Calgary Public Transit II

[RyLucky]

I'm not a fan of transit zones. They confuse users and discourage transit use for long distances, which therefore encourages people to drive long distances. Come to think of it, I'm not a fan of user fees at all, but that's just my personal opinion.

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by RyLucky

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

Agreed. Or we can all vote Liberal next election and have Harper buy back our votes with subway funding like Toronto. Collectively choosing to be a swing riding would be a huge benefit for Calgary.

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

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.

All door boarding would be a good thing on Route 3, especially now that it uses bendies the whole route quite often.

[H.E.Pennypacker]

Originally Posted by MasterG

Agreed. Or we can all vote Liberal next election and have Harper buy back our votes with subway funding like Toronto. Collectively choosing to be a swing riding would be a huge benefit for Calgary.

Too bad the old fogies that have been here for year aren't that progressive thinking ... That is a great idea though, so much leverage to have against our PM that isn't used...

[MalcolmTucker]

Again, almost all grants are on a per capita basis, including the grant Toronto has been given preliminary approval for.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by RyLucky

I'm not a fan of transit zones. They confuse users and discourage transit use for long distances, which therefore encourages people to drive long distances. Come to think of it, I'm not a fan of user fees at all, but that's just my personal opinion.

If the rate increases keep coming, they will discourage transit for shorter distances. I'll admit that when I have travelled to cities with zones, it has taken a bit longer to figure it out, but I don't think our transit system is used by many tourists. Anyone else should be able to figure it out quickly enough.

If you look at fare recoveries:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farebox_recovery_ratio
12 of the top 13 are distance or zone based. I think that should be enough to at least consider it as an option to increase revenues. Considering the rush our trains and buses fill up at the end stations it seams there are many distance users benefiting from cheap transport that would bear a substantial increase before considering other methods.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by RyLucky

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

The royalty adjustment was tried under Stelmach; with serious reprecussions to the oil and gas industry. Basically if we did that, there would no longer be a need for the SELRT due to a lack of people commuting into work. (A bit of a hyperbole on my part, but you get the idea.)

The other consideration; how much does it cost to build stations; as opposed to leaving space available later on? Could we save enough by not building as many of the stations? Let's say south of Glenmore you only build Quarry Park and Seton. That would encourage people like my to head south to get on the train, going against the flow of rush hour traffic instead of adding to it. Then you also have faster trips which could help ridership.

I've often thought of that as a bit of a pipe dream- having trains that only go from outskirts into the core. If you could have a 15-20 minute commute from McKenzie Towne, nobody would drive downtown anymore. (based on 20-25 km trip at 80 km/h) And you would even have people from Douglasdale heading south to catch the train into downtown.

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

If the rate increases keep coming, they will discourage transit for shorter distances. I'll admit that when I have travelled to cities with zones, it has taken a bit longer to figure it out, but I don't think our transit system is used by many tourists. Anyone else should be able to figure it out quickly enough.

If you look at fare recoveries:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farebox_recovery_ratio
12 of the top 13 are distance or zone based. I think that should be enough to at least consider it as an option to increase revenues. Considering the rush our trains and buses fill up at the end stations it seams there are many distance users benefiting from cheap transport that would bear a substantial increase before considering other methods.

Right, I get the rationale, but IMO it would be more fair if the price reflected the effect of congestion on the transportation network as a whole. Someone who decides to commute 20 km by transit deserves to be rewarded, not punished. If you are staying in the same monocity, like Calgary, I'm against fare zones.

[ByeByeBaby]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

If the rate increases keep coming, they will discourage transit for shorter distances. I'll admit that when I have travelled to cities with zones, it has taken a bit longer to figure it out, but I don't think our transit system is used by many tourists. Anyone else should be able to figure it out quickly enough.

If you look at fare recoveries:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farebox_recovery_ratio
12 of the top 13 are distance or zone based. I think that should be enough to at least consider it as an option to increase revenues. Considering the rush our trains and buses fill up at the end stations it seams there are many distance users benefiting from cheap transport that would bear a substantial increase before considering other methods.

Your link doesn't really prove what you think it proves. Larger cities tend to both have better farebox recovery ratios and more complex transit systems (leading to more complex fare systems). You could similarly show that cities with more transit garages or two pro baseball teams have better farebox recoveries, but that doesn't really mean anything.

