[jhappy77]

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.

I agree fully, but this was more of a thought exercise in how we fund transit:

Right now we look at it as its own thing in isolation, and we try to follow a (completely arbitrary) rule about it self-sustaining to a certain extent. This leads to a mentality of restricting service expansions and making up for rising costs by jacking up fares.

But we should look at it as as a subpart of the overall transportation system. In that context, fare hikes don't need to be so brutal, service doesn't need to be held back so much, and we can instead seek revenue from other parts of the transportation system - including Pigouvian mechanisms.

 

[darwink]

Toronto was given 6 tax powers, used 2, and now only implements one and is facing more than a billion $ budget shortfall this year.

Taxing powers aren’t the panacea some think. Municipalities get hung up on a tools based approach, thinking their problems are due to a lack of tools, when the real problem is a spending-tax willingness mismatch.

 

[CalgaryTiger]

My quick couple cents... I think the funding is actually there, the problem is CT can't hire fast enough, it will take them 2 years to get back to pre-pandemic service levels. Then they say the changes will come.

• 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.

On this, you could just take the taxes that are already on fuel and put them towards more general transportation spending. Something that will need to be adjusted in time is when they no longer sell ICE, I think the feds have a 2035 date set, how will you tax road use? Which is what a gas tax is, an indirect toll.

In this year's budget some money was taken from parking reserves for the 5A network, and maybe even the bus shelters and benches additions too... so you could funnel that into transit. I also think the residential parking permit cost is set to go up. So it is generally becoming more expensive to have a car in permit parking areas of the city that are actually decently serviced by transit. But you're also thinking that increasing parking costs will incentivize transit use once its more usable. That usability is coming but as I said above it's not a funding issue it's a hiring and training issue. I personally already take transit to work downtown because parking in or near my building costs so much, so I'm already converted.

I like the idea of congestion pricing and toll roads but the problem here is that it puts everyone with vastly different incomes in the same pool. Some could for sure afford to pay to drive but the reality is many lower income drivers need to drive. Or at the very least driving allows them to more reliably get to a better job higher paying job. So, like you say, this is something that is last on the list. Once the better system is up and running, giving those drivers an alternative, congestion pricing and tolls could be used to fund transit.

 

[CalgaryTiger]

To add on to what I said, here's the latest on the Route Ahead and the PTN...

I like to follow live wire as they dedicate themselves well to covering city hall. In their article Primary Transit Network the focus of Calgary’s updated Route Ahead plan they quote David Cooper, whom is a former senior planner with Calgary Transit. He said that given the resources the city has locked up in public transportation, they could change over to the PTN within the given budget. So like I said, it's not a money issue.

The article said:

'The updated plan will come before the city’s Infrastructure and Planning Committee on Thursday (today), as part of a scheduled 10-year review. They did public engagement over the summer prior to finalizing changes to the 30-year transit plan.

In the document are 22 changes ranging from length of the actual document to more major changes – like the explicit focus on making public transit the backbone of the “Calgary’s best future.”

One of main updates is the focus on frequency rather than coverage. Calgary Transit refers to it as the Primary Transit Network (PTN). It’s the skeletal system where trains or buses come every 10 to 15 minutes at least 15 hours a day, seven days a week.

Committee members will be asked to approve the proposed changes included in the Route Ahead revision. The final plan will be presented mid 2023. They are also being asked to approved a revised capital plan.'

Personally, if they're saying 2 years to get hiring done, and Coop' is saying they can do it under the existing budget I think this could be ready to go by 2025.

 

[YYCguy]

I guess something has to give if they want to increase frequency. Are there enough train sets to accomplish this? If good coverage is the trade off here, I wonder if an on demand service in the suburbs with virtual stops (like in Airdrie) might help alleviate some of the concerns with getting to those main stops/stations.

 

[CalgaryTiger]

I guess something has to give if they want to increase frequency. Are there enough train sets to accomplish this? If good coverage is the trade off here, I wonder if an on demand service in the suburbs with virtual stops (like in Airdrie) might help alleviate some of the concerns with getting to those main stops/stations.

That's exactly what they're moving towards is the on-demand model out of the PTN.

 

[jhappy77]

That's exactly what they're moving towards is the on-demand model out of the PTN.

Is it really true that they'll be shifting from coverage routes to on-demand? So far I haven't found any description of the exact shift that will be taking place beyond moving from a coverage-focused network to a frequency-focused network.
Because of this, it's unclear what kind of sacrifices we intend to make.

Right now, the rule we use for transit planning is having 95% of development within 400m of a bus stop.
There are a bunch of different ways we could shift towards a more frequent network:

• Keep service levels similar to now, but modify the distance (ex: 95% within 600m)
• Keep service levels similar to now, but modify the percentage that follow the rule (ex 80% within 400m)
• Maintain similar routes to now, but cut back on service throughout the day
• Cutting coverage routes in some areas entirely and replacing them with on-demand service

Depending on which approach(es) we take, and to what extent we take it, there will be wildly different outcomes for people. It seems like some of the blowback that this update received is a direct consequence of a lack of clarity surrounding the strategy for executing the shift.

