Calgary Public Transit II

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

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.

Transit is a public good, not a for-profit private corporation, just like healthcare. What you're advocating is akin to me saying "Should I, who hardly uses the medical system in this country, pay the same tax rates as some obese dude who sees his doctor every month? He costs the system a lot more".

(And yes, if you're curious, I'd actually advocate for 100% free public transit if I knew how the hell to make it workable)

And then there's the practical. The people you want to encourage to take transit the MOST are exactly those in Royal Oak. Because their alternative transportation choices hurt the most. The guy in Sunnyside could take a bike. Walk. Taxi the short distance (and have said taxi be re-used for the next guy in about 3 minutes). The guy in Royal Oak would otherwise drive his car 15km and park it downtown all day, taking up valuable real estate.

[sim]

Originally Posted by 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.

Again, on a per trip basis, and what actually matters, this is not equal.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by freeweed

Transit is a public good, not a for-profit private corporation, just like healthcare. What you're advocating is akin to me saying "Should I, who hardly uses the medical system in this country, pay the same tax rates as some obese dude who sees his doctor every month? He costs the system a lot more".

(And yes, if you're curious, I'd actually advocate for 100% free public transit if I knew how the hell to make it workable)

And then there's the practical. The people you want to encourage to take transit the MOST are exactly those in Royal Oak. Because their alternative transportation choices hurt the most. The guy in Sunnyside could take a bike. Walk. Taxi the short distance (and have said taxi be re-used for the next guy in about 3 minutes). The guy in Royal Oak would otherwise drive his car 15km and park it downtown all day, taking up valuable real estate.

I absolutely share your view that it is a public good like healthcare, and I wouldn't be against it being fully funded so no, I'm not advocating what you suggest. Please don't misunderstand my intentions.

I also understand that we need the long trips done by transit. My point (which continues to be missed) is that ever increasing transit fares will eventually lead to people NOT taking transit in the inner city, (which is south of McKnight) due to costs not making sense. I'm not sure this is something we should encourage. So we either keep transit fares low to discourage that, or look at only increasing fares where the cost can be born becuase the alternative (driving long distances, expensive taxis) are less appealing. There is a tipping point where people choose to drive over taking transit, I'm suggesting that tipping point is lower in the inner city than farther out.

Road congestion is worse in the inner city becuase everyone is traveling that direction. Encouraging more people to drive becuase transit isn't saving them money seams like a bad idea to me as it increases congestion and slows down buses, thus making them even more horrible.

Just for the record, I live south of McKnight(about 5km as the crow flies to downtown) and ride my bike until the snow hits. I then take the bus to work and if the temp is warmer than about -5 I'll walk home becuase it is often quicker than the horribly slow bus ride home.

[RyLucky]

Well said, Freeweed.

Fuzz, your statement "that ever increasing transit fares will eventually lead to people NOT taking transit in the inner city" seems to be based on the following assumptions:
1) Transit fares will increase (presumably at a pace beyond inflation).
2) The "tipping point" (the price at which people decide it's cheaper/more practical to drive?) is lower for inner city neighbourhoods than it is for suburbs.
3) The alternative to transit is primarily driving.

I understand the point you are trying to make, but I personally don't believe any of these underlying assumptions. Neither of us have any real evidence to prove or disprove these assumptions, so my guess is as good as yours. However, as someone who has lived in Sunnyside for a few years, I can tell you that the price of a train ride to go downtown will never be high enough to inspire me to drive. Even if transit fares from Sunnyside to Downtown were $45, (A) transit would still be cheaper that driving/parking/car-maintenance, and (B) I would walk, bike, take a taxi, take a car2go. I'm not advocating that we increase fares; my point (albeit superlative) is that it's not the inner city that you have to worry about choosing cars instead of driving. Most of the traffic in my neighbourhood is from people passing through to get home to the suburbs. Getting those people on buses will benefit me, which is exactly why I believe in keeping their fares down. Here are the assumptions I am basing my argument on:

1) In order for transit to be an attractive alternative for suburbanites, the price must remain low. (Park&Ride is another issue)
2) People in the suburbs on average travel further distances. For me, I see this as reason to coax them to take the bus rather than a car. For you, this seems to be reason to charge them more.
3) Reducing congestion is good for everyone, and the cost benefits of reducing congestion justify transit subsidization (so long as transit is utilized).
4) At a low fare (currently, average fare per trip is about $1.40), transit does not exclude most working people. However, due to pragmatics, many people will choose against transit simply because they do not have a pass/ticket/change. Therefore, it seems reasonable that to increase ridership we should EXPAND passholder base.
5) The "tipping point" is actually LOWER for suburbanites, AND as an alternative they are more likely to drive.

