Calgary Public Transit II

[Koolfire]

Originally Posted by Radley77

That sounds like a good idea if they could apply that here in Calgary. Fairly easy to implement and would help make more effective use of pre-existing spare capacity during offpeak periods.

This just strikes me as a way to be more effective with the use of public transit resources. Lots of examples could be drawed from both the public sector (i.e.: Calgary Parking Authority - free street parking downtown after 6 pm) and private sector (i.e.: Alberta Electric System Operator - electricity prices fluctuate based on demand load during time of the day; least expensive electricity sources come on first).

The one pitfall that I can see is the argument in reverse. Why shouldn't people demand a cheaper pass if they only use transit between 6-9 and 4-7? Or if they only use CTrain.

[artvandelay]

Originally Posted by freeweed

Suggesting that the poor should live like this reminds me of people who think that McDonald's shouldn't be allowed to throw out their expired food, that instead we should just feed it to the poor.

• Video Link

[Radley77]

Originally Posted by Koolfire

The one pitfall that I can see is the argument in reverse. Why shouldn't people demand a cheaper pass if they only use transit between 6-9 and 4-7? Or if they only use CTrain.

I understand the point you are making. The problem is one doesn't hire people in 3 hours shifts typically, and one doesn't buy equipment to sit parked for 25% of the day.

Another option would be to offer a discount for public transit users who are travelling in the opposite direction during peak periods (like people using C-train out of the downtown in the mornings).

I think overall there should be a goal of trying to make the most efficient use of public transit resource.

Here is one blog I came across on the subject that is interesting perspective:

http://www.humantransit.org/2010/05/should-fares-be-higher-during-peak-hours.html

[sim]

Originally Posted by freeweed

I'm going on the government-defined use of the term "poverty". People in this country who are above the "poverty line" can easily afford a place to live wherein they have their own bathroom facilities, ergo if you're forced to live without, by the government's own definition you are poor.

Also as evidenced by the fact that the only place you will see such shared facilities is in (as PW says) flop houses, halfway houses, and substance abuse clinics. And hell, even there we try as hard as we can to provide at least the bare minimum for people. Maybe there's some segment of society desperately crying out for shared bathrooms but in my experience the only people who end up there are the very bottom of the economic ladder.

I grew up in the socialist paradise known as Manitoba and even there hardly anyone lived like that, except the most extreme poor. It wasn't out of a sense of entitlement either - in fact it was the exact opposite. As a society, Manitobans are mostly happy to provide enough social assistance so that no one is forced to live like that. I see even less of it here in Calgary, now whether that's due to government programs or just a better off situation for most people, I'm not sure.

But hey, if you think there's a large demand for dormitory-style accommodations by people with money, by all means build some. You could make quite the small fortune in doing so if the demand is there (and donate your proceeds to worthy causes if you're not in it for the money).

PS: Not sure which question was unanswered, PW pointed out that there is a flop house on his street.

Fair enough, but then I think it's about time the definition were tweaked. Having the ability to rent your own room in where the might not be every facility right at hand is hardly poverty.

Thus, and in essence what I am saying, I doubt there would be any demand and I never claimed there would be. No one would want to be perceived as living in "poverty" even though it might well be a good option, and rather likely, temporary to the tune of a a year or a few. It's along the same line as looking at captive riders as living in "poverty," as they don't have the money to buy their own vehicle.

So what confused me, so to speak, was the fact that PW shut down the idea of luxury everything, everywhere and how that is unaffordable. Yet then when an idea that reaffirms that this doesn't need to be so is also presented, it too is shut down. Like I said, I've seen whole buildings like this and in pretty decent areas of a city. The guy I met in there, although not rich, was a working fella with no social problems. It could work if our perception were to change.

Anyway, the alternative would be to make videos and put them on youtube.

The question I had posed was asking you the size of your house and how many people live in it. Obviously, it may not be something that you feel you want to answer on here, but my point being, that I garauntee it is much more space than two people need. - Going back to the point about everyone in 3000 sq ft houses. Perhaps hyperbole, but the point remains the same.

[sim]

Originally Posted by Radley77

I understand the point you are making. The problem is one doesn't hire people in 3 hours shifts typically, and one doesn't buy equipment to sit parked for 25% of the day.

Another option would be to offer a discount for public transit users who are travelling in the opposite direction during peak periods (like people using C-train out of the downtown in the mornings).
I think overall there should be a goal of trying to make the most efficient use of public transit resource.

Here is one blog I came across on the subject that is interesting perspective:

http://www.humantransit.org/2010/05/should-fares-be-higher-during-peak-hours.html

That's a pretty interesting idea as well.

