Calgary Public Transit II

[DizzyEdge]

The intent of Porfiry's comment is laudable, but the reality is unless you're just laying asphalt, any more substantial infrastructure isn't worth building, demolishing and then building bigger once more capacity is needed, unless you're talking decades apart.

[Porfiry]

Originally Posted by Socguy

How do you start modestly? I'm no road engineer, but I'd wager 14th is at or near capacity during peak hours. It seems to me that adding a bunch of high frequency bendy buses to the mix could make 14th unusable without improvements anyway.

The big question is whether 14th will still be "at or near capacity" after the Ring Road is built. Or after 14th is widened to 6 lanes south of 90th. The raison d'être of dedicated bus lanes is road congestion. Are we so certain that 14th will be congested for decades to come?

This BRT has been on the books for 5 years. Imagine if they had started running a bus along the route 4 years ago while waiting for capital funding to reshape the road. Would that be better or worse than the current situation? My argument is that it'd be far better. You'd have broader political support, real ridership, habituated users, and less of a transitional shock. The idea that a bus route is doomed because it has no dedicated lanes or platforms is disproven by every single other bus route in the city.

[sim]

Originally Posted by Porfiry

The big question is whether 14th will still be "at or near capacity" after the Ring Road is built. Or after 14th is widened to 6 lanes south of 90th. The raison d'être of dedicated bus lanes is road congestion. Are we so certain that 14th will be congested for decades to come?

This BRT has been on the books for 5 years. Imagine if they had started running a bus along the route 4 years ago while waiting for capital funding to reshape the road. Would that be better or worse than the current situation? My argument is that it'd be far better. You'd have broader political support, real ridership, habituated users, and less of a transitional shock. The idea that a bus route is doomed because it has no dedicated lanes or platforms is disproven by every single other bus route in the city.

I wouldn't necessarily disagree with some of the points you are making, but I will point out that the belief in your first point (bolded) seems to inform your second paragraph - that is to say, you believe the real and only reason to provide these lanes is to provide capacity - a purely technical and rigid assessment. It's an easy selling point. In actuality, at least some of the value of the lanes comes from a visual cue to car driver's and/or current and potential transit riders alike, that transit is priority and is important. The lanes themselves (especially in this case) really won't do all that much to decrease travel times.

Is this effect dramatic? Probably not, but it is clealy material enough to get people to notice, which is evidenced precisely by the fact that they are rather (and undeservedly) contentious. Imagine if we actually had a material impact on car driver's precious travel times or homeowners' precious property*... We might also have a more material impact on mode choice cum ridership.

So I wouldn't necessarily say it's a good idea to start with something for the sake of starting with something if you are trying to sell a product. I, for one, wouldn't go to a bar that sold Bud Light under the guise of offering beer - at least, not if the place beside it is offering a Paulaner.


* I realize there are some legitimate concerns, but they generally aren't those which are being vocally raised.

[Socguy]

Originally Posted by Porfiry

The big question is whether 14th will still be "at or near capacity" after the Ring Road is built. Or after 14th is widened to 6 lanes south of 90th. The raison d'être of dedicated bus lanes is road congestion. Are we so certain that 14th will be congested for decades to come?

This BRT has been on the books for 5 years. Imagine if they had started running a bus along the route 4 years ago while waiting for capital funding to reshape the road. Would that be better or worse than the current situation? My argument is that it'd be far better. You'd have broader political support, real ridership, habituated users, and less of a transitional shock. The idea that a bus route is doomed because it has no dedicated lanes or platforms is disproven by every single other bus route in the city.

Wouldn't shock me if 14th remained at or near capacity even after the SWRR is up and running. Especially after some of those planned new communities in the south are completed. Either way, that road is a long way off and does nothing for the long suffering transit rider in the interm.

There's already buses on 14th. BRT is not just a bus. It needs to meet certain performance expectations. Those expectations cannot always be reliably met simply by running buses in mixed traffic.

The danger of your suggestion of starting slow is that if you provide a service that's unusable, even at certain times of day, and you force your potential riders to other alternatives (like the LRT) leading to low ridership and massive operating overhead. That and you don't get your habituated riders and you've probably hurt your political support because anyone who was late for work now hates that line and thinks of BRT as a dirty word.

At the end of the day, if you're going to do something, you should do it right or it will cost you in the long run.

[joe498]

From the Alberta budget today:

http://globalnews.ca/news/2638899/alberta-budget-2016-whats-in-it-for-calgary/

Green Line

The government has allocated no new money for the Green Line LRT in Calgary and has “no timeline” for project support.

While new LRT funding is not included in the budget, the province says it is in talks with the cities and is committed to supporting public transit.

[MalcolmTucker]

From the Budget:




Would have to do way too much pulling of documents to know for sure, but within this timeline is the original MSI envelope finally finished?

[PPAR]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

From the Budget:

?

So would that rise in green trip funds you highlighted from 2018 on possibly cover the province's share of the green line funding? There is over $1b in funding there.

[Porfiry]

Originally Posted by 5seconds

I don't buy the cost argument.

