Calgary Public Transit II

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by You Need A Thneed

I don't think it's been decided how the line will interact with those streets. All I know, is that there's no particularly good way to do it. Also, however they do it, it's going to be a painful extended period of time where there will be shuttles between downtown and Sunnyside station.

I remember someone suggested the use of 8 St last time this was discussed. The train could come up parallel to 4 Ave on the south side of the Louise Crossing site and join the existing tracks before the bridge. It would provide for complete grade separation, no permanent road closures, no demolition of existing buildings, and no expropriation since the city owns the site. The only drawback I can think of is added complexity to any future opera house if the city ever actually decides to build one.

I'd hope that the city would be able to cut switches into the existing tracks quicker than that. It would probably need more than a long weekend but a week or two in August ought to do it.

[You Need A Thneed]

Originally Posted by Bassic Lab

I remember someone suggested the use of 8 St last time this was discussed. The train could come up parallel to 4 Ave on the south side of the Louise Crossing site and join the existing tracks before the bridge. It would provide for complete grade separation, no permanent road closures, no demolition of existing buildings, and no expropriation since the city owns the site. The only drawback I can think of is added complexity to any future opera house if the city ever actually decides to build one.

I'd hope that the city would be able to cut switches into the existing tracks quicker than that. It would probably need more than a long weekend but a week or two in August ought to do it.

if you change the routing, yes, you probably can deal with it in the time it takes to put in a switch.

however, using the same alignment and changing the elevation of the tracks would take months at best.

[H.E.Pennypacker]

There was a NCLRT open house in Thorncliffe .. Did anyone go to it? I wasn't able to

[Full Mountain]

Edit: ^^^ Yup

Went to the NC LRT Open House last night. The Project Team had a great set of displays, a few interesting items.

It will be low floor (not sure if this was public knowledge yet or not) and any signalized intersections will be signal preemption (not sure of any examples of this in Calgary, the team member I was speaking to did say it wouldn't be like 36th street which I believe was referred to as signal priority).

Interestingly they didn't provide the option on the feedback cards to select u/g north of 24th, also there was no option for elevated on any section. Though a couple of people mentioned that they would rather it buried till north of Beddington Trail.

4 options were present for a number of sections
1. 2 traffic lanes, surface LRT
2. 1 traffic, 1 parking, surface LRT
3. 1 traffic, surface LRT
4. Current roadway, u/g LRT

Option 4 was only available south of 24th on both alignments.

Also the way the team member was speaking it seemed that the u/g 2nd st alignment is still planned DT, this naturally leads to option 4 south of 24th.

[MalcolmTucker]

Until the City officially chooses a different underground route downtown, the route that was last approved by council , 2nd street, (through approving a report) needs to be reflected in other planning. It is just a function of the way the city has to run, since council has not removed itself from the mid level decision making for the corridor.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Until the City officially chooses a different underground route downtown, the route that was last approved by council , 2nd street, (through approving a report) needs to be reflected in other planning. It is just a function of the way the city has to run, since council has not removed itself from the mid level decision making for the corridor.

seems to be an issue for these types of things

[simster3]

Anyone else take a look at the survey the city put out on transit fees?

http://survey1.calgarytransit.me/

They are looking at increasing funding by 10M and want input on what the mix should be. I think there should be a freeze at $3 and start to fund it more through property taxes, but then again, I'm a bit of a socialist in these matters. It was also easy to find the money and more but charging seniors a fair rate and increasing the reserved parking fee. It was an interesting exercise overall.

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Until the City officially chooses a different underground route downtown, the route that was last approved by council , 2nd street, (through approving a report) needs to be reflected in other planning. It is just a function of the way the city has to run, since council has not removed itself from the mid level decision making for the corridor.

Speaking of transit changes downtown, there was talk and a session at the Transportation sub-committee to put bus-only lanes bi-directional on 4th Street between 4th Ave and 12th Ave for the Route 3 etc.

When is that happening? From what I remember it was a "good job, we approve it" and then nothing happened. But I may have misheard them.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by simster3

Anyone else take a look at the survey the city put out on transit fees?

http://survey1.calgarytransit.me/

They are looking at increasing funding by 10M and want input on what the mix should be. I think there should be a freeze at $3 and start to fund it more through property taxes, but then again, I'm a bit of a socialist in these matters. It was also easy to find the money and more but charging seniors a fair rate and increasing the reserved parking fee. It was an interesting exercise overall.

The seniors rates (low income and normal) are both absurdly low. Also increasing parking to $200/month makes up 75% of the $10M.

I would think that with the dynamic pricing system the CPA has implemented DT you would be able to do something similar at the PnR lots. I would bet with 100% paid parking you would be able to make an average of $100-200 per stall across the system. Free parking is my biggest peeve with the current system, all users pay for the costs associated with the PnR lots (upkeep, electricity, etc.) rather than those who use it.

Given 57,100 stalls and an 60% utilization at $2.50/day you get $85,650/day revenue ($19.27M for 225 days a year). Thats a lot of money that could be building things or increasing service hours.