I do feel all this would be harder to pull off in Calgary, as Freeweed alludes to, as so many trips are meant purely for the work commute. It still might be worth a try to, as you said, get more utilization during non-peak hours.

Something I think might be an interesting idea is zonal faring, but not based on which station you start your journey from, but instead on how close a person lives to a station. Discount fares for people that live closer to stations. Encourage TOD a bit more. Subsequently, also meaning they are choosing to live in higher.... density, and foregoing space.

[MalcolmTucker]

Sim, the problem is you want the fare system to at least a little bit reflect true economics, you shouldn't charge a bike rider who rides 5 km to the station more than a feeder bus user who travels 1 km, especially when the feeder bus user accounts for far more subsidy.

That being said, true costs are hard to reflect in transit, and we have to remember that beyond the social good reason of letting people travel that would otherwise not have the means, transit users generate a large positive externality by not driving. Whenever you punish someone for doing a good thing society as a whole looses twice.

as for

Another option would be to offer a discount for public transit users who are travelling in the opposite direction during peak periods (like people using C-train out of the downtown in the mornings).

It has merit if achievable, which it might be in Vancouver where destinations are at one end (presumably, I haven't seen travel patterns, or experiences a commute outside of Kits --> UBC) with travelers coming from the radiant lines. As a city with multiple radiant lines , you would need to figure out how to equitably handle cross town commuters which would be hard without creating a zone system that is like a venn diagram where each line's zone overlaps in the downtown. Hard to do without making it so complicated that you scare off more casual users.

Complication is a 'cost' too!

[You Need A Thneed]

There is definitely track laid into place for the NE extension. I saw some yesterday both north and south of Saddletowne station.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by sim

Fair enough, but then I think it's about time the definition were tweaked. Having the ability to rent your own room in where the might not be every facility right at hand is hardly poverty.

Thus, and in essence what I am saying, I doubt there would be any demand and I never claimed there would be. No one would want to be perceived as living in "poverty" even though it might well be a good option, and rather likely, temporary to the tune of a a year or a few. It's along the same line as looking at captive riders as living in "poverty," as they don't have the money to buy their own vehicle.

So what confused me, so to speak, was the fact that PW shut down the idea of luxury everything, everywhere and how that is unaffordable. Yet then when an idea that reaffirms that this doesn't need to be so is also presented, it too is shut down. Like I said, I've seen whole buildings like this and in pretty decent areas of a city. The guy I met in there, although not rich, was a working fella with no social problems. It could work if our perception were to change.

Anyway, the alternative would be to make videos and put them on youtube.

The question I had posed was asking you the size of your house and how many people live in it. Obviously, it may not be something that you feel you want to answer on here, but my point being, that I garauntee it is much more space than two people need. - Going back to the point about everyone in 3000 sq ft houses. Perhaps hyperbole, but the point remains the same.

Your flophouse suggestion is a byproduct of the unaffordable city, not a solution to it. And yes... like "captive riders", flophouse residents tend to be broke.

[sim]

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

Sim, the problem is you want the fare system to at least a little bit reflect true economics, you shouldn't charge a bike rider who rides 5 km to the station more than a feeder bus user who travels 1 km, especially when the feeder bus user accounts for far more subsidy.


Complication is a 'cost' too!

True, good point. I feel this could, however, this effect might be minimized by retaining the parking fee at park and rides. Then also a discounted pass for someone that uses only the train. A biker would still be paying less overall this way, but perhaps more than someone living right close. Obviously, there would have to be additional policies in place, but then we are venturing into your end statement.

[sim]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

Your flophouse suggestion is a byproduct of the unaffordable city, not a solution to it. And yes... like "captive riders", flophouse residents tend to be broke.

Or one that accounts for the true cost of low density built form...

I'm still not sure where you stand on this though, because if you don't agree with this high density, luxury stuff (which I totally agree with-your point I mean), are you then saying the only way that affordability can be maintained is by perpetual outward growth?

[MalcolmTucker]

I think the point being made was just that the tendency here is to malign even quasi-affordable developments, it is getting better a bit lately but I am sure if there was a proposal to build slabs like up at UniversityCity in the beltline it would be widely panned.

I would guess that the position that he may be advocating is more of a systems thinking - the city should have thought that restricting floor plate size in the beltline would drastically alter who can buy units for example.

All that being said, the biggest change would be a return to 1970s style income tax rules that through some mechanism I haven't really heard specifics on spurred the huge growth in rental housing from around then. Planners, architects, politicians and businesses need to work together on how to build not affordable apartments, but even just 'average' apartments. Somehow we have lost our collective ability to. They don't have to be awful towers in a park that turned into havens of crime in many large cities, and they don't have to be 'suburbs in the sky'.