The top 6 cities on that list of similar size (under, say, 2 million people) are five flat fare systems (Winnipeg, Copenhagen, Ottawa, Las Vegas, Calgary) and the regional rail system in Zurich. In fact, most of those top fare recovery systems operate rail only, and some of the ones that are described as having distance based fares (WMATA) actually have flat fare buses.

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by ken0042

The royalty adjustment was tried under Stelmach; with serious reprecussions to the oil and gas industry. Basically if we did that, there would no longer be a need for the SELRT due to a lack of people commuting into work. (A bit of a hyperbole on my part, but you get the idea.)

The other consideration; how much does it cost to build stations; as opposed to leaving space available later on? Could we save enough by not building as many of the stations? Let's say south of Glenmore you only build Quarry Park and Seton. That would encourage people like my to head south to get on the train, going against the flow of rush hour traffic instead of adding to it. Then you also have faster trips which could help ridership.

I've often thought of that as a bit of a pipe dream- having trains that only go from outskirts into the core. If you could have a 15-20 minute commute from McKenzie Towne, nobody would drive downtown anymore. (based on 20-25 km trip at 80 km/h) And you would even have people from Douglasdale heading south to catch the train into downtown.

Yes, a BIT of hyperbole. Albertans enjoy amongst the lowest income tax, property tax, sales tax, gas tax, and resource royalties in the country; AND we have the highest salaries. We afford better transit infrastructure while maintaining a competitive edge.

As for fewer stations, it won't make much of a difference to the cost (especially if they are low-floor stations), and it's the stations south of Glenmore that will be generating the vast majority of ridership. Lots of cities around the world have "fast trains" (express to hubs) and "slow trains" (every stop), but they need more tracks. If regional rail ever gets going in the Calgary area, that may be an option.

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Again, almost all grants are on a per capita basis, including the grant Toronto has been given preliminary approval for.

The 4 major transit projects that got federal funding last/this budget (evergreen, waterloo, ottawa, spadina) DO all go through battle ridings...

Of course, the federal contribution is only one part of the cost.

[MalcolmTucker]

Alberta will get a cash transfer of around $4 billion over the next 10 years from the federal government for infrastructure. So Calgary has a $1 - 1.3 b share. The city has to prioritize what it wants done from that pot. It doesn't really matter if it goes to transit or roads or recreation centres since Calgary will spend way more than its matching contribution for 1/3, 1/3, 1/3. Getting an $800 million dollar buy in on the SE LRT just means there won't be $800 million to cost match on other things. It doesn't mean an extra $800 million dollars in found money.

[joe498]

Originally Posted by RyLucky

Yes, a BIT of hyperbole. Albertans enjoy amongst the lowest income tax, property tax, sales tax, gas tax, and resource royalties in the country; AND we have the highest salaries. We afford better transit infrastructure while maintaining a competitive edge.

As for fewer stations, it won't make much of a difference to the cost (especially if they are low-floor stations), and it's the stations south of Glenmore that will be generating the vast majority of ridership. Lots of cities around the world have "fast trains" (express to hubs) and "slow trains" (every stop), but they need more tracks. If regional rail ever gets going in the Calgary area, that may be an option.

Having these low taxes also have flaws.

Remember Calgary had years when property tax did not even increase.

What happened? Calgary BOOMED. As a result, we dug ourselves a huge hole that we frankly won't get out of until the province stops growing.

In other words, Calgary didn't prepare itself for such a boom due to being to "cozy" with "low taxes".

We again did not have a sales tax, or a gas tax or any other means of gaining extra capital. We also foolishly decided to buy everyone in the province a new iphone (Ralph Bucks).

Alberta, a resource rich and financially well off province has the potential to be so much better than it is and unfortunately until people get past the entitlement of "low taxes", we will continue to sit on Deerfoot Snail built in the 70s with lanes routinely cutting out.

It shocks me that people believe even a $200 increase in property tax is worse than an extra hour a day commuting...

That being said, property taxes are by no means the best method of generating revenue either.

Full support of a sales tax here which could in turn lower property taxes.

The province as a whole needs serious tax reform. By no means do we need to be taxed to the gills like Ontario, but the growth doesn't seem to be stopping and like it or not it is only going to get worse.

[sim]

Originally Posted by ByeByeBaby

Your link doesn't really prove what you think it proves. Larger cities tend to both have better farebox recovery ratios and more complex transit systems (leading to more complex fare systems). You could similarly show that cities with more transit garages or two pro baseball teams have better farebox recoveries, but that doesn't really mean anything.

