Calgary Public Transit II

[Cage]

Originally Posted by outoftheice

..... 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.

Any city wide plebiscite on NC-SELRT is doomed to fail if it includes tax increase provision.

NW, NE, SW, South Central, and East areas of the city will all vote 66-75% no to your question. The problem with a plebiscite is that there is absolutely no benefit to the vast majority of residents in the above areas.

North Central and deep SE areas of the city will likely only support the question by a margin of 5-10% over the negatives so support in the range of 55%, maybe 60% tops. Never enough support to get over the negatives from other city areas.

For an example of the effects of plebiscite WRT transit and traffic (which inherently only benefit a small fraction of the city), research the Keillor Road debate in the 1995 Edmonton municipal election.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by Cage

Any city wide plebiscite on NC-SELRT is doomed to fail if it includes tax increase provision.

NW, NE, SW, South Central, and East areas of the city will all vote 66-75% no to your question. The problem with a plebiscite is that there is absolutely no benefit to the vast majority of residents in the above areas.

North Central and deep SE areas of the city will likely only support the question by a margin of 5-10% over the negatives so support in the range of 55%, maybe 60% tops. Never enough support to get over the negatives from other city areas.

For an example of the effects of plebiscite WRT transit and traffic (which inherently only benefit a small fraction of the city), research the Keillor Road debate in the 1995 Edmonton municipal election.

Fully agree. The way it is supposed to work is that we elect officials because of their intelligence, and then they make those decisions. Plebiscites for everything gets you no where.

Years ago, France had a plebiscite on a joining the EU. The document was ~500 pages long in legal speak. It got voted down, but do you really think those voting had any clue about what was in the document or the implications? Anyway, they joined later, but just making the point that democracy doesn't always mean plebiscite, rather, our systems are meant for us to elect an intelligent representative body. Perhaps something to think about when you all go out voting in the municipal election.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Cage

Any city wide plebiscite on NC-SELRT is doomed to fail if it includes tax increase provision.

NW, NE, SW, South Central, and East areas of the city will all vote 66-75% no to your question. The problem with a plebiscite is that there is absolutely no benefit to the vast majority of residents in the above areas.

North Central and deep SE areas of the city will likely only support the question by a margin of 5-10% over the negatives so support in the range of 55%, maybe 60% tops. Never enough support to get over the negatives from other city areas.

For an example of the effects of plebiscite WRT transit and traffic (which inherently only benefit a small fraction of the city), research the Keillor Road debate in the 1995 Edmonton municipal election.

I disagree. There is a difference between an initiative to fund something that is the consensus choice earlier, and funding something that people can't agree on. There is no real world evidence of Calgarians disliking spending on infrastructure, even when they don't directly benefit.

Similar funding measures since 2000 have a 70% success rate in the USA. http://www.apta.com/mediacenter/pressreleases/2012/Pages/121107_Ballot-Initiatives1107-148.aspx

You can track the individual ones here: http://www.cfte.org/elections

Key predictors of success are a defined end date for the tax (rates matter less), geographic equity (this packaage has that), multimodality (would be good to define what interchanges this would build, like Glenmore/Shepard, might have to throw in some others to spread the benefit around), and wide community group buy in (chamber of commerce, environmental groups). http://trb.metapress.com/content/k35474k820562075/?genre=article&id=doi%3a10.3141%2f1799-02

[frinkprof]

Transitcampyyc sent a survey to all candidates asking a few questions regarding transit issues. The results from each question will be included in an installment as part of a series of articles in Metro.

Here's the article for the first question, "How often do you use transit?" with the results for all the participants included in the link.

Most Calgary council candidates are infrequent transit riders

Of the 49 candidates running for city councillor, 37 responded to the survey, including all incumbents.


Of those respondents, 12 said they take transit several times a week or more and four said they ride about once a week.


Of the remaining 21, five said they take transit one to three times a month, nine said they ride only on occasion, and seven responded with “rarely,” “not often” or similar answers.


