we build the whole thing now and just take the next 30-35 years to pay for it. (The exact same philosophy behind buying a house now, raising your family in it and paying off your mortgage over the following years).

Just have to deal with the interest charges and cash flow issues.

Originally Posted by outoftheice

I'd also point out that the federal government just decided to contribute almost $700 million to subway construction in Toronto. Reading the press releases, the key to their contribution seems to be the fact that the Feds were waiting for the City of Toronto and the province to put up the money first. I think it's fair to assume that if the City of Calgary adopted this program, it wouldn't be long before the Feds offered a large contribution towards construction which could be used to reduce the amount of the surcharges or shorten the timeframe of the repayment program, or both. The key is we need to come to the table first instead of hoping that the federal government will just drop money in our laps.

The federal contribution was from the post 2014 Building Canada Fund. We will get this money anyways whether it is for waterworks, playgrounds, roads, libraries, or transit. Since the report points to freeing up $6 billion for other projects, you can't count the Building Canada Fund towards the total. Now with a P3 Canada contribution, that would be different.

Originally Posted by outoftheice

There is also the matter of the SETWAY. We're about to drop $667 million on a Busway that nobody in the city really wants... people are just willing to settle for it because they think construction of the SE LRT is impossible in the current funding environment (and they're right!). However go straight into building the SE LRT (and NC LRT) using an alternative funding structure and now the City has an additional $667 million to play with as it's no longer needed for the SETWAY.

I'm not sure that the SETway money would be found money in that sense. Since I bought a Jag I didn't buy a Civic! Now I can go spend $20 grand on a vacation!

Originally Posted by outoftheice

To me, the program makes a lot of sense. There is a quiz on the website that does a good job at putting things in perspective and testing just how much you know about where transit in this city is heading. It takes 2 minutes to do, I'd encourage people to check it out.

http://www.smartercity.ca/quiz.html

If their numbers worked, this is the way to go. Little reason to advocate something that on the first technical report to council will come in 35% over the proposed budget. Even if Transit City in Toronto is something like 1000% over at this point.

[outoftheice]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

$342 million is the yearly cost of financing $6 billion over 30 years. The document referred to freeing up $6 billion for other projects. All in charges for $6 billion now is $10.219 billion over 30 years (given the predicted rates from the provincial government of 3.890%).

You raise a valid point, however does that not just become an issue of the term length for the loan? If a 30 year repayment schedule becomes a 40 year repayment schedule the amount required annually decreases. (Although yes, the amount paid in interest would increase). Would it be possible to avoid the issue entirely by how the construction was tendered? For example, could you say to the winning consortium "We will pay you approx. $7.6 Billion over the next 35 years for $6 Billion in construction work today... how you arrange the construction financing is up to you." ? How have other large scale infrastructure projects across the country been financed?

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

I wouldn't increase the tax like that. 5 cents raised $90 million in 2003, and $100 million in 2010. The grant is now at $119.6 million. So 2.88% compounded. But growth has been lumpy. I wouldn't count out technological change holding that number back, even with population and miles travelled growth. Plus you need the revenue at the front end of a loan, not the back end. Unless you want to pay even more interest.

I'm not too sure how to deal with the issue of revenue at the front end vs the back end. Revenue will always increase as the population of the city increases. Again, due to population there is also limits to the amount of revenue you can reasonably hope to generate. I think a 7 cents/litre surcharge is pretty close to the maximum people would be willing to accept. As to your other point, there is always the issue of technological change when looking at revenues based on fuel consumption. It's next to impossible to accurately predict the path technology will take. I'm not too sure what the solution would be or if there actually is an accurate way to model this to make revenue predictions on. That being said if flexibility is built into any payment terms future trends might not have drastic effects on the program.

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

The biggest issue with the fare surcharge is how to apply it to pass holders. 157325300 trips last year according to APTA. So a $0.14 per average trip. Again, the issue is you need the money near the front end, not the back end.