The top 6 cities on that list of similar size (under, say, 2 million people) are five flat fare systems (Winnipeg, Copenhagen, Ottawa, Las Vegas, Calgary) and the regional rail system in Zurich. In fact, most of those top fare recovery systems operate rail only, and some of the ones that are described as having distance based fares (WMATA) actually have flat fare buses.

While I agree with you that it doesn't really prove anything, I'm not so sure about your European examples as not having zones:

Zurich

Copenhagen

My experience is that the large majority of European regions/cities do have zone faring. It is perhaps hard to compare 1 for 1 with NA cities as sometimes these apply to regions (in Europe) but these regions might compare in geographical size to NA cities.

[Fuzz]

I'm just suggesting that it may be worth looking into as a way to increase revenue. Constant transit fare increases are going to eventually make using it for short trips questionable given alternatives like Car2Go and even taxis. Most things are billed by how much you use them, I don't see why transit should be different. Should someone who hops on the train in Sunynside to downtown really pay the same as someone who gets on a bus in Royal Oak, transfers to a train and goes downtown? It seams it costs us a lot more to service the Royal Oak user, and that alternative transport methods for that passenger are not going to be appealing, even given a doubling of fares.

This increase in fares can help pay for running transit to farther out communities that complain they are not well serviced by transit.

[MalcolmTucker]

Well, the most sensical two zones are LRT and bus. LRT more than covers its operational costs, and would at even smaller ridership. Of course the city building induced by such a system would be even more distorted than today.

[RyLucky]

The whole point of public transit is the social and economic benefit. You have to look beyond suburbs vs inner city. It's easy to place blame or be righteous when you already are in the morally superior position. Inclusion and choice are key.

If you really want to find a way to recover more transit cost, focus on growing ridership and pass holders. For example, why not give discounted annual transit passes to those who buy new cars in the city? Why not offer library-recreation-transit passes? Why not give bulk transit discounts to suburban employers? We should be selling passes to everyone, ESPECIALLY to those who are less likely to use transit. Personally, I'd like to see fares stay low everywhere, not just in yuppie innercity neighbourhoods.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by RyLucky

The whole point of public transit is the social and economic benefit. You have to look beyond suburbs vs inner city. It's easy to place blame or be righteous when you already are in the morally superior position. Inclusion and choice are key.

If you really want to find a way to recover more transit cost, focus on growing ridership and pass holders. For example, why not give discounted annual transit passes to those who buy new cars in the city? Why not offer library-recreation-transit passes? Why not give bulk transit discounts to suburban employers? We should be selling passes to everyone, ESPECIALLY to those who are less likely to use transit. Personally, I'd like to see fares stay low everywhere, not just in yuppie innercity neighbourhoods.

Uh OK?

I think you are missing my point that is raising fares across the board (as they do every year) will eventually cause more uh, ...morally superior inner city yuppies ... to look at other methods of transport that will have a negative impact on the transit system as a whole.

I agree it would be nice if we gave discounted/free passes to everyone to encourage usage, but the reality is its not going to happen. What is going to happen is that fees are going to go up 10% a year and make other options more affordable.

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Uh OK?

I think you are missing my point that is raising fares across the board (as they do every year) will eventually cause more uh, ...morally superior inner city yuppies ... to look at other methods of transport that will have a negative impact on the transit system as a whole.

I agree it would be nice if we gave discounted/free passes to everyone to encourage usage, but the reality is its not going to happen. What is going to happen is that fees are going to go up 10% a year and make other options more affordable.

I think you are missing my point, but that's partly my fault for trying to be sardonic on the internet. We are one city, and I think transit fares should be the same in every neighbourhood. Suburbanites might use more service hours, but it's still better than their alternative, which is using more lane-kilometers and adding to congestion. Politically, Calgarians don't need another thing that psychologically divides the inner city from suburbs.

Since 2003 average fares have gone up 3-5%/year, which is on pace with Calgary's inflation.

[Full Mountain]

I think any taxes/costs should be equal percentage on the cost of both transit and gas, i.e. 10% ($0.30 fare increase, $0.11/l gas increase). This would also stabilize the gas side of the revenue as volume purchased decreases (lower car usage, better gas mileage). In the end the percentage from fares may need to decrease as fares rise to keep the revenue from each side equatable.