 

[CalgaryTiger]

Is it really true that they'll be shifting from coverage routes to on-demand? So far I haven't found any description of the exact shift that will be taking place beyond moving from a coverage-focused network to a frequency-focused network.
Because of this, it's unclear what kind of sacrifices we intend to make.

Right now, the rule we use for transit planning is having 95% of development within 400m of a bus stop.
There are a bunch of different ways we could shift towards a more frequent network:

• Keep service levels similar to now, but modify the distance (ex: 95% within 600m)
• Keep service levels similar to now, but modify the percentage that follow the rule (ex 80% within 400m)
• Maintain similar routes to now, but cut back on service throughout the day
• Cutting coverage routes in some areas entirely and replacing them with on-demand service

Depending on which approach(es) we take, and to what extent we take it, there will be wildly different outcomes for people. It seems like some of the blowback that this update received is a direct consequence of a lack of clarity surrounding the strategy for executing the shift.

As far as I understand they're goal is to "try to do one thing really well." There's an article from Live Wire (independent Journalists) that gives you the latest new on it here.

To summarize from the start of the article:

"The approval of fundamental changes to Calgary’s Route Ahead strategy for Calgary Transit’s next 30 years narrowly survived at committee Thursday. It passed in a 6-5 vote, with Couns. Andre Chabot, Peter Demong, Dan McLean, Sonya Sharp and Jennifer Wyness voting against.

It still must pass an upcoming test at Calgary city council before feedback is collected and the final Route Ahead draft is presented sometime in Q2 of 2023. Mayor Jyoti Gondek, Couns. Sean Chu and Courtney Walcott and Raj Dhaliwal weren’t in attendance at the Infrastructure and Planning Committee meeting.

The major change was a shift from Calgary Transit’s current coverage-based model to that of frequency based. The focus would be on roughly 30 heavily used routes that would make up what’s called the Primary Transit Network (PTN). They would have 10-minute service, 15-hours a day, seven days a week.

Calgary Transit has roughly 160 total bus routes in the city that make up its base service. Many of those bus routes would see changes in order reallocate resources to boost frequency on the PTN."

The rest of the article goes into more detail about the contentious issues and sacrifices. It's a dramatic shift, but a necessary one IMO as a daily bus and train rider.

 

[whatchyyc]

and IMO once they move to the PTN model, if it's successful and generates really strong all-day ridership that would be a case for expanding service down the road

 

[trtcttc]

I think this is a positive change for transit. There will be trade offs that some people will be further from stops, but the level of frequency now is just abysmal. Even along the MAX bus routes, the frequency is 12-18 mins peak and 20-30 mins off-peak which is no where near BRT level of service. The non-MAX busses are basically unusable if you need to get to a time-sensitive appointment. If I know the MAX bus is coming every 10 mins, then I can walk the extra 15 minutes to get to that stop (or bike, scooter, etc) as long as I know there will be a bus. That's why things like headway are important to manage because it's not about just having a bus route but one that you can take reliably without planning your trip in advance.

I know there are some people that cannot commute to the further stops and I think that's where On Demand transit or a Wheeltrans type of service should be used.

 

[CalgaryTiger]

Even along the MAX bus routes, the frequency is 12-18 mins peak and 20-30 mins off-peak which is no where near BRT level of service.

Isn't that wild, I live close to the Max Yellow and because of that frequency I end up taking the 7 because it's a little closer and the trip times are the same.

Crazy thing about Max Yellow, it uses the Flanders overpass but doesn't stop on it! I'd have to get on the 20 for two stops and the get off at 33rd and wait for MY. What a system.

 

[jhappy77]

Isn't that wild, I live close to the Max Yellow and because of that frequency I end up taking the 7 because it's a little closer and the trip times are the same.

Crazy thing about Max Yellow, it uses the Flanders overpass but doesn't stop on it! I'd have to get on the 20 for two stops and the get off at 33rd and wait for MY. What a system.

Yeah it definitely needs to stop there. It's 800m in either direction for the next stops, that's beyond what people are gonna walk to. Since it's already slowing down to use the traffic circle it's not like it's a huge time hit to stop there whenever someone needs to get on.

 

[CBBarnett]

Yeah it definitely needs to stop there. It's 800m in either direction for the next stops, that's beyond what people are gonna walk to. Since it's already slowing down to use the traffic circle it's not like it's a huge time hit to stop there whenever someone needs to get on.

I assume this is a by-product of the Currie development not getting going?

Eventually a stop would be added somewhere in that gap and the whole Max Yellow might re-route between 33rd and MRU to go through the centre of the community. Distances and feasibility to walk is exacerbated because of empty, windswept and noisy nothingness that exists in this stretch today (again because Currie hasn't gotten going materially yet).

 

[outoftheice]

RouteAhead update went to Council today and included this map of Calgary's future primary transit network. These routes are destined to have 10 minute or better service frequencies at least 15 hours per day. Interesting to note that regional and high-speed rail proposals also show up on the map for the first