Agreed that front end vs back end will always be an issue with any alternative funding proposal. In regards to the application of the fare surcharge to transit passes the report speaks to that. According to the 2011 Calgary Transit Fare Strategy Report 48% of transit ridership was made by monthly pass holders. The price of a monthly pass in Calgary is based on 42 rides per month on transit. Using this number the price of a monthly pass would increase by approximately $12/month or $3/week. About the cost of a cup of coffee/week. I'm sure actual ridership statistics differ from how CT calculates the cost of its monthly passes and that would have an impact on the accuracy of how much money is hoped to be raised but it at least gives you a general idea of what the impact would be on pass holders.

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Just have to deal with the interest charges and cash flow issues.

There are definitely issues that require more in-depth study than what is offered in the report. My question would be why those in a position of leadership don't see the issue as important enough to warrant more in-depth studies. Who knows how successful Metrolinx will be in implementing their funding plan to build Transit City in the GTAA but at least they recognize the urgent need for the RT infrastructure and have come up with a concrete proposal to pay for it. Compare that to Calgary which seems to have taken a wishful thinking approach where people seem to hope that the money for the projects will arrive from the Province and the Feds before the city comes to a grinding halt due to population growth and a lack of infrastructure. These projects will only become more expensive with time. The cost to the city due to congestion will only become worse with time. The number of other projects that these LRT projects are going to compete with for funding (if the status quo is kept) will only increase with time. It's hard to quantify all of these costs but I would argue that this is a bigger challenge than finding a solution to interest and cash flow issues and yet this is the path Calgary is currently headed down.

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

The federal contribution was from the post 2014 Building Canada Fund. We will get this money anyways whether it is for waterworks, playgrounds, roads, libraries, or transit. Since the report points to freeing up $6 billion for other projects, you can't count the Building Canada Fund towards the total. Now with a P3 Canada contribution, that would be different.

Good point! Do you know how long the P3 Canada program is scheduled to run? If Calgary was to look at beginning construction of the 2 LRT lines in 2016 would funding from this program still be available?

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

I'm not sure that the SETway money would be found money in that sense. Since I bought a Jag I didn't buy a Civic! Now I can go spend $20 grand on a vacation!

I guess it depends on your perspective but I would tend to view it in a different light.... You are making a reasonable amount of money working your job and planning to use a portion of this money to buy yourself a Civic. It's not the car you want but it's the only car you can afford with the money coming in. Instead of settling for the Civic you decide to take matters into your own hands and get a second job that pays rather well. You decide that if you keep working this second job and put all of the money you make from it towards your car you can afford the Jag... which is the car you've wanted all along. So that's what you do. The thing is, you still have the income from your primary job that you were planning on using to buy the Civic. You no longer need to spend that money on the Civic because you now have the Jag so you actually can afford to go spend that $20 grand on a vacation. Are you working twice as hard than you were before? Yes. Are you getting more because of it? Yes. I see it as the same principle here in regards of a fuel and transit surcharge. If you create a second revenue stream that will be used exclusively to pay for the LRT construction, it frees up cash from your primary revenue stream to pay for other projects that you otherwise would not have had enough money to pay for.

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

If their numbers worked, this is the way to go. Little reason to advocate something that on the first technical report to council will come in 35% over the proposed budget. Even if Transit City in Toronto is something like 1000% over at this point.

Perhaps the numbers need further study and the policies require some modification however I do not think that is a reason to completely reject advocacy of the principles that they are founded on. Do you believe the status quo is sustainable? Personally I don't think it is. I also don't think that Calgary City Council has offered up any real solutions to the problem. At this point I think furthering any ideas that offer up some sort of concrete solution is better than continuing down the path that we are on now. The main thrust of the report is to advocate for a plebiscite in Calgary using the following question:

Do you support the creation of a temporary surcharge on fuel and transit fares that will be used exclusively to fund the immediate construction of the North Central LRT to North Pointe and the SE LRT to Seton?

Ask the people... see if they're willing to embrace the concept. Have a city-wide debate where all the pros and cons are discussed and give people the time to make an educated decision and then vote on it. It would be nice if someone on council would be brave enough to champion new taxes but we all know that isn't going to happen. Championing a plebiscite though is an issue that is a bit more politically acceptable. The worst that can happen is that we are still stuck where we are today and we sacrifice either the north end of the city or the south east end to pay for a marginal improvement to what currently exists. The best case is that the city can move ahead with construction decades ahead of the timeline that is currently planned and the entire city can enjoy a massive upgrade in infrastructure.

