West LRT | 7 Stations | 8.0 KM | In Service

[jeffwhit]

I agree, what bugs me most his some of his statements are presented as fact, ie: "The principal purpose/justification of urban rail is to reduce traffic conjestion." I thought the principal purpose of urban rail was to move people from point a-b-c within an urban area. I mean, I could use that same justifaction to argue against ever building another road again, but I'm not ridiculous. If he's going to argue for personal choice, as he has before, and as so many car-only advocates, then the key word is choice. Own a car or you don't get to travel in a city isn't a choice.

My arguments for an extensive rail-based public transit ystem are less ideological and more based on simple experience. What city in the world has achieved greatness without public transit? I wish Cox's dickish brother in arms, Randell O'Tool was on here so he would suggest Houston, and I could punch him right in the internet.

One guy's name is Cock, the other is Tool, I just noticed that.

The falacy of the "urban rail has not decreased conjestion" is so transparent it's ridiculous. The problem is that roads can't handle even the slightest increase in use before reaching gridlock, and that as poulations grow, the number of driviers on the road do. If roads are already conjested, and you add a bunch of population, even if a totally unrealistic 85% of that population uses transit, the the other 15% drive, that 15% is going to throw the roads into chaos. That is reasoning which Cox twists into saying "Urban rail doesn't decrease road conjestion." The problem is not urban rail, it's that roads simply can't handle population growth. Which is easier and cheaper, adding more lanes and turning all your roads into 8 lane highways, or buying a few new trains and hiring a few more drivers to increase frequency on rail lines?

I'm currious what Crowchild trail would look like in the morning with 20000-30000 more communters in cars, even if 20% of those commuters were carpooling. The other falicy is that more lanes will move traffic better. Well, if the majority of commuters are going downtown, downtown can only take so many vehicles. It's like trying to put more water into an already full container by using a bigger funnel.

It's like freeweed pointed out numerous times, if you enjoy driving to work, and that is the only way you want to travel, then you're insane for not supporting increased transit, because especially in this city, LRT=more road for you.

[Mike Wilhelm]

I love that name insight.

Look - I'm suspicious of all those that think in dogmatic ways - basic rule - if it ends in "ism", I'm out of here. Both "new urbanism" and "fiscal conservatism" might have roots in good intentions, but it's the religious unthinking fervor of the propagandists and their supporters that results in bad planning.

Indifferenct to the truth is the food of the propagandist - factual information in the propaganda needs to addressed. Say, hypothetically that a year or two we are one vote away from cancelling a project on "fiscal conservative" grounds. Are the facts valid, and if so, what are the other relevant facts?TOD, in particular, is a concept that fiscal conservatives should love, if the numbers are worked out in detail.

I think all dogmatic thinking needs to be attacked head on, as a necessary step to come to a good, successful pragmatic result. I hope our planners question their own.

[Mike Wilhelm]

This thinking is dangerous if we see our council move to a fiscal conservative bent. I agree with his argument that narrowly comparing car economics to transit economics will not compute.

But what about comparing the costs of transit to savings in infrastructure generally? His constituency in the suburbs where the votes are, and is smart enough to know that politicians there won't discuss the hidden costs of suburban subsidies.

I think there is a strong probability that we might see this thinking here - our planning department better get the numbers on the table in a hurry.

In keeping with my last post let's take a look at these costs in a Calgary context. Please comment on these costs:

•Cincinnati's proposed light rail system would have cost $15.50 per new one-way ride, totaling $6,975 annually for each new commuter who takes two trips a day for 225 work days. In contrast, the same commuter could lease a $30,000 Lexus IS-300 for less than $5,500 annually.

•The Minneapolis "Hiawatha" light rail line, now under construction, will cost $19.00 per new rider. This amounts to $8,550 annually per new commuter--enough to lease a BMW X-5 Sport Utility Vehicle.