[...]

Link to the rest of the article including all responses to this question


The series of articles will also be paralleled by blog posts to TransitCampYYC's webpage at:


http://transitcamp.ca/


The other four questions are:

1. What is the most pressing transit need in your ward

2. What is the most pressing transit need outside your ward?

3. What is your most innovative idea for improving transit?

4. What is the role of transit in Calgary?

[fusili]

The results of the Transitcamp Election survey (question 1 today) are up on the website http://transitcamp.ca/. The responses from the questions will follow in the next days as Metro publishes the same answers each day.

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

I disagree. There is a difference between an initiative to fund something that is the consensus choice earlier, and funding something that people can't agree on. There is no real world evidence of Calgarians disliking spending on infrastructure, even when they don't directly benefit.

Similar funding measures since 2000 have a 70% success rate in the USA. http://www.apta.com/mediacenter/pressreleases/2012/Pages/121107_Ballot-Initiatives1107-148.aspx

You can track the individual ones here: http://www.cfte.org/elections

Key predictors of success are a defined end date for the tax (rates matter less), geographic equity (this packaage has that), multimodality (would be good to define what interchanges this would build, like Glenmore/Shepard, might have to throw in some others to spread the benefit around), and wide community group buy in (chamber of commerce, environmental groups). http://trb.metapress.com/content/k35474k820562075/?genre=article&id=doi%3a10.3141%2f1799-02

Well said and well sourced. In my experience, more people complain about poor transit service than about high taxes.

[RyLucky]

I was just reading about Allison's flood tunnel and it got me thinking... The tunnel is proposed to run under 58th ave s from the Glenmore dame to the bow river and cost 200-300 million. That video about Singapore's multi-function tunnel is still on my mind. If we threw in a couple hundred mill, do you think it could be feasible to get a subway from MRU to QP? with stops, say, at Rockyview, Chinook, and Deerfoot Meadows?

I'm dreaming, I know. But then again I never thought we'd be seriously considering spending hundreds of millions on a flood way.

[outoftheice]

Originally Posted by 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.

So I've spent the last two days playing around with numbers to see if we could come up with more realistic figures that we could put forward with our plan. I think we've come up with something that could realistically work and I would value any input or criticisms that you would have to offer. The same applies to other forum members as well!

In looking at our goals and revenue projections we have decided to refocus our efforts and move the goal posts a little closer. Our initial plan focused on the desire to allow a complete build-out of the NC and SE LRT lines in order to provide the maximum benefit to the greatest number of people as well as helping to future proof the south-east quadrant of the City against the impending population boom in that region.

Instead, we are now considering a goal of allowing both the NC and SE LRT lines to be built out past certain 'choke points' that would provide the greatest amount of benefit without breaking the bank in regards to construction costs. Having the LRT lines reach past the 'choke points' would also allow a more gradual phasing of the next part of construction. As far as choke points go, we feel that Beddington Trail in the north and the Deerfoot Trail/Bow River Bridge in the South East represent the best choices. In both cases, people living in neighbourhoods beyond these two choke points are forced to rely heavily on Deerfoot Trail for commuting. Because of this, we feel that advocating for construction of the NC LRT to North Pointe and the SE LRT to Douglasglen is the best compromise solution to a complete build out.

Based on the Route Ahead document and the cost of the latest LRT expansion to Saddletown Station, we estimate the total project construction cost of our modified proposal will be $4.19 Billion. Even with the lowered construction cost we have had to increase the amount of the surcharges we would be asking the public to accept. We are now modeling our proposal on a $0.35 increase to transit fares as well as a $0.08/L surcharge on fuel. We continue to feel that a plebiscite is the best way forward to gain public acceptance for the project and to provide Calgary City Council with the political mandate and leverage it would need to negotiate the required changes with the Province. We would look to the following timeline for financing the project:

Year 0 - Plebiscite passes and negotiations with the Province are complete.
Year 1 - Revenue collection for the province begins. Detailed design studies are commissioned. (to be financed out of traditional revenue streams)
Year 2 - Detailed design is complete and construction contract is put out for bid. Payment is designed to be delivered in full on project delivery.
Year 3 - Construction begins
Year 4, 5 - Construction continues
Year 6 - Project is delivered to the City. Now the City must pay the contractor.

