Calgary Public Transit II

[sim]

Originally Posted by Acey

I support tolling, I just don't foresee it being beneficial to the city of Calgary at the moment. Something like Texas 130 is a different story. When they finally get it together and open the SE leg, Stoney will allow me to drive home to Lethbridge to see my parents and friends for the weekend instead of having to wait for over an hour on Deerfoot. Would I pay that toll? Without question.

Ah yes, if by different story you mean having the operating company for said highway being recently downgraded to junk status as an investment due to traffic volumes not materializing as projected and therefore toll revenues not covering debt loads used to construct it.

Sure. I don't live there. I don't care.

[fusili]

• Video Link

Yes. Yes. Yes. A thousand times yes.

Low floor vehicles. Dedicated rights of way. Multiple car consists. High speed, high capacity. Low cost. Damn, Calgary Transit, you had me at Low floor.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by RyLucky

Are you saying that you support tolling, or are you saying that tolling won't affect your behaviour? Or both?

I get a strong sense of "I don't give a shit either way" in his comments.

Tolls are great if they actually encourage other behaviour - because there's an actual, viable alternative. Tolls are simply money grabs and ways to punish lower income drivers disproportionally, when they do nothing and people keep driving.

The problem with a toll that does nothing, is it becomes a tax. A regressive one, at that. And given enough years of paying said tax for road service, the general public (arguably rightly) will start demanding increased service on the infrastructure that generates that tax.

I just don't see Calgary being anywhere close to having appropriate roads to toll. The only reason we'd put them in is as revenue generators, and as punishment for drivers. What Calgary did instead, which was freaking genius in hindsight, was to restrict parking downtown. It acts as an indirect toll, against only our busiest routes only at their busiest times - that served to completely shift behaviour in a way that is nearly unprecedented in North America. And completely unprecedented in a city our size.

Tolling something like Stoney does squat at this point. In a wealthy city like this, people will just pay it and continue to drive it. Or, even worse, they'll detour and start clogging up more "local" streets again. Entirely defeating the purpose of Stoney being constructed in the first place. No one's going to hop onto the LRT just because Stoney is a couple of bucks to drive on. Deerfoot? Being one of the 2 major highways through the city, a toll here is just punitive. Perhaps we should toll 16th Ave as well, it gets pretty congested?

I dunno. I just don't see a justification for toll roads in Calgary, at this stage. There's so many other, better ways to deal with things.

Originally Posted by freeweed

Tolling something like Stoney does squat at this point. In a wealthy city like this, people will just pay it and continue to drive it. Or, even worse, they'll detour and start clogging up more "local" streets again. Entirely defeating the purpose of Stoney being constructed in the first place.

Yep, this is all I was trying to say. And I very much give a shit, but I'd pay the toll either way, hoping that the money goes to roads and not LRT.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by freeweed

I get a strong sense of "I don't give a shit either way" in his comments.

Tolls are great if they actually encourage other behaviour - because there's an actual, viable alternative. Tolls are simply money grabs and ways to punish lower income drivers disproportionally, when they do nothing and people keep driving.

The problem with a toll that does nothing, is it becomes a tax. A regressive one, at that. And given enough years of paying said tax for road service, the general public (arguably rightly) will start demanding increased service on the infrastructure that generates that tax.

I just don't see Calgary being anywhere close to having appropriate roads to toll. The only reason we'd put them in is as revenue generators, and as punishment for drivers. What Calgary did instead, which was freaking genius in hindsight, was to restrict parking downtown. It acts as an indirect toll, against only our busiest routes only at their busiest times - that served to completely shift behaviour in a way that is nearly unprecedented in North America. And completely unprecedented in a city our size.

Tolling something like Stoney does squat at this point. In a wealthy city like this, people will just pay it and continue to drive it. Or, even worse, they'll detour and start clogging up more "local" streets again. Entirely defeating the purpose of Stoney being constructed in the first place. No one's going to hop onto the LRT just because Stoney is a couple of bucks to drive on. Deerfoot? Being one of the 2 major highways through the city, a toll here is just punitive. Perhaps we should toll 16th Ave as well, it gets pretty congested?

I dunno. I just don't see a justification for toll roads in Calgary, at this stage. There's so many other, better ways to deal with things.