•San Francisco's proposed Third Street light rail line will cost $40.50 per new ride, which is equal to $18,225 annually per new commuter. For the same money, each new commuter could lease a new Pontiac Grand Am throughout the "life" of the rail system and pay for more than 100,000 miles of air travel at the average ticket rate each year. Alternatively, one could lease the Grand Am and use the remainder of the annual subsidy for the average mortgage payment in the nation's most expensive housing market.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Mike Wilhelm

This thinking is dangerous if we see our council move to a fiscal conservative bent. I agree with his argument that narrowly comparing car economics to transit economics will not compute.

But what about comparing the costs of transit to savings in infrastructure generally? His constituency in the suburbs where the votes are, and is smart enough to know that politicians there won't discuss the hidden costs of suburban subsidies.

I think there is a strong probability that we might see this thinking here - our planning department better get the numbers on the table in a hurry.

In keeping with my last email let's take a look at these costs in a Calgary context. Please comment on these costs:

•Cincinnati's proposed light rail system would have cost $15.50 per new one-way ride, totaling $6,975 annually for each new commuter who takes two trips a day for 225 work days. In contrast, the same commuter could lease a $30,000 Lexus IS-300 for less than $5,500 annually.

•The Minneapolis "Hiawatha" light rail line, now under construction, will cost $19.00 per new rider. This amounts to $8,550 annually per new commuter--enough to lease a BMW X-5 Sport Utility Vehicle.

•San Francisco's proposed Third Street light rail line will cost $40.50 per new ride, which is equal to $18,225 annually per new commuter. For the same money, each new commuter could lease a new Pontiac Grand Am throughout the "life" of the rail system and pay for more than 100,000 miles of air travel at the average ticket rate each year. Alternatively, one could lease the Grand Am and use the remainder of the annual subsidy for the average mortgage payment in the nation's most expensive housing market.

Sorry, but you have to be more specific about the costs you put here. The costs per new rider, are those over one year, or over the life of the infrastructure? It isn't clear. Are these the total capital costs divided by the number of projected daily riders? I think that is what is going on here.

Take the west LRT for example (I am sorry for being so general with my numbers). Let's put capital costs at $750 million. Projected ridership will be about 40 K let's say. If you simply divide the capital cost by each rider it is about $18 750 per rider, close to the San Francisco example. So instead of building a rail line, we could have bought all those projected riders a new car. But a rail line doesn't operate for one year. The capital costs have to amortized over the life of the infrastructure. Let's amortize the costs over 20 years. The costs are now less than $1000 per rider. That is stupidly cheap compared to the costs of the car. Average costs of car ownership are around $9K - $12K per year.

Be careful how facts are presented. And again, sorry for my crude calculations.

Edit: Sorry, I see you are quoting Cox again. I agree with JeffWhit, guys like Cox and O'Toole are good at distorting data to serve their view. Shameless.

[Wooster]

The examples cited in 'reports' Cox and O'Toole are talking about the american experience with transit investment, where the benefit (primarily ridership) relative to the cost is low compared to Canada. Their critiques may hold more water when talking about spending billions to build light rail and only achieving like 30,000 trips a day. Calgary on the other hand has spent relatively little and achieves extraordinary ridership.

I hate to quote wikipedia, although the article about light rail captures well Calgary's exceptional capital and operating efficiency relative to other systems.

LRT cost efficiency improves dramatically as ridership increases, as can be seen from the numbers above: the same rail line, with similar capital and operating costs, is far more efficient if it is carrying 20,000 people per hour than if it is carrying 2400. The Calgary, Alberta C-Train used many common light rail techniques to keep costs low, including minimizing underground and elevated trackage, sharing transit malls with buses, leasing rights-of-way from freight railroads, and combining LRT construction with freeway expansion. As a result, Calgary ranks toward the less expensive end of the scale with capital costs of around $24 million per mile.[28]

