News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 8.5K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 4.8K     0 

darwink said:
I like how Talisman seems whimsical enough that that is the name that really stuck for many.
Click to expand...
It's the only one that came close to shifting folks away from Lindsay Park, although didn't quite get there.

I never really understand corporate naming rights sponsorships of public stuff, particularly for companies you can't really interact with as a member of the general public - Talisman, MNP etc. Banks and companies that people can use day-to-day make more sense to me (although I hardly think anyone would forget about Scotiabank or Telus if they stopped slapping their names on everything).There's probably some assumed indirect benefit to companies "having their name out there", but can't imagine it's much until you get into the professional sports/arena world with TV audiences.

IMO - corporate naming rights of public spaces and services are very distasteful and usually not materially important for financial sustainability. It's the outcome of an ideological-driven nickel-and-diming exercise, to chip away at things that are public and slap brands on them. In the long run it devalues and blurs the public and private domains,

We have advertising opportunities within public spaces to do that already. Do we really need to crowd our transit maps further with a "Carmacks presents the Downtown Free Fare Zone" label?
 
Urban Outdoorsman said:
Only if the naming rights could generate enough revenue to extend the free fare zone a stop in each direction!
Click to expand...
This would never happen to the Stampede stations. Too much money is made off of parking to incentivize people to take the train to Stampede Park. Also, the TD free fair zone is just too obvious not to expand it to the Green Line. Curious where the free fair zone will be on the Green Line, just downtown or into the beltline?
 
CalgaryTiger said:
This would never happen to the Stampede stations. Too much money is made off of parking to incentivize people to take the train to Stampede Park. Also, the TD free fair zone is just too obvious not to expand it to the Green Line. Curious where the free fair zone will be on the Green Line, just downtown or into the beltline?
Click to expand...
Given that the downtown stations are underground, and all the recent concerns about security, I think it's possible there won't be a free fare zone at all for the green line.
If they have good fare gates for the green line's underground stations I think that will save them from becoming a total mess.
 
jhappy77 said:
Given that the downtown stations are underground, and all the recent concerns about security, I think it's possible there won't be a free fare zone at all for the green line.
If they have good fare gates for the green line's underground stations I think that will save them from becoming a total mess.
Click to expand...
I don't think fair gates will be used on the green line. If I'm reading what you're saying right you think they would be a way to only allow paying users to access the stations. That misses the fact that they wouldn't put fair gates at the top of whatever stairs or elevators are used to access the stations. So, no matter what there will be places for lets call them yet-to-pay users in the stations.
 
CalgaryTiger said:
I don't think fair gates will be used on the green line. If I'm reading what you're saying right you think they would be a way to only allow paying users to access the stations. That misses the fact that they wouldn't put fair gates at the top of whatever stairs or elevators are used to access the stations. So, no matter what there will be places for lets call them yet-to-pay users in the stations.
Click to expand...
I think fare gates could be installed in the downtown stations for the green line, and I think it would help somewhat, but people just need to get on the train at another station and get off the train at a downtown station. With gates installed, there might be less focus on having actual security people at the downtown stations due to the false sense the stations are secure because of the gates.
 
The RouteAhead updates are here: https://pub-calgary.escribemeetings...a=Agenda&lang=English&Item=21&Tab=attachments
(thanks @accord1999 for posting this in the green line thread)

It comes with minor updates to the future rapid transit network map (mostly changes in planned future bus station locations):
1670272504775.png

As well as prioritization updates:
1670272701906.png

Personally I think the prioritization seems pretty good, with the notable exception being the Westbrook-MRU connection being scored way too high (there would be no discernable transit improvement by offering a streetcar over a bus, just increased costs. It would be more of a city development project than a transit project and should be treated that way. Just boost the MAX Teal frequencies to be actually usable all day)
 
I'm not sure the benefits account for networked projects. Like the Teal line to 68th SE isn't super useful on its own, sure. But with a full build out of the 52nd St SE Max, it should rank much higher.

I can quibble with some things, but nothing is perfect. Hopefully this helps council set priorities better than the failed attempt before the election.