[Radley77]

One of the things I think could be implemented easily is a reduced fare on BRT routes that are travelling 'counter-flow' to peak use. Another thing that could be done, is allow bicycles to be used on public transit during peak periods in 'counter-flow' modes.

It's silly that it feels like the LRT is at 90% occupancy going into the downtown like in the AM's, but only 20% going out of the downtown. This is ~55% occupancy on a full-route basis. If this was a more balanced, the public transit system would be a lot more cost-effective.

Also, incentivizing more people to use public transit during offpeak periods should also be a goal as well.

Perhaps there should be defined performance metrics for public transit to recognize the occupancy rate (and thus be optimizing for that).

I think this idea should be recognized as equal importance to transport-orientated-design.

One side-effect of this kind of strategy, besides increasing the cost-efficiency of public transit, is it would encourage more jobs to be located where people live, and more people to live where jobs are.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by sim

Or one that accounts for the true cost of low density built form...

I'm still not sure where you stand on this though, because if you don't agree with this high density, luxury stuff (which I totally agree with-your point I mean), are you then saying the only way that affordability can be maintained is by perpetual outward growth?

While I can see a small number of people going without a car for ideological reasons, I don't see too many people unnecessarily embracing flophouse living.

And this is the impasse, nobody has explained how to develop a tangible amount of attainable housing within the current form urban development is taking. You are drawing on the social housing and SRO form and seemingly even more broadly that created urban hell in the first place.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by sim

The question I had posed was asking you the size of your house and how many people live in it. Obviously, it may not be something that you feel you want to answer on here, but my point being, that I garauntee it is much more space than two people need. - Going back to the point about everyone in 3000 sq ft houses. Perhaps hyperbole, but the point remains the same.

1500 sq ft, 2 people. Now, you're bordering on entering ad hominem territory (my personal housing accommodation has zero to do with the merits of my argument) but what the heck.

You want to argue based on "need"? No kidding it's more space than I "need". You should take a look in the mirror some time and reflect on the irony of taking this path of argument - on the Internet, using a computer. Ever watch TV? Ever read a book? Ever own more than one change of clothing per season?

Then get back to me on what the hell "need" has anything to do with it.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

You are drawing on the social housing and SRO form and seemingly even more broadly that created urban hell in the first place.

The Soviets tried this (hey, it ain't Godwinning a thread if I mention them, is it?) and also advocated lifestyle based on "need". And created a true urban hell.

I'm not bringing this up because I'm about to go on a rant about "pinko commies" or some such nonsense (I'm a fairly bleeding-heart liberal in most respects, believe it or not). Just using it as an example of where it's been tried, and people really, really, really did not like it.

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

I think the point being made was just that the tendency here is to malign even quasi-affordable developments, it is getting better a bit lately but I am sure if there was a proposal to build slabs like up at UniversityCity in the beltline it would be widely panned.

I would guess that the position that he may be advocating is more of a systems thinking - the city should have thought that restricting floor plate size in the beltline would drastically alter who can buy units for example.

All that being said, the biggest change would be a return to 1970s style income tax rules that through some mechanism I haven't really heard specifics on spurred the huge growth in rental housing from around then. Planners, architects, politicians and businesses need to work together on how to build not affordable apartments, but even just 'average' apartments. Somehow we have lost our collective ability to. They don't have to be awful towers in a park that turned into havens of crime in many large cities, and they don't have to be 'suburbs in the sky'.

I think the late seventies rental boom involved Trudeau instituting some kind of federal tax rebate on rental stock that ended up making a significant portion of the construction costs a write off. I really do not understand the program enough to comment on its viability for solving the current drought in rental construction. I have heard that there were a lot of corners cut in the construction which caused problems but on the other hand I have been inside these buildings and they seem fine. I guess even faulty concrete construction holds up much better than quality wood frame. They do tend to be energy hogs for some reason but hopefully that could be corrected.

Personally I am in favour of the province entering the rental market in an extensive way. Instead of simply providing rental accommodations for the very bottom of the market, build enough units to be able to set prices for the middle as well. That way there can be multiple benefits. The people who currently rely on social housing can be dispersed amongst regular renters negating concentrations of poverty. The state can, with say a fifty percent stake in the regular rental market, influence prices through competition without initiating draconian rent controls that mess with the incentives to build rental units. The program might be expensive initially but quality concrete buildings, not luxury but solidly built, should last decades and eventually pay themselves off or even make a profit.

Policy Wonk, the problems with US public housing were not necessarily related to quality. Much of it was really well built. The problems arose from the design of the program and the buildings themselves. The buildings were purposefully designed so as not to compete with the private rental market. They housed only the very poor, instead of mixing income groups. The tower in the park architecture also served to contain people within these ghettos instead of being open with the rest of the city. I think that a housing program that relied on smaller buildings, spread through out the city instead of concentrated in a few places, that were open to both subsidized and non-subsidized renter alike would help solve most of the issues with public housing.