[ByeByeBaby]

I don't think that anything other than a flat fare system makes sense today; if in 5 or 10 years, 95% of the fares are being paid by smart cards or passes, then there might be a technologically feasible way to implement something else. But today, Calgary doesn't have the sort of obvious geographic features that make an appropriate zone system easier to implement (see Vancouver), and we have much more accessible rail stations making a distance rail fare hard to implement (versus subway systems like BART or the Metro in Washington).

In any case, are short transit trips the thing that we want to incentivize? If we want to minimize congestion, GHG emissions etc. then the best trips to shift to transit are the longest ones. There are additional costs to short transit trips -- for instance, if it was cheaper to take the train only a couple of stops, then rush hour trains out of downtown would be filled up with more people going to Sunnyside, who then get off and leave an empty space on the train the rest of the way to Crowfoot. If a short trip of 1.5 km is cheaper, then I might grab a bus if I see one while I'm walking in the same direction and take it for a few stops. Everybody else who was riding the bus for a longer trip is slowed down by me, and I was walking anyway so it doesn't really have any benefit. Really, in some ways, short trips are the least efficient ones to have on transit and longer trips should be given a discount.

One possible way to do this would be to have the trip cost be the same regardless of length; this would penalize frivolous short trip making that clogs up the system, incentivize long trip making that does the most for congestion and for the environment, and would have the added benefit of being by far the easiest system to understand, operate and enforce. Someone should suggest this to CT...

[Fuzz]

My first assumption goes back to the discussion where funding for expanding transit would come from a $0.35 increase in fares. Obviously a small amount, but its still an increase.

I think we are all in agreement then that raising transit fares for anyone is a poor choice if we want a well used system that benefits everyone.

I'd be in favour on a gas tax, but branded as a transportation tax. It would mean you would need to spend some of it on roads, but perhaps through accounting trickery more general tax dollars could flow to transit. At least then it wouldn't have drivers getting as angry about being "forced" to pay for transit.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by ByeByeBaby

I don't think that anything other than a flat fare system makes sense today; if in 5 or 10 years, 95% of the fares are being paid by smart cards or passes, then there might be a technologically feasible way to implement something else. But today, Calgary doesn't have the sort of obvious geographic features that make an appropriate zone system easier to implement (see Vancouver), and we have much more accessible rail stations making a distance rail fare hard to implement (versus subway systems like BART or the Metro in Washington).

In any case, are short transit trips the thing that we want to incentivize? If we want to minimize congestion, GHG emissions etc. then the best trips to shift to transit are the longest ones. There are additional costs to short transit trips -- for instance, if it was cheaper to take the train only a couple of stops, then rush hour trains out of downtown would be filled up with more people going to Sunnyside, who then get off and leave an empty space on the train the rest of the way to Crowfoot. If a short trip of 1.5 km is cheaper, then I might grab a bus if I see one while I'm walking in the same direction and take it for a few stops. Everybody else who was riding the bus for a longer trip is slowed down by me, and I was walking anyway so it doesn't really have any benefit. Really, in some ways, short trips are the least efficient ones to have on transit and longer trips should be given a discount.

One possible way to do this would be to have the trip cost be the same regardless of length; this would penalize frivolous short trip making that clogs up the system, incentivize long trip making that does the most for congestion and for the environment, and would have the added benefit of being by far the easiest system to understand, operate and enforce. Someone should suggest this to CT...

I disagree completely with this sentiment.

Read:
http://marketurbanism.com/2010/09/30/the...transportation-costs-per-passenger-mile/
http://www.planetizen.com/node/42518
http://pedestrianobservations.wordpress.com/2011/09/19/passenger-miles-are-overrated/
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012..._mile_a_bad_metric_for_mass_transit.html

The more you measure passenger miles, instead of just trips (or passengers), the more you build sprawling transit infrastructure that encourages longer trips. The same goes for the Time Travel Index used to measure road congestion.