Anyways, here are the guts of the report for people that don't want to track it down.

Projects were first evaluated by analyzing benefits independent of capital and operating costs (Table 1). Second, a prioritization matrix used Net Present Value (NPV) to compare the benefit score against 30- year capital and operating estimates. This approach produces two key outputs: 1) an overall project ranking based solely on the benefits and 2) a matrix plotting benefits against project investments that highlights readiness.
Click to expand...

Here is how they scored project benefits:
1670274045650.png


1670274098884.png


1670274172736.png


So they end up with:
1670274271132.png

1670274301387.png

1670274342045.png

1670274385923.png

1670274422153.png
 
Last edited:
jhappy77 said:
Personally I think the prioritization seems pretty good, with the notable exception being the Westbrook-MRU connection being scored way too high (there would be no discernable transit improvement by offering a streetcar over a bus, just increased costs. It would be more of a city development project than a transit project and should be treated that way. Just boost the MAX Teal frequencies to be actually usable all day)
Click to expand...
I think I mentioned this before, but I agree with you that it would be more of a urban development project, rather than a rapid transit project, which I'm down for. I think there would be even more justification for building the streetcar, if it went down 17th Ave all the way to the Stampede. If it's gonna be a urban development project, go all in.
 
^^ and now such a project would have an easy Ctrain connection at Victoria Park Station.
 
Exactly. If we’re ever looking at a streetcar system, 17th to Westbrook should be the priority. The two secondary ones would be Westbrook to MRU, and the University/Hospital loop. Tertiary one should be 14th from 17th to Kensington Road, then an extension down Kensington Road terminating at 10 Street.

Long term city goals.
 
One of the big struggles that our transit system faces is securing funding for better service. Lately, I've been thinking we should think creatively to find funding avenues that have more stability and growth potential than budget debates.
I have a few ideas to share, and I'd appreciate some feedback and criticism so I can refine them (and potentially bring them up to some contacts on council and on the RouteAhead committee):
  • 1 cent gas tax - with 100% of the proceeds going towards the transit budget. Not sure if this is within the municipal government's power, but the main idea here is that it is low enough that it would be ridiculous to complain about, but at the scale of driving that occurs in Calgary it could still churn out a decent chunk of revenue. (right now a 2 cent tax would bring in a dollar for every $60 equivalent tank of gas filled, for example). Could maybe collaborate with surrounding municipalities to develop a regional policy?
  • Parking tax - say, for every $3 spent on parking anywhere in Calgary, there is a $1 tax that goes towards transit. Not sure what the stats are on how much we pay in parking in total is, but I reckon it's a lot. The philosophy? "You're driving and parking because transit sucked enough that you didn't want to deal with it to get to this destination. By paying this tax, you are helping it not suck, so that it may be sufficient for others, or sufficient for you in the future".
  • Congestion pricing / road tolls - by far the most controversial of the 3 (and therefore the least likely to actually happen). But we could implement congestion pricing on roads that have frequent traffic jams at peak times, and if the congestion pricing alleviates this (spoiler: it usually does), then maybe it gets enough support to survive. And 100% of the funds raised could go towards funding transit operations (or even infrastructure expansions) so that people have a solid alternative.
1670452738741.png

(source: https://www.calgary.ca/planning/transportation/traffic-volume-flow-maps.html)

Road tolls in particular have a potential to generate insane amounts of revenue. For example, the stretch of Deerfoot near Memorial recieved 190,000 cars daily in 2019. If every car paid an automatic 10 cent toll on just that 1 stretch of road, that would raise $19,000 daily. And if they paid a $1 toll - that's $190,000 daily, which stretched out over a year is enough to fund the salaries of around 1733 additional bus drivers.
 
Or Calgary could just raise taxes it already has full control over. It isn't that Calgary is unwilling to raise CERTAIN taxes to fund transit more, it is unwilling to raise taxes to fund transit more.

Calgary could fund roads entirely by taxing: frontage, area, parcel, or assessment. Right now we only use assessment.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top