In the first 6 years of the project, we estimate that our revenue generation tools will have raised $912,616,852. Given the estimated construction cost of the project, this means that $3,277,383,148 would remain outstanding on date of delivery. Our proposal would have this amount covered through a 35 year loan. We have estimated an interest rate of 4.25% which builds in some future proofing over the interest rate the Provincial Government currently qualifies for. This means that the total loan cost will be $6,302,915,068 and require an annual payment by the City of Calgary of $180,083,280.

Unfortunately there is an issue with this as revenue raised by our proposal is back-ended. As a result, during the first 3 years after the date of delivery (Years 7-9) we project a shortfall between the total amount of revenue raised by the surcharges and the required loan payment. This shortfall would be approximately $11 million in year 7, $6 million in year 8 and $990,000 in year 9 totalling approximately $19 million. To cover this short-fall we are proposing that $19 million is set aside from traditional funding sources over the first 6 years of the project. While this will have an impact in the ability to build other infrastructure projects around the city, it is important to point out that it is a relatively small amount... in fact it is still less than the cost of the Peace Bridge (For the ssp record: I really like the Peace Bridge but it's the easiest way to put thing in perspective).

After this point, the revenue from the 2 surcharges exceeds the amount required for the loan payment. In fact, by year 28 the 2 surcharges are estimated to have raised $6.4 Billion which is the total cost of the loan. By year 35, the 2 surcharges are projected to raise $8.8 Billion, well above the total cost of the loan. This should allow for a certain amount of future proofing to be built into the plan.

So I'm curious what people think. Is this a more realistic approach to the issue with the figures more closely representing reality? Will the increase to the surcharges in order to make the numbers work dramatically impact the chance of success of the proposal? Will the shortening of the length of the SE LRT line we are hoping to build have a large impact on public acceptance of the proposal? Personally I think this last one could have the biggest impact on the project. However I think perspective and how it is presented to people will play a big role in this aspect. In regards to the SE, the status quo is going to have us spend $667 million on the SETWAY to Quarry Park. Our proposal will bring the LRT instead of a BRT and deliver it one stop further along the route to Douglasglen. It also means that LRT service is that much closer and will people in the SE to enjoy an immediate benefit from future phases beyond our route termination point as the most expensive part (the stretch to downtown Calgary) has already been taken care of.

As always, we value in and all feedback and look forward to slowly and surely moving the discussion forward! If it is felt we are closer to being on the right track with the latest revisions our plan is to move forward with changes to the report and the website and then pressing on with our advocacy.

[Fuzz]

I've mentioned it before, but why not introduce zone based fares to raise extra money? With the continued growth of the city, It only make sense to charge more for longer distances.

[H.E.Pennypacker]

Originally Posted by outoftheice

So I've spent the last two days playing around with numbers to see if we could come up with more realistic figures that we could put forward with our plan. I think we've come up with something that could realistically work and I would value any input or criticisms that you would have to offer. The same applies to other forum members as well!

In looking at our goals and revenue projections we have decided to refocus our efforts and move the goal posts a little closer. Our initial plan focused on the desire to allow a complete build-out of the NC and SE LRT lines in order to provide the maximum benefit to the greatest number of people as well as helping to future proof the south-east quadrant of the City against the impending population boom in that region.

Instead, we are now considering a goal of allowing both the NC and SE LRT lines to be built out past certain 'choke points' that would provide the greatest amount of benefit without breaking the bank in regards to construction costs. Having the LRT lines reach past the 'choke points' would also allow a more gradual phasing of the next part of construction. As far as choke points go, we feel that Beddington Trail in the north and the Deerfoot Trail/Bow River Bridge in the South East represent the best choices. In both cases, people living in neighbourhoods beyond these two choke points are forced to rely heavily on Deerfoot Trail for commuting. Because of this, we feel that advocating for construction of the NC LRT to North Pointe and the SE LRT to Douglasglen is the best compromise solution to a complete build out.