Agree with you 100%. I just want to punish the tax pariahs in Airdrie somehow. I say we cut off their water.

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by freeweed

I get a strong sense of "I don't give a shit either way" in his comments.

Tolls are great if they actually encourage other behaviour - because there's an actual, viable alternative. Tolls are simply money grabs and ways to punish lower income drivers disproportionally, when they do nothing and people keep driving.

The problem with a toll that does nothing, is it becomes a tax. A regressive one, at that. And given enough years of paying said tax for road service, the general public (arguably rightly) will start demanding increased service on the infrastructure that generates that tax.

I just don't see Calgary being anywhere close to having appropriate roads to toll. The only reason we'd put them in is as revenue generators, and as punishment for drivers. What Calgary did instead, which was freaking genius in hindsight, was to restrict parking downtown. It acts as an indirect toll, against only our busiest routes only at their busiest times - that served to completely shift behaviour in a way that is nearly unprecedented in North America. And completely unprecedented in a city our size.

Tolling something like Stoney does squat at this point. In a wealthy city like this, people will just pay it and continue to drive it. Or, even worse, they'll detour and start clogging up more "local" streets again. Entirely defeating the purpose of Stoney being constructed in the first place. No one's going to hop onto the LRT just because Stoney is a couple of bucks to drive on. Deerfoot? Being one of the 2 major highways through the city, a toll here is just punitive. Perhaps we should toll 16th Ave as well, it gets pretty congested?

I dunno. I just don't see a justification for toll roads in Calgary, at this stage. There's so many other, better ways to deal with things.

Agreed. well said.

[sim]

Originally Posted by freeweed

I get a strong sense of "I don't give a shit either way" in his comments.

Tolls are great if they actually encourage other behaviour - because there's an actual, viable alternative. Tolls are simply money grabs and ways to punish lower income drivers disproportionally, when they do nothing and people keep driving.

The problem with a toll that does nothing, is it becomes a tax. A regressive one, at that. And given enough years of paying said tax for road service, the general public (arguably rightly) will start demanding increased service on the infrastructure that generates that tax.

I just don't see Calgary being anywhere close to having appropriate roads to toll. The only reason we'd put them in is as revenue generators, and as punishment for drivers. What Calgary did instead, which was freaking genius in hindsight, was to restrict parking downtown. It acts as an indirect toll, against only our busiest routes only at their busiest times - that served to completely shift behaviour in a way that is nearly unprecedented in North America. And completely unprecedented in a city our size.

Tolling something like Stoney does squat at this point. In a wealthy city like this, people will just pay it and continue to drive it. Or, even worse, they'll detour and start clogging up more "local" streets again. Entirely defeating the purpose of Stoney being constructed in the first place. No one's going to hop onto the LRT just because Stoney is a couple of bucks to drive on. Deerfoot? Being one of the 2 major highways through the city, a toll here is just punitive. Perhaps we should toll 16th Ave as well, it gets pretty congested?

I dunno. I just don't see a justification for toll roads in Calgary, at this stage. There's so many other, better ways to deal with things.

I would agree with this for the most part too, except that I think a further delineation of what kind of toll is put where is required. A congestion charge, which yes, would make little sense at this point on Stoney is in no way a tax grab and nor is it ineffectial. Generally, a flow level or desired average speed is set for (or some other goal for that matter) and the price is adjusted until the goal is met. As in the price is variable. So in effect, they have to work - at least as far as pertains to that goal.

Some tolls are however, meant to fund new roads.

Tolls are regressive yes, but then so is essentially every form of funding transportation. The question is then what form is least regressive. At least one study I've come across found it (congestion pricing) to be one of the least regressive.

However, when that revenue is put back into improving alternative access means/modes (and contrary to what Acey would like) such as PT, this can assuage that regressivity.

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by Acey

Yep, this is all I was trying to say. And I very much give a shit, but I'd pay the toll either way, hoping that the money goes to roads and not LRT.

Tolls could go into the pool of money that pays for Alberta's 31,000 km of highways (not including roads/streets) and 76 km of LRT.

Anyway, I'm against the toll.