[MalcolmTucker]

"We will pay you approx. $7.6 Billion over the next 35 years for $6 Billion in construction work today... how you arrange the construction financing is up to you."

They will laugh at you. Companies have to make money, and the province can borrow at just about the lowest rate possible.

Do you know how long the P3 Canada program is scheduled to run? If Calgary was to look at beginning construction of the 2 LRT lines in 2016 would funding from this program still be available?

P3 Canada isn't a traditional program, it is more like a crown corporation. The seed funding was recently doubled to $3 billion. How long that lasts is up to the fund's managers. With the Building Canada Fund requiring a P3 screen for all projects now, I doubt more money will be set aside to specifically incentivize P3s.

Compare that to Calgary which seems to have taken a wishful thinking approach where people seem to hope that the money for the projects will arrive from the Province and the Feds.

This I sort of agree with, sort of not. We don't know how Calgary would use new revenue tools if it had them. We do know Toronto only used one of its new revenue tools out of many the province granted it, the land transfer tax.

That being said, arguing for a higher percentage of tax dollars when other levels of government aren't exactly flush is an issue, unless the person arguing is arguing for a cut in spending at the other levels.

I do not think that is a reason to completely reject advocacy of the principles that they are founded on.

It isn't a reason to reject the advocacy, but it is a reason the advocacy will likely fail. Advocacy for something that is likely to fail isn't a good use of resources. A basic error like is present lets opponents dismiss the idea out of hand.

[outoftheice]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

It isn't a reason to reject the advocacy, but it is a reason the advocacy will likely fail. Advocacy for something that is likely to fail isn't a good use of resources. A basic error like is present lets opponents dismiss the idea out of hand.

So the question becomes what can be done to build upon the idea to make it a workable solution? Or is the concept of a fuel and transit surcharge beyond salvaging? Are there other proposals or ideas out there that are more likely to accomplish the goal of building the LRT lines now rather than later? Or do we just give up hope that construction of the SE and NC LRT lines is a realistic possibility during the next 2 decades? Outside of Transformation Calgary's 1% sales tax idea and Ald. Shane Keating's Build-Own-Operate idea there doesn't seem to be a lot of other proposals on the table that are looking for realistic solutions to Calgary's transit needs. Most people are in agreement as to what Calgary needs in terms of LRT to handle the next 1,000,000 people that are moving here. So how do we get there? Or, in the very least, how do we get our politicians to at least explore outside of the box thinking instead of just dismissing it outright?

[MalcolmTucker]

Just need to design a plan to raise enough revenue. It is false to assume the political resistance will be markably different between a supplemental gas tax of 7 cents and 10 cents due to the rhetorical point of still being lower than all other provinces.

You can also make things a bit easier by starting to collect the tax on the day of the start of construction, not on the day of project delivery.

[outoftheice]

Originally Posted by Spring2008

Both the fuel and transit surcharges make sense in general. Everybody pitch in a little extra to fund these much needed infrastructure upgrades. At this point are these legitimate ideas being discussed at city hall, or more just ssp pipe dreams?

I suppose it's a little bit of both. To date, we have had meetings with several Councillors who have been receptive to the ideas put forth in the Paying Our Own Way report. We have also had commitments from several other members of Council to sit and meet with us to discuss things after the up-coming election. We have met with several of the Community Associations along the proposed NC-SE LRT route and have found that although opinions on a fuel and transit surcharge vary, there is strong support for the idea of a plebiscite. So that's the positive.

On the flip side, we have still yet to begin any form of discussions with roughly half of City Council... including some Councillors whose wards include the proposed NC-SE LRT route as well as the Mayor's office. For those Councillors who we have been able to meet with, they have been honest and forthcoming in the fact that before they would support the ideas publically, broad support would have to be demonstrated across the city and not just in the regions who would directly benefit from the LRT service. As one Councillor put it "The people who live along the route are the low hanging fruit... the ones who have a vested interest in seeing this move forward. If you can get people who will never set forth on the NC-SE LRT to voice their support, then you have something that we can move forward with as a Council."