If you are familiar with the Logic Model, this is equivalent to measuring outputs (distance traveled) instead of outcomes (getting from one point to another). Measuring outputs is a fantastic way of encouraging inefficiency.

[sim]

Well just to get at least one thing clear here, you essentially need no extra technology or infrastructure to implement zone fare structures aside from ticketing machines that are capable of handing said tickets out. Turnstiles or gates and on-board units are necessary only if you want to have fully distance based faring.

A few more things to remember: Transportation is a derived demand and a crowdable club good (the derived part making it not analagous to healthcare) and it's capital costs are well, fully subsidized.

To say that longer trips only should be incentivized based on the fact that the alternative (driving) is more pollutive presumes that long trips need to be made to begin with - which they do if the system keeps being built out to serve such trips (then radial commuter) as opposed to expanding network density. It's been shown that transit systems become more cost effective under economies of scope/density as opposed to scale.

To me it's akin to that guy in BC that recently released a video about how if everyone increased speed to the 85th percentile, driving would become safer: The point, in the long term:

What is more environmentally friendly all else being equal, no trip, a short trip or a long trip? What if the C train only had to run until say Brentwood to serve all the NW, considering especially the fact that many commuters have to get into their cars regardless, that cold-starts are worse in terms of pollution as a proportion of a car trip and that suburbs often have excess road capacity anyway?

Even in distance or fare based structures short trips are usually disincentivized as the base zone or distance is taken at an approximate marginal cost of a user entering the system, and that is already proportionately higher than the entire trip itself. In Singapore (off the top of my head) this is about $0.90, whereas a trip across the whole island (ca. 40 km) is a bit under $2.00.

The argument against having short trips as they are less efficient in terms of capacity utilization neglects to remember that the systems also have to be paid for initially. If anything short inner city trips should be the focus in a transit system, as the system then becomes far more useful for all trips and even potentially commuting trips thereafter.

The underlying problem here is that the mentalitity (against variable fare structures) is predicated on a predominantly commuter system and not a transit system that is meant to overly effectively serve non-CBD commuter trips. Hence, why I believe that flat fares are likely appropriate at the moment, but that's only because of the current structure of our transit system. It becomes a bit of a chicken or egg problem and it goes much beyond short term thinking.

[sim]

Originally Posted by fusili

I disagree completely with this sentiment.

Read:
http://marketurbanism.com/2010/09/30/the...transportation-costs-per-passenger-mile/
http://www.planetizen.com/node/42518
http://pedestrianobservations.wordpress.com/2011/09/19/passenger-miles-are-overrated/
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012..._mile_a_bad_metric_for_mass_transit.html

The more you measure passenger miles, instead of just trips (or passengers), the more you build sprawling transit infrastructure that encourages longer trips. The same goes for the Time Travel Index used to measure road congestion.

If you are familiar with the Logic Model, this is equivalent to measuring outputs (distance traveled) instead of outcomes (getting from one point to another). Measuring outputs is a fantastic way of encouraging inefficiency.

Yes! This sentence is basically what my above post is saying.

[simster3]

Another thing that can be used instead of a zone based fare system is to recalibrate the property tax system, as the Manning Foundation as proposed, although I am not entirely sure what metrics they suggest using to calculate each homes tax. Under their system, you would theoretically pay for what you use, and that should include both roads and transit, as well as all of the other services we pay for. I am a huge fan of a new system to calculate property taxes.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by fusili

The more you measure passenger miles, instead of just trips (or passengers), the more you build sprawling transit infrastructure that encourages longer trips. The same goes for the Time Travel Index used to measure road congestion.

Yes. And when it comes to transit, the very thing we should encourage is long trips. Short trips can be made up by walking, or bicycling, or Car2Go. Long trips get made up by car ownership, period.

At least in our current situation. Because I don't think good transit service is exactly what's causing/inducing/enabling Calgary to sprawl. Perhaps decades in the future, I'll change my thinking here.


I mean, that's assuming we care about "encouraging" to this level of granularity. Personally I'd rather we encourage all trips.

[ByeByeBaby]

Originally Posted by fusili

I disagree completely with this sentiment.