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by sim

I would agree with this for the most part too, except that I think a further delineation of what kind of toll is put where is required. A congestion charge, which yes, would make little sense at this point on Stoney is in no way a tax grab and nor is it ineffectial. Generally, a flow level or desired average speed is set for (or some other goal for that matter) and the price is adjusted until the goal is met. As in the price is variable. So in effect, they have to work - at least as far as pertains to that goal.

Some tolls are however, meant to fund new roads.

Tolls are regressive yes, but then so is essentially every form of funding transportation. The question is then what form is least regressive. At least one study I've come across found it (congestion pricing) to be one of the least regressive.

However, when that revenue is put back into improving alternative access means/modes (and contrary to what Acey would like) such as PT, this can assuage that regressivity.

What about variable cost lanes added to Deerfoot or perhaps Glenmore? Use a express lane that is free for car-poolers / transit, but charge per KM that changes based on demand: higher in rush hour, lower off hours.

Obviously this would require the addition of a lane in some areas to accommodate it as well as some trickier technical and logistic questions on how to build and implement; I will leave that question to the engineers. But it definitely can be done.

The "tax" is voluntary. It also takes more cars out of the free lanes, creates an incentive car-pooling and off-peak travel, and acts as a relief valve in times of serious congestion or an accident where commuters may decide to bypass the congestion and pay the charge.

All of this leads to revenue to create further road and transit upgrades along the corridor.

[ByeByeBaby]

Originally Posted by fusili

• Video Link

Yes. Yes. Yes. A thousand times yes.

Low floor vehicles. Dedicated rights of way. Multiple car consists. High speed, high capacity. Low cost. Damn, Calgary Transit, you had me at Low floor.

I'd hate to disrupt all the talk about roads in the transit topic, but I think you mean to link this video:
• Video Link
Please, to the producer of these videos: have someone who speaks English review the copy before you record it.

[MalcolmTucker]

I don't think we will have road capacity change as much as is visioned in the video.

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

I don't think we will have road capacity change as much as is visioned in the video.

Yeah, that video is kind of fluffy...

[fusili]

Originally Posted by ByeByeBaby

I'd hate to disrupt all the talk about roads in the transit topic, but I think you mean to link this video:
• Video Link
Please, to the producer of these videos: have someone who speaks English review the copy before you record it.

Thanks.

[brentwood]

Curious how they propose to deal with an at-grade LRT as it enters downtown southbound on Centre Street. Does it just dead end at 6th Avenue? If not, how do they propose to deal with crossing 7th Avenue?

[fusili]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

I don't think we will have road capacity change as much as is visioned in the video.

I don't know, building a low-floor, dedicated ROW LRT for a fraction the cost of a subway, that can move 18 000 people per direction per hour on Calgary's busiest bus corridor just might offset the loss of two lanes of traffic, where both 4th street and Edmonton Trail are parallel roads that can handle any spillover traffic. This will actually massively increase the capacity of the road by an factor of four. Oh wait, you meant just cars. I forgot those are 6 times more important than the chumps taking the bus.

Originally Posted by RyLucky

Yeah, that video is kind of fluffy...

Sure is, but it sets the tone for what is achievable.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by brentwood

Curious how they propose to deal with an at-grade LRT as it enters downtown southbound on Centre Street. Does it just dead end at 6th Avenue? If not, how do they propose to deal with crossing 7th Avenue?

Agreed with this. Likely it will actually have a separate bridge over the river than enters the 2nd street subway.

Having it dead end on 7th ave might not actually be that bad as an interim measure though.

[Calgarian]

Originally Posted by brentwood

Curious how they propose to deal with an at-grade LRT as it enters downtown southbound on Centre Street. Does it just dead end at 6th Avenue? If not, how do they propose to deal with crossing 7th Avenue?

Tunnel.

[Calgarian]

Originally Posted by fusili

Agreed with this. Likely it will actually have a separate bridge over the river than enters the 2nd street subway.

Having it dead end on 7th ave might not actually be that bad as an interim measure though.

I think it should be underground before it even crosses the river.

[H.E.Pennypacker]

Less cars would certainly make Centre St from 20th Ave to downtown a lot more walkable ... The high volume of traffic and noise really deter it from being a nice walkable street throughout the day

Centre St needs more walkability and density for sure