So we now view that as our challenge. We have continued our discussions with the Community Associations who have voiced support for the project. We have also made sure to keep the Councillors who have shown interest in the loop as best we can. When we receive feedback and criticisms of our report (such as those mentioned by Malcom Tucker here on the forum) we take them to heart and are using them to refine the information in the report or to make changes as need be. The concept of the Transit Fare surcharge was not actually in the original report and was incorporated after discussions with the Canadian Tax-Payers Federation so that drivers were not the only ones being singled out to help upgrade the transportation system. We want this report to stand up to scrutiny as well as offering a solution that can be realistically put in place in the real world and we are more than happy to make changes to it to see that happen.

So is it still a bit of a ssp pipe dream? Perhaps. But we are making slow but steady strides in our goal. At the end of the day, we don't need to be the ones with the winning ticket to get these LRT lines built. What we do want to see is that both of these LRT lines are built and built now. There are plenty of groups out there that are advocating for better transit but we feel that by advocating for better transit, a group needs to have some way to back it up by offering a realistic solution to pay for it and this report represents our ideas. At the end of the day, if there is one thing that may prevent this from moving forward is the fact that congestion and quality of life in Calgary still isn't all that bad. As one Councillor's Executive Assistant put it:

"These ideas would be an easier sell in a place like Toronto. It's easy to go from bad to good. People are willing to embrace new ideas. What is hard is going from good to great. People have it pretty good in Calgary and although this proposal would take us from good to great or prevent good from going bad, it's harder to get people to embrace new ideas. Good to great is always the challenge".

Cheers,

-Jeff
http://www.smartercity.ca

[RyLucky]

Good work Jeff. Keep us posted on where this goes

Originally Posted by outoftheice

I suppose it's a little bit of both. To date, we have had meetings with several Councillors who have been receptive to the ideas put forth in the Paying Our Own Way report. We have also had commitments from several other members of Council to sit and meet with us to discuss things after the up-coming election. We have met with several of the Community Associations along the proposed NC-SE LRT route and have found that although opinions on a fuel and transit surcharge vary, there is strong support for the idea of a plebiscite. So that's the positive.

On the flip side, we have still yet to begin any form of discussions with roughly half of City Council... including some Councillors whose wards include the proposed NC-SE LRT route as well as the Mayor's office. For those Councillors who we have been able to meet with, they have been honest and forthcoming in the fact that before they would support the ideas publically, broad support would have to be demonstrated across the city and not just in the regions who would directly benefit from the LRT service. As one Councillor put it "The people who live along the route are the low hanging fruit... the ones who have a vested interest in seeing this move forward. If you can get people who will never set forth on the NC-SE LRT to voice their support, then you have something that we can move forward with as a Council."

So we now view that as our challenge. We have continued our discussions with the Community Associations who have voiced support for the project. We have also made sure to keep the Councillors who have shown interest in the loop as best we can. When we receive feedback and criticisms of our report (such as those mentioned by Malcom Tucker here on the forum) we take them to heart and are using them to refine the information in the report or to make changes as need be. The concept of the Transit Fare surcharge was not actually in the original report and was incorporated after discussions with the Canadian Tax-Payers Federation so that drivers were not the only ones being singled out to help upgrade the transportation system. We want this report to stand up to scrutiny as well as offering a solution that can be realistically put in place in the real world and we are more than happy to make changes to it to see that happen.

So is it still a bit of a ssp pipe dream? Perhaps. But we are making slow but steady strides in our goal. At the end of the day, we don't need to be the ones with the winning ticket to get these LRT lines built. What we do want to see is that both of these LRT lines are built and built now. There are plenty of groups out there that are advocating for better transit but we feel that by advocating for better transit, a group needs to have some way to back it up by offering a realistic solution to pay for it and this report represents our ideas. At the end of the day, if there is one thing that may prevent this from moving forward is the fact that congestion and quality of life in Calgary still isn't all that bad. As one Councillor's Executive Assistant put it:

"These ideas would be an easier sell in a place like Toronto. It's easy to go from bad to good. People are willing to embrace new ideas. What is hard is going from good to great. People have it pretty good in Calgary and although this proposal would take us from good to great or prevent good from going bad, it's harder to get people to embrace new ideas. Good to great is always the challenge".

Cheers,

-Jeff
http://www.smartercity.ca