Based on the Route Ahead document and the cost of the latest LRT expansion to Saddletown Station, we estimate the total project construction cost of our modified proposal will be $4.19 Billion. Even with the lowered construction cost we have had to increase the amount of the surcharges we would be asking the public to accept. We are now modeling our proposal on a $0.35 increase to transit fares as well as a $0.08/L surcharge on fuel. We continue to feel that a plebiscite is the best way forward to gain public acceptance for the project and to provide Calgary City Council with the political mandate and leverage it would need to negotiate the required changes with the Province. We would look to the following timeline for financing the project:

Year 0 - Plebiscite passes and negotiations with the Province are complete.
Year 1 - Revenue collection for the province begins. Detailed design studies are commissioned. (to be financed out of traditional revenue streams)
Year 2 - Detailed design is complete and construction contract is put out for bid. Payment is designed to be delivered in full on project delivery.
Year 3 - Construction begins
Year 4, 5 - Construction continues
Year 6 - Project is delivered to the City. Now the City must pay the contractor.

In the first 6 years of the project, we estimate that our revenue generation tools will have raised $912,616,852. Given the estimated construction cost of the project, this means that $3,277,383,148 would remain outstanding on date of delivery. Our proposal would have this amount covered through a 35 year loan. We have estimated an interest rate of 4.25% which builds in some future proofing over the interest rate the Provincial Government currently qualifies for. This means that the total loan cost will be $6,302,915,068 and require an annual payment by the City of Calgary of $180,083,280.

Unfortunately there is an issue with this as revenue raised by our proposal is back-ended. As a result, during the first 3 years after the date of delivery (Years 7-9) we project a shortfall between the total amount of revenue raised by the surcharges and the required loan payment. This shortfall would be approximately $11 million in year 7, $6 million in year 8 and $990,000 in year 9 totalling approximately $19 million. To cover this short-fall we are proposing that $19 million is set aside from traditional funding sources over the first 6 years of the project. While this will have an impact in the ability to build other infrastructure projects around the city, it is important to point out that it is a relatively small amount... in fact it is still less than the cost of the Peace Bridge (For the ssp record: I really like the Peace Bridge but it's the easiest way to put thing in perspective).

After this point, the revenue from the 2 surcharges exceeds the amount required for the loan payment. In fact, by year 28 the 2 surcharges are estimated to have raised $6.4 Billion which is the total cost of the loan. By year 35, the 2 surcharges are projected to raise $8.8 Billion, well above the total cost of the loan. This should allow for a certain amount of future proofing to be built into the plan.

So I'm curious what people think. Is this a more realistic approach to the issue with the figures more closely representing reality? Will the increase to the surcharges in order to make the numbers work dramatically impact the chance of success of the proposal? Will the shortening of the length of the SE LRT line we are hoping to build have a large impact on public acceptance of the proposal? Personally I think this last one could have the biggest impact on the project. However I think perspective and how it is presented to people will play a big role in this aspect. In regards to the SE, the status quo is going to have us spend $667 million on the SETWAY to Quarry Park. Our proposal will bring the LRT instead of a BRT and deliver it one stop further along the route to Douglasglen. It also means that LRT service is that much closer and will people in the SE to enjoy an immediate benefit from future phases beyond our route termination point as the most expensive part (the stretch to downtown Calgary) has already been taken care of.

As always, we value in and all feedback and look forward to slowly and surely moving the discussion forward! If it is felt we are closer to being on the right track with the latest revisions our plan is to move forward with changes to the report and the website and then pressing on with our advocacy.