Sorry about how off topic this is getting but yeah, there are people here concerned with affordability in this city that do not think the answer is to shove the poor into flop houses. There just are not too many opportunities to discuss the issue. To connect this with transit... The government building boom I advocate for can help kickstart some TODs or something... That should sort of tie this post into the thread.

[mersar]

Originally Posted by Radley77

It's silly that it feels like the LRT is at 90% occupancy going into the downtown like in the AM's, but only 20% going out of the downtown.

These percentages wouldn't surprise me, but only for the NE and S legs. For the NW during peak its quite often standing room only going out of downtown in the mornings and heading back into downtown in the evenings can be the same thing. Not quite the same level of packed as the peak flow direction, but still pretty packed.

[Radley77]

I made a couple of graphs to help illustrate the point about heavy one way traffic. Although, need to consider non-peak traffic (like during the mid-day) as well. I am thinking as a general rule the goal should be to maximize occupancy.

The information for these graphs makes a few assumptions:
* at $0 fare, there is only so much traffic that would be diverted to public transit irregardless (100%)
* at $50 fare, the amount of people taking public transit would be essentially nil (0%) due to parking fees downtown
* somewhere between these two ticket price points, demand would fluctuate between 0% and 100%
* there is a gap between inbound and outbound traffic during specific times of the day (particularly during peak travel periods)





These graphs are moreso for illustrative purposes and to look at ways that public transit could be optimized, so there is more equal sharing between inbound/outbound modes and peak/non-peak traffic periods.

Some other jurisdictions that have these differentiated pricing schema are Washington, London, and someone else had mentioned Munich.

I agree that the NW line is probably least affected by this effect prob because of all the students at ACAD, SAIT and U of C. I sometimes make trips to the core research centre as well... There is probably a bunch of academia/finance/engineering crosstraffic between these major activity centres and the CBD.

I am curious if Calgary transit should be placing a higher emphasis on data collection (% occupancy by route, on a per stop basis against time of day and day of week?). Maybe it would be as simple as hiring a couple of summer students and recording it on a laptop just to find out how bad this problem really is? A second phase to this kind of project could look at ways to make better us of or incentivize use of that spare capacity. The other option is a peak surcharge.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by Bassic Lab

I think the late seventies rental boom involved Trudeau instituting some kind of federal tax rebate on rental stock that ended up making a significant portion of the construction costs a write off. I really do not understand the program enough to comment on its viability for solving the current drought in rental construction.

See: CMHC "Neighbourhood Improvement Program"

Personally I am in favour of the province entering the rental market in an extensive way. Instead of simply providing rental accommodations for the very bottom of the market, build enough units to be able to set prices for the middle as well. That way there can be multiple benefits. The people who currently rely on social housing can be dispersed amongst regular renters negating concentrations of poverty. The state can, with say a fifty percent stake in the regular rental market, influence prices through competition without initiating draconian rent controls that mess with the incentives to build rental units. The program might be expensive initially but quality concrete buildings, not luxury but solidly built, should last decades and eventually pay themselves off or even make a profit.

Part of the problem is the only people who actually want to live in "Mixed Income" developments are guilty white liberals - combined with the fact you could never build enough rental housing to "dilute" the poverty out of public housing recipients.

Policy Wonk, the problems with US public housing were not necessarily related to quality. Much of it was really well built. The problems arose from the design of the program and the buildings themselves. The buildings were purposefully designed so as not to compete with the private rental market. They housed only the very poor, instead of mixing income groups. The tower in the park architecture also served to contain people within these ghettos instead of being open with the rest of the city. I think that a housing program that relied on smaller buildings, spread through out the city instead of concentrated in a few places, that were open to both subsidized and non-subsidized renter alike would help solve most of the issues with public housing.

I didn't argue it was about construction quality - although many projects were actually horribly constructed (See: Mafia). However this is more or less what sim was arguing for - warehousing people in SRO style accommodations. And US public housing is not strictly the domain of the very poor.

Sorry about how off topic this is getting but yeah, there are people here concerned with affordability in this city that do not think the answer is to shove the poor into flop houses. There just are not too many opportunities to discuss the issue. To connect this with transit... The government building boom I advocate for can help kickstart some TODs or something... That should sort of tie this post into the thread.

This government building boom will never happen, dead stop.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

Part of the problem is the only people who actually want to live in "Mixed Income" developments are guilty white liberals

I like this comment on so many levels. Partly because of its sheer blatant offensiveness, but also party because I also see the truth in it.