Read:
http://marketurbanism.com/2010/09/30/the...transportation-costs-per-passenger-mile/
http://www.planetizen.com/node/42518
http://pedestrianobservations.wordpress.com/2011/09/19/passenger-miles-are-overrated/
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012..._mile_a_bad_metric_for_mass_transit.html

The more you measure passenger miles, instead of just trips (or passengers), the more you build sprawling transit infrastructure that encourages longer trips. The same goes for the Time Travel Index used to measure road congestion.

If you are familiar with the Logic Model, this is equivalent to measuring outputs (distance traveled) instead of outcomes (getting from one point to another). Measuring outputs is a fantastic way of encouraging inefficiency.

Hey, it would be great to have everybody living within a short distance of where they work, shop and play. That would be fabulous. But I thought we were talking about the difference between a flat fare system and a zone or distance fare system, not the difference between a flat fare system and bulldozing half the city to rebuild our urban form in a much denser / more sustainable fashion.

It's good to talk about what sort of development may or may not occur, but the fact is that right now there are 120,000 or so jobs in the downtown core, and 45,000 workers living within a half hour walk of there. This is the current reality that a fare policy affects; a reality where most workers do not live within a short transit trip of their job. Even if we passed a law requiring a computer to sort out all workers into the most efficient possible job location regardless of what type of work it was, there are not enough homes near workplaces and workplaces near homes to give everybody a short ride commute.

In the short run -- which is what transit fare policy is, a short run input -- there is virtually no land use elasticity due to a different fare structure. There is virtually no destination choice elasticity. There is barely any mode share elasticity, and I'd suggest that for short transit trips it is as much cannibalizing from bikes/peds as it is from cars, which is actually a negative societal effect.

Further, I challenge the argument that transit is a key driver of sprawl, at least in a city where ~95% of trips are not made by transit. If transit was a key driver of urban sprawl in Calgary, then why would the fastest growing suburban area be the SE, the one with the worst transit service? And if transit is a key driver of sprawl in Calgary, then why would vacant or near vacant inner city sites with great transit access not be growing much faster than the suburbs? They are growing, but in dribs and drabs, while the Kincoras and Cranstons grow by thousands.

I think we are talking past each other a little here; short run versus long run. You are looking more at long term urban form and infrastructure issues, which Lord knows I like to talk about as well most of the time, while I'm talking about whether this year we should charge three bucks or two bucks to take a train from downtown to Sunnyside. From that short run perspective, the land use and transportation system is effectively fixed, although obviously in the long run there are interactions. And from that perspective, the empty seat after the Sunnyside rider gets off used to be filled by a rider from Tuscany, until they got tired of not getting a space on the train and started driving.

[sim]

Originally Posted by freeweed

I mean, that's assuming we care about "encouraging" to this level of granularity. Personally I'd rather we encourage all trips.

I don't get it. Assuming you mean transit trips because, that's not really something you'd overly want to do in general, that's precisely what a variable fare structure is meant to do.

[sim]

Originally Posted by ByeByeBaby

Hey, it would be great to have everybody living within a short distance of where they work, shop and play. That would be fabulous. But I thought we were talking about the difference between a flat fare system and a zone or distance fare system, not the difference between a flat fare system and bulldozing half the city to rebuild our urban form in a much denser / more sustainable fashion.

It's good to talk about what sort of development may or may not occur, but the fact is that right now there are 120,000 or so jobs in the downtown core, and 45,000 workers living within a half hour walk of there. This is the current reality that a fare policy affects; a reality where most workers do not live within a short transit trip of their job. Even if we passed a law requiring a computer to sort out all workers into the most efficient possible job location regardless of what type of work it was, there are not enough homes near workplaces and workplaces near homes to give everybody a short ride commute.

In the short run -- which is what transit fare policy is, a short run input -- there is virtually no land use elasticity due to a different fare structure. There is virtually no destination choice elasticity. There is barely any mode share elasticity, and I'd suggest that for short transit trips it is as much cannibalizing from bikes/peds as it is from cars, which is actually a negative societal effect.