That's funny, I was just talking about this with my roommate last night after catching up on this thread - and my thoughts are pretty much similar to this .. I love the the plan you've outlined (especially in explaining the costs/benefits of it all), however feasibly getting both legs done in their entirely at once is extremely aggressive

IMO a happy median is build out the LRT to those choke points you've listed above - Beddinginton and Quarry Park .. Value-wise it's probably the best cost effective measure while mitigating taxpayer concerns at the same time .. It would require some upgrades to the interchanges around Beddington/Douglasdale but overall could work very effectively until it's clear both legs can be completely in their entirety that fit the cost schedule .. It would divert plenty of traffic away from Deerfoot in both directions and allow people in those sprawl communities at least some access to get to downtown via train

I maintain that in the good times of this economy, investing in city infrastructure is the best thing to ensure sustainable growth in the future .. The cost may seem steep now but it's not going to get cheaper in the future - the only uncertainty is where our economy will be at that time .. Might as well invest, in a responsible manner, now

[MalcolmTucker]

Once financial holes are small enough, the rounding errors on a project this big isn't really an issue. Having a $20 million gap versus and $150 million gap is a huge difference. What is your starting capital cost number?

Here are the rates on offer http://www.acfa.gov.ab.ca/nav/rates.html- to get a 35 year loan you would just roll over 5 years of principle at the end. I haven't played with their calculator that much - I think you can do it. The out years aren't a problem, just the early years. As long as you can carry it initially, that is it.

Personally for branding purposes I prefer 10 cents, 10% fare hikes, and construction finished in 10 years. If you have enough money, build 10 interchanges too to make it multimodal. If it turns out to be too much money you can always cut them back (which is way better than having to raise them!)

[J-D]

Originally Posted by RyLucky

I was just reading about Allison's flood tunnel and it got me thinking... The tunnel is proposed to run under 58th ave s from the Glenmore dame to the bow river and cost 200-300 million. That video about Singapore's multi-function tunnel is still on my mind. If we threw in a couple hundred mill, do you think it could be feasible to get a subway from MRU to QP? with stops, say, at Rockyview, Chinook, and Deerfoot Meadows?

I'm dreaming, I know. But then again I never thought we'd be seriously considering spending hundreds of millions on a flood way.

I can't see it ever happening, but it would be nice... The only problem I see would be making Chinook the transfer station between the existing LRT and this hypothetical subway.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I've mentioned it before, but why not introduce zone based fares to raise extra money? With the continued growth of the city, It only make sense to charge more for longer distances.

Wouldn't this only work if the buses were retrofitted with ticket validators?

[joe498]

Originally Posted by RyLucky

I was just reading about Allison's flood tunnel and it got me thinking... The tunnel is proposed to run under 58th ave s from the Glenmore dame to the bow river and cost 200-300 million. That video about Singapore's multi-function tunnel is still on my mind. If we threw in a couple hundred mill, do you think it could be feasible to get a subway from MRU to QP? with stops, say, at Rockyview, Chinook, and Deerfoot Meadows?

I'm dreaming, I know. But then again I never thought we'd be seriously considering spending hundreds of millions on a flood way.

Would like to see this, not going to happen though.

Though I think MRU would be better served as an extension from the West LRT in the near future.

I think right now the most important thing of all is to get SE calgary connected to the downtown. Build the SE LRT To QP and run feeder buses to the LRT. This will also supply us with a good number of extra buses that can be used elsewhere to better service the less feasible locations eg: Seton, Cranston, Mahogany.

I don't understand why the SE LRT Cost always has to be examined in it's entirety when building to QP is all that is presently needed now. This way we are not just running tracks through industrial either.

[H.E.Pennypacker]

Originally Posted by joe498

Would like to see this, not going to happen though.

Though I think MRU would be better served as an extension from the West LRT in the near future.

I think right now the most important thing of all is to get SE calgary connected to the downtown. Build the SE LRT To QP and run feeder buses to the LRT. This will also supply us with a good number of extra buses that can be used elsewhere to better service the less feasible locations eg: Seton, Cranston, Mahogany.