Well, now even Nenshi is upset about the cost.
http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news...as-transitway-brt-cost-estimates-balloon

Untold years? The estimates for the entire project is 18-24 months, and I have a hard time believing that the intersection at 75th will experience disruption of more than a few months.

The documents you just shared show 3-4 years of construction along 14th.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by PPAR

So would that rise in green trip funds you highlighted from 2018 on possibly cover the province's share of the green line funding? There is over $1b in funding there.

Yes. Quite possible. People should not be concerned about the province not stepping forward. Details are important but whether in the end funds will flow is entirely kabuki.

Does anyone remember who funded the West LRT? Not really. But after a bit of drama Calgarians will not be left to forget that the carbon tax and the NDP are paying for the green line.

[PPAR]

^^ Can absolutely see this. Linking the carbon tax to the Green Line will be good politics for the NDP as the next election approaches in multiple dimensions.

[mellbell416]

Well the price tag for the Green Line is going to be really expensive if it has to run underground through the downtown..

http://www.newstalk770.com/2016/04/15/120086/?sc_ref=twitter

While a decision hasn’t been made, progress is on the way in planning the proposed routes for the Green Line LRT project.

On Monday, city officials will talk about how they evaluated the five possible routes to get the line out of the downtown.


They included things like an elevated line, street level or underground service.

News Talk 770 has learned that coming out of Eau Claire and getting out of the downtown, consultants are recommending the LRT go underground.

The public will get a chance to look at the options and how they were evaluated.

There are also issues on where the train will be when it heads east to Ramsay.

On the city video, the Green Line runs along the CP Rail tracks between 9th and 10th Avenues, but the city and CP Rail have not come up with an agreement and the most optimistic thing being said about that is that there is an “ongoing discussion.”

A final report on the alignments and preferred options will go to a city hall committee late in the year.

Meanwhile, also next week, the city will be doing more geotechnical drilling in the river valley, on the northeast side of Prince’s Island and it looks at ways of getting the LRT up the hill onto Centre Street North.

[bt04ku]

It's extremely expensive for put it underground, it's extremely costly to have it anything else. Pick your poison.

[bt04ku]

Originally Posted by PPAR

^^ Can absolutely see this. Linking the carbon tax to the Green Line will be good politics for the NDP as the next election approaches in multiple dimensions.

Why it wasn't directly linked in the first place just shows the inexperience of the NDP. Tie a tax directly to valuable infrastructure and it is far more palatable. Just bring up taxes for something vague and you're just screwing people.

[joe498]

Calgary Transit operation to suffer under Carbon levy: Council

https://www.metronews.ca/news/calgary/20...eration-to-suffer-under-carbon-levy.html

[milomilo]

I don't see the problem. Diesel buses use carbon so they pay the tax. But they should be more efficient, so pay relatively less tax per user than a more carbon intensive car. Isn't that the whole point?

[Fuzz]

Its stupid. You want to encourage people to take transit, if your goal is to reduce emissions, and not just grab money. A carbon tax increases the cost of transit, which is a disincentive. It is also one level of government taxing another level of government, which is bonkers in itself. And then, the tax eventually gets passed on to us as an increase in property taxes. As Nenshi said, I don't think they thought this all the way through.

[Socguy]

I don't have a problem with the city having to pay the tax on the carbon they emit. In the long run, it will provide them with incentives to move to lower carbon solutions to the services they provide. Slowly making diesel buses more and more expensive to operate should start to weight the scale in favor of newer electric buses and provide even more incentive to install additional light rail. Perhaps even make solutions like the proposed gondola or the introduction of streetcars in the beltline attractive to the bean counters. The city might even start looking seriously at tiered pricing, where far flung areas that can only be serviced by diesel pay higher rates.

At the end of the day cities sometimes need a push to change their ways. I understand that in the short term it sucks for the city treasury, but we've known for 30+ years that CO2 emissions are a problem yet cities have largely ignored or only paid lip service to this issue. Now that it's hitting them/us in the pocket book we may finally see the city get serious about their emissions.

[Fuzz]

OH come on. The city is experimenting with different bus technologies, uses wind power for the LRT, has the central energy district plant etc...They don't need a "push" by another tax that is going to be passed on to you and me, or worse have the city make tough decisions on deferring projects becuase they have to pay a silly tax. Sorry, Calgary Transit, you can't buy 10 new LRV's becuase we need to pay the piper. The fact is, for the foreseeable future the city is going to need fossil fuels.

[Riise]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Its stupid. You want to encourage people to take transit, if your goal is to reduce emissions, and not just grab money. A carbon tax increases the cost of transit, which is a disincentive.

Considering the CPS were reluctant to utilize compact cars as part of their fleet in order to maintain standardization but were willing to utilize pickup trucks to increase officer comfort, I think local government needs to be encouraged to make greener decisions as well.

[fusili]

Here is a simple solution, apply the carbon tax to the city, but give them a per capita rebate. That way the city only pays a portion of the carbon tax, and has an incentive to reduce carbon use.