Further, I challenge the argument that transit is a key driver of sprawl, at least in a city where ~95% of trips are not made by transit. If transit was a key driver of urban sprawl in Calgary, then why would the fastest growing suburban area be the SE, the one with the worst transit service? And if transit is a key driver of sprawl in Calgary, then why would vacant or near vacant inner city sites with great transit access not be growing much faster than the suburbs? They are growing, but in dribs and drabs, while the Kincoras and Cranstons grow by thousands.

I think we are talking past each other a little here; short run versus long run. You are looking more at long term urban form and infrastructure issues, which Lord knows I like to talk about as well most of the time, while I'm talking about whether this year we should charge three bucks or two bucks to take a train from downtown to Sunnyside. From that short run perspective, the land use and transportation system is effectively fixed, although obviously in the long run there are interactions. And from that perspective, the empty seat after the Sunnyside rider gets off used to be filled by a rider from Tuscany, until they got tired of not getting a space on the train and started driving.

While I don't disagree with much of what's stated here, although the first bolded seems to be somewhat contradictory, but to me it seems like it's leading to a, well, wrong conclusion (the second bolded).

In an effort to not write out much of the same of what I previously wrote that probably wasn't read anyway, the hyperbolic conclusion one could draw is that the most cost effective (in terms of operation) is a transit line that has only two stations, thus terminals, that have large demand at at least one peak. And this would actually be right. It would also be about the most useless line for anything beyond a very definitive commuter line.

I guess the question I would pose again pertains to one of a chicken or egg, where do you draw the line? How do you ever get to a transit system that functions well beyond that of just a commuter system if you keep perpatuating it to function as a commuter system?

[outoftheice]

A revised edition to our 'Paying Our Own Way' report is now available online reflecting the suggestions and changes that have been discussed on the forum over the last week. Our website will be updated over the next week to reflect the new information. I'd like to thank everyone for their feedback. It sounds like Nenshi is now committed to using an alternative funding scheme to pay for the construction of the 17th Ave Transit-Way and the revitalization of 'International Avenue'. Hopefully that willingness to think outside the box for funding and that drive to 'think big' can translate into action on the North Central and South East LRT project over the next term as well!! The revised edition to our report is available here:

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8rBz38rfXdNYWk0LWVRQjhTbU0/edit?usp=sharing

Happy Thanksgiving Weekend everyone!

[RicoLance21]

One thing I want to note is that I don't think the North Central LRT and Southeast LRT would be built at the same time. The North Central is currently still in its early stages as the city is still undecided as to whether to go Centre Street or Edmonton Trail--not to mention elevated, underground or at-grade. The section between downtown and 16 Ave N would be the trickiest to decide. The city would also have to go through the stakeholder consultation/hearing process, which would be an epic gong show. All of this would take at least another two years before final approval. That is when Year 0 would then start on the North Central LRT line.

[MalcolmTucker]

You can request bids for it all underground, for transitions at different places, and for 'innovative' solutions. Maybe bidders with profit motive can out think locals with different stakes in the project.

I don't think any amount of consultation is going to quiet local detractors on a project of that magnitude. Especially when it hasn't been planned for 30 years already.

[Chadillaccc]

I think underground to 16th Avenue on Centre Street is best at first. Once it's extended, it should continue underground possibly all the way to 40th Avenue, or McKnight Boulevard. This is obviously a very expensive option, but Vancouver could do it down Cambie, I'm sure we can manage to do it down Centre. It's really the only option that makes sense, given population density, potential for future density, and commuting patterns.

[H.E.Pennypacker]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

I think underground to 16th Avenue on Centre Street is best at first. Once it's extended, it should continue underground possibly all the way to 40th Avenue, or McKnight Boulevard. This is obviously a very expensive option, but Vancouver could do it down Cambie, I'm sure we can manage to do it down Centre. It's really the only option that makes sense, given population density, potential for future density, and commuting patterns.

I agree .. Actually considering how underutilized Centre St is from a development standpoint, there's the opportunity to bury the LRT line from downtown to 40th Ave without having to consider disrupting any major developments

This in turn, would spring a ton of density/TOD type development along that Centre St corridor that has all of that potential

As you said, it is costly but IMO would be most beneficial in the long run .. Think how smoother Centre St would be during rush hour if all those buses didn't have to run through it, where some can be replace by the train

[Fuzz]

Any idea on what they would do north of 40th? Up the centre like 36th? Elevated? There are lots of houses north of there...could get expensive.