However, Calgary's LRT ridership is much higher than any comparable U.S. light rail system at 300,000 passengers per weekday, and as a result its efficiency of capital is also much higher. Its capital costs were one-third that of the San Diego Trolley, a comparably sized U.S. system built at the same time, while by 2009 its ridership was approximately three times as high. Thus, Calgary's capital cost per passenger was much lower than that of San Diego. Its operating cost per passenger was also much lower because of its higher ridership. A typical C-Train vehicle costs only $163 per hour to operate, and since it averages 600 passengers per operating hour,[29] Calgary Transit estimates that its LRT operating costs are only 27 cents per ride, versus $1.50 per ride on its buses.[28]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_rail

A supporting report from Calgary Transit:
http://www.calgarytransit.com/pdf/Ca...tilization.pdf

[Mike Wilhelm]

One of the interesting comments made by our LRT engineer (I'm probably paraphrasing badly) was that a failed system does not sufficiently consider both the source and destination of users.

For example, some US cities focus on terminating at interesting destinations such as sports facilities, downtown, or at tourist attractions, but insufficient attention is paid to creating interesting or advantageous places to get on.

In addition to having a concentrated core, perhaps Calgary's ridership may be attributable to the location of its stations, and historically the convenience of its feeder busses and park and ride lots on the periphery.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Mike Wilhelm

One of the interesting comments made by our LRT engineer (I'm probably paraphrasing badly) was that a failed system does not sufficiently consider both the source and destination of users.

For example, some US cities focus on terminating at interesting destinations such as sports facilities, downtown, or at tourist attractions, but insufficient attention is paid to creating interesting or advantageous places to get on.

In addition to having a concentrated core, perhaps Calgary's ridership may be attributable to the location of its stations, and historically the convenience of its feeder busses and park and ride lots on the periphery.

Calgary's high ridership is almost solely attributable to it's concentrated core. The density of jobs in the downtown is unprecedented for this size of city. Because of this, travel is very unidirectional (major exceptions would be SE Industrial, NE Industrial and UofC/Foothills Hospital area). Because such a high number of people are going to the same place, ridership can be high.

The location of Calgary's feeder stations are almost irrelevant, because nearly all ridership comes from feeder buses and park-n-rides.

The LRT engineer you mention is partially right, but it should be noted that the density around destination stations is much, much, much more important than origin stations, because riders can drive a car to the LRT station they get on, but they can't drive away from the one they get off. If the place you are going to isn't within walking distance from transit, you won't use it, but if your home isn't within walking distance of transit, you can still use it.

That isn't to say that we shouldn't encourage making origin stations interesting places (I strongly encourage this), but to make the point that destination stations are always more important than origin stations. That being said, we have quite a few good destination stations (UofC, SAIT, Downtown, Chinook), so let's work on some TOD!

[Wooster]

^And parking policies/cost. When your downtown parking rates are only surpassed by midtown and downtown Manhattan in all of North America, it's easy to see why the large number of people who work downtown will take transit.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by Wooster

^And parking policies/cost. When your downtown parking rates are only surpassed by midtown and downtown Manhattan in all of North America, it's easy to see why the large number of people who work downtown will take transit.

That's a pretty recent thing, though. I remember when I first moved here, the trains were starting to get packed and yet parking downtown was only about $8/day or so. With a transit fare being $4 (ish) at the time, driving carried a fairly small premium.

Parking restrictions got the poor/cheapasses to ride the LRT, but when I rode the train to work with a guy who earned $150k+ and parking only cost $160/month, I realized there was something more going on here. I started paying more attention to my fellow passengers' clothes, jewelery, etc. It was amazing to see people packed into a train car wearing $1000 watches, when that would cover 6 months worth of parking. Money's all relative, and in cities with cheap parking, people on the bus don't wear $500 watches.

[Vascilli]

Originally Posted by freeweed

That's a pretty recent thing, though. I remember when I first moved here, the trains were starting to get packed and yet parking downtown was only about $8/day or so. With a transit fare being $4 (ish) at the time, driving carried a fairly small premium.