I don't understand why the SE LRT always has to be examined in it's entirety when building to QP is all that is really needed right now. This way we are not just running tracks through industrial either.

I agree .. I'd like to see the SELRT go to QP rather than use the, what, $667 million use on the SETWAY plan .. Take that money from that plan and allocated it to upgrade the ingress/egress to the QP station to make sure traffic isn't an entire clusterfuck in Douglasdale once it's built

[sim]

Originally Posted by outoftheice

Based on the Route Ahead document and the cost of the latest LRT expansion to Saddletown Station, we estimate the total project construction cost of our modified proposal will be $4.19 Billion. Even with the lowered construction cost we have had to increase the amount of the surcharges we would be asking the public to accept. We are now modeling our proposal on a $0.35 increase to transit fares as well as a $0.08/L surcharge on fuel. We continue to feel that a plebiscite is the best way forward to gain public acceptance for the project and to provide Calgary City Council with the political mandate and leverage it would need to negotiate the required changes with the Province. We would look to the following timeline for financing the project:

I'm not really a finance guy so I don't have much to add in that regard per se, and I understand that this is a rather high-level, preliminary analysis, but a couple things that raise an eyebrow.

Why exactly those levels of surcharges other than to balance the books? Perhaps it's covered in your document, but are they largely arbitrary? Did you look into the price elasticities of demand these surcharges would entail?

It seems like you are discincentivizing transit riders to a much greater level when discretized to a single trip. Making some quick and perhaps conservative assumptions although I'm sure this can be readily looked up, if the average vehicular trip (let's say just commuting) were 10 km and average fuel economy at 10L/100 km, a car driver has incurred an additional cost of only $0.08 whereas a transit rider $0.35. Again, a quick estimate but probably conservative if anything (longer commute trips only).

So you'd be reducing demand for the very thing you are trying to induce demand for and make better.

It may seem initially equitable given that transit users would be the ones to most directly benefit from transit infrastructure improvements and therefore should incur the highest cost, but this would portend a narrow understanding of transportation as a system. A much higher gas tax (assuming it could be applied regionally) is or can be justified on the fact that a higher use of public transit produces a higher social economic equilbrium, has many unnaccounted for extranalities and is itself subsidized to begin with - upwards of $1/L for parking alone.

Financing transportation projects on the future demand of that infrastructure is risky business in any case, as many toll operators seem to be realizing these days. So I'd be especially wary of linear projections.

[sim]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Personally for branding purposes I prefer 10 cents, 10% fare hikes, and construction finished in 10 years. If you have enough money, build 10 interchanges too to make it multimodal. If it turns out to be too much money you can always cut them back (which is way better than having to raise them!)

I realize this was probably just an example, but I'd be pretty wary of allowing branding to supercede demand implications and economic optimization, although it does sound nice.

However, in no case should you want to use it to build 10 interchanges merely to which they would undo all the work you've just done. That's a spiral ride to the bottom right there. It's time we started to understand that interchanges are, well, not really good.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

Wouldn't this only work if the buses were retrofitted with ticket validators?

Yes, and we were supposed to have those last year...It'd be nice if we could operate our transit ticketing system in the 21st century.

[sim]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

Wouldn't this only work if the buses were retrofitted with ticket validators?

Well for monthly transit passes you could tag them to addresses and those are then segmented to the zones that would ideally, radiate outwards from the city center as is often done, at least in Germany. This can produce some other unfair circumstances.

In dense networks, you can charge the fare according to the embarking stop's proximity to the terminal station of the line in that direction of travel, as in HK. The assumption here is that given that there are so many lines along a given bus stop (so not in Calgary's case really), the user makes the decision which route is to be used to make the ride the cheapest. But yes, without at least a boarding validator this would be rather difficult.

All door validators would allow for truly distance-based faring.

[RyLucky]

or we could adjust our royalties and taxes to be equivalent with BC and start SELRT construction next year...