[Fuzz]

I think the city needs a way of charging bedroom community commuters some for of increased rates. If 50% funding comes from property taxes, why do they get a free ride? I think the easiest way would be paid PnR parking for everyone, and reserved spots only available to Calgarians. Your reservation tag would only be mailed to a home Calgary address. Not perfect, but it would be a good start.

[SubwayRev]

Originally Posted by simster3

Anyone else take a look at the survey the city put out on transit fees?

http://survey1.calgarytransit.me/

I boosted the parking fee and the senior fee, and arrived at an extra $23,000,000.

I will always be baffled by senior discounts, easily the wealthiest demographic in Canada. There shouldn't be any senior discount, it should only be based on income. Of course if you're a low-income senior, then by all means you should have a low income pass.

[MMMBeer]

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

The seniors rates (low income and normal) are both absurdly low. Also increasing parking to $200/month makes up 75% of the $10M.

I would think that with the dynamic pricing system the CPA has implemented DT you would be able to do something similar at the PnR lots. I would bet with 100% paid parking you would be able to make an average of $100-200 per stall across the system. Free parking is my biggest peeve with the current system, all users pay for the costs associated with the PnR lots (upkeep, electricity, etc.) rather than those who use it.

Given 57,100 stalls and an 60% utilization at $2.50/day you get $85,650/day revenue ($19.27M for 225 days a year). Thats a lot of money that could be building things or increasing service hours.

Agree with everyone's points on the senior's discount (aka subsidy).

However on the parking issue, didn't parking usage plunge in some lots when they implemented paid parking for every space? I agree with the general concept of charging for all of it, I just think many people will avoid parking in the PnR spots like last time. Even with dynamic pricing - unless the least utilized lots were made free. Some people just won't pay a penny.

Although the super-popular West LRT lots should be made 100% paid - there's a sizeable waiting list for the paid spots, no sense giving any of those away for free.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by MMMBeer

Agree with everyone's points on the senior's discount (aka subsidy).

However on the parking issue, didn't parking usage plunge in some lots when they implemented paid parking for every space? I agree with the general concept of charging for all of it, I just think many people will avoid parking in the PnR spots like last time. Even with dynamic pricing - unless the least utilized lots were made free. Some people just won't pay a penny.

Although the super-popular West LRT lots should be made 100% paid - there's a sizeable waiting list for the paid spots, no sense giving any of those away for free.

Demand based pricing would be good, on all spots. Caveat, prices would change once a month with the goal of 90% occupancy at the end of the morning rush. If the lot never hits 90%, it is free. That means the policy can never be a failure leaving an underused civic asset. It would mean price discrimination between different lots, but that is a good thing. Unused spots under the $3 flat policy led to the belief that the policy wasn't working. The current policy isn't working either.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by MMMBeer

Agree with everyone's points on the senior's discount (aka subsidy).

However on the parking issue, didn't parking usage plunge in some lots when they implemented paid parking for every space? I agree with the general concept of charging for all of it, I just think many people will avoid parking in the PnR spots like last time. Even with dynamic pricing - unless the least utilized lots were made free. Some people just won't pay a penny.

Although the super-popular West LRT lots should be made 100% paid - there's a sizeable waiting list for the paid spots, no sense giving any of those away for free.

I think parking plunged due to reserved parking, not paid. I could be wrong though.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by MMMBeer

Agree with everyone's points on the senior's discount (aka subsidy).

However on the parking issue, didn't parking usage plunge in some lots when they implemented paid parking for every space? I agree with the general concept of charging for all of it, I just think many people will avoid parking in the PnR spots like last time. Even with dynamic pricing - unless the least utilized lots were made free. Some people just won't pay a penny.

Although the super-popular West LRT lots should be made 100% paid - there's a sizeable waiting list for the paid spots, no sense giving any of those away for free.

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Demand based pricing would be good, on all spots. Caveat, prices would change once a month with the goal of 90% occupancy at the end of the morning rush. If the lot never hits 90%, it is free. That means the policy can never be a failure leaving an underused civic asset. It would mean price discrimination between different lots, but that is a good thing. Unused spots under the $3 flat policy led to the belief that the policy wasn't working. The current policy isn't working either.

I agree with Malcolm. Also a 100% full lot is not the best use of that lot, there should always be space for someone showing up throughout the day.

Is there any reason the PnR lots couldn't be handed over to the CPA to manage? This would leave CT to focus on transit rather than parking yet they would still get the revenue from it.

[MMMBeer]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I think parking plunged due to reserved parking, not paid. I could be wrong though.

I distinctly remember ParkPlus machines going up at the Sirocco PnR during that experiment. This was back in the days of the 301, before the LRT started.

It was $3/day, not reserved. And you could play soccer in the parking lots the day it was implemented. The day before, all spots were taken by 7am.

Would be different now methinks with LRT, as all the reserved spots are taken at both 69 St and Sirocco. But the difference in parking behaviour was like night and day once the daily charge came in back in the day. What was that, 2009?

[RyLucky]

I'm in favour of market-priced parking at c-train stations. It could be free evenings and weekends, but I bet most lots would still fill up with prices as high as $10 during the day. Maybe a parking stub could include a transit day-pass?...

Those lots should also be permanently up for sale to developers promising FAR>6

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by SubwayRev

I will always be baffled by senior discounts, easily the wealthiest demographic in Canada. There shouldn't be any senior discount, it should only be based on income. Of course if you're a low-income senior, then by all means you should have a low income pass.

While I don't have any hard numbers on this, I find this extremely difficult to believe in a city like Calgary. I suppose it depends on your definition of "senior", but... most seniors I know are living off CPP/OAS and maybe a few hundred a month from an RRSP. Not exactly bringing in the 6 figure incomes at 70. In my experience the wealthiest demographic here are the 30-55 year olds working in the O&G towers downtown. BY FAR. Those people could easily afford a transit fare of $3.50 - which, incidentally, gets us our $10m. A whopping 50 cent increase, 1 dollar a day. Not even the price of a shitty cup of coffee these days.

Raise parking at PnR to $200, and watch people return to driving downtown. Total transit cost would approach $300 and you can find parking for almost that cheap ($360 on 9th Ave). Transit needs to remain the "money saving" option or we're just going to have people screaming for more parking and roads into the core again.

I do agree with the thought that the bedroom communities should pay far more. I don't know if the problem exists outside of Crowfoot (maybe Okotoks using the S line), but Cochrane at least is a huge leech on our transit system. I have no idea how you'd enforce this stuff though. I guess plate lookups vs address, if the Province would play ball.

My overall opinion is the same as someone else here though - tax funding (I'm also more than a bit of a socialist when it comes to transit). Transit should remain affordable and equitable for ALL - not simply certain demographics we want to help/punish based on our agreement/disagreement with their lifestyle choices. $10m/year is what, a $20 property tax increase in a city with the lowest property taxes in the country? Roads are funded this way, I think transit should be too. I don't get a discount on my gasoline because I'm a senior, or in high school (speaking of wealthy demographics), or because I live downtown, or because I take a less efficient route to work.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by RyLucky

I'm in favour of market-priced parking at c-train stations. It could be free evenings and weekends, but I bet most lots would still fill up with prices as high as $10 during the day. Maybe a parking stub could include a transit day-pass?...

Those lots should also be permanently up for sale to developers promising FAR>6

Once the smart card system in implemented something like this becomes a simple effort.

I would argue that if you have to offer free parking to fill a lot, the lot is too large for the location. After a year of full paid parking, if any lots cannot achieve 90% being free, they should be reduced in size so as to achieve 90% with a minimal charge ($1-2/day).

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by freeweed

While I don't have any hard numbers on this, I find this extremely difficult to believe in a city like Calgary. I suppose it depends on your definition of "senior", but... most seniors I know are living off CPP/OAS and maybe a few hundred a month from an RRSP. Not exactly bringing in the 6 figure incomes at 70. In my experience the wealthiest demographic here are the 30-55 year olds working in the O&G towers downtown. BY FAR. Those people could easily afford a transit fare of $3.50 - which, incidentally, gets us our $10m. A whopping 50 cent increase, 1 dollar a day. Not even the price of a shitty cup of coffee these days.

I agree, that said I still believe the senior rate is far too low. The discount system should be based on income, if age based discounts need to be continued, the senior and youth fares should be combined and there should be a single low income fare. The low income fare could be a sliding scale depending on income, with 3 brackets. This would allow any low income person to afford transit based on the ability to pay.

Originally Posted by freeweed

Raise parking at PnR to $200, and watch people return to driving downtown. Total transit cost would approach $300 and you can find parking for almost that cheap ($360 on 9th Ave). Transit needs to remain the "money saving" option or we're just going to have people screaming for more parking and roads into the core again.

I believe traffic will prevent people from driving too, convenience will keep a significant number of people on transit. That said one cannot go significantly increasing the cost of transit without increasing its utility.

Originally Posted by freeweed

I do agree with the thought that the bedroom communities should pay far more. I don't know if the problem exists outside of Crowfoot (maybe Okotoks using the S line), but Cochrane at least is a huge leech on our transit system. I have no idea how you'd enforce this stuff though. I guess plate lookups vs address, if the Province would play ball.

My overall opinion is the same as someone else here though - tax funding (I'm also more than a bit of a socialist when it comes to transit). Transit should remain affordable and equitable for ALL - not simply certain demographics we want to help/punish based on our agreement/disagreement with their lifestyle choices. $10m/year is what, a $20 property tax increase in a city with the lowest property taxes in the country? Roads are funded this way, I think transit should be too. I don't get a discount on my gasoline because I'm a senior, or in high school (speaking of wealthy demographics), or because I live downtown, or because I take a less efficient route to work.

I would agree with this, is there a specific ratio that you think should be achieved? Or are you thinking 100% tax funded?