Parking restrictions got the poor/cheapasses to ride the LRT, but when I rode the train to work with a guy who earned $150k+ and parking only cost $160/month, I realized there was something more going on here. I started paying more attention to my fellow passengers' clothes, jewelery, etc. It was amazing to see people packed into a train car wearing $1000 watches, when that would cover 6 months worth of parking. Money's all relative, and in cities with cheap parking, people on the bus don't wear $500 watches.

There's no rules as to how where you should park your car if you're rich. I don't care how much money I make, I'm not gonna waste my time and effort to drive my car downtown only to pay someone a few hundred bucks a month just to let it sit there. (Mind you I'd probably live downtown )

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by Vascilli

There's no rules as to how where you should park your car if you're rich. I don't care how much money I make, I'm not gonna waste my time and effort to drive my car downtown only to pay someone a few hundred bucks a month just to let it sit there. (Mind you I'd probably live downtown )

If it makes you feel any better, parking downtown is now closer to $400/month.

[Mike Wilhelm]

Here's an interesting piece - I'd think pretty supportive of LRT infrastructure, don't you think?

http://www.calgaryherald.com/opinion...812/story.html

As mentioned in my prior post concerning Cox and O'Toole's constituency - suburban subsidies are tough to deal with in any city - a lot of votes come from those areas. The suburbs are doubly subsidized - once with the infrastructure gap, and again with a property tax break (as compared to the inner city).

[frinkprof]

Nevermind.

[Mike Wilhelm]

I brought it up in response to the anti LRT arguments of Cox and O'Toole.

I struggle with some of the vague arguments for prescriptive planning policies contained in Plan-It. The Herald piece contains good research, but the connection to Plan-It specifically is tenuous. Its connection to inner city densification is clear.

Yes, we need inner city densification, but do we need to do it through prescriptive policies or through incentives? The research clearly supports LRT as an incentive, and the nature of West LRT in particular.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Mike Wilhelm

I brought it up in response to the anti LRT arguments of Cox and O'Toole.

I struggle with some of the vague arguments for prescriptive planning policies contained in Plan-It. The Herald piece contains good research, but the connection to Plan-It specifically is tenuous. Its connection to inner city densification is clear.

Yes, we need inner city densification, but do we need to do it through prescriptive policies or through incentives? The research clearly supports LRT as an incentive, and the nature of West LRT in particular.

I agree, incentives (or rather, eliminating disincentives) to inner city development is in my opinion the best way to encourage inner-city densification. Transit access is a huge incentive, but so are other infrastructure and public realm upgrades, such as park and streetscapes

[Mike Wilhelm]

We need more economists and behaviorists in city planning departments, I think. Too many social engineers.

I think the result is easy to justify, it's how best to get there.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Mike Wilhelm

We need more economists and behaviorists in city planning departments, I think. Too many social engineers.

I think the result is easy to justify, it's how best to get there.

Maybe they should hire me then. But then again I would have to work at the City.

[frinkprof]

Nevermind.

[ByeByeBaby]

Originally Posted by Mike Wilhelm

We need more economists and behaviorists in city planning departments, I think.

Don't start me on this. We have them, we just need to use them.

[Mike Wilhelm]

From Wikipedia "Social engineering is the act of manipulating people into performing actions or divulging confidential information. While similar to a confidence trick or simple fraud, the term typically applies to trickery or deception for the purpose of information gathering."

Geez - I had no idea. Sorry.

My hackles get up when somebody prescribes what is good for us - and takes a utopian bent on things.

LRT is an incentive, nothing more. Prescriptive TOD planning is too utopian for my taste. Upzone carefully, introduce incentives and they will come.

The problem with the Westbrook ARP is they introduce a park (good incentive) and build towers to shadow it (bad incentive). I understand the value of towers to the LRT real estate deal at Manning, but closing that deal might be a disincentive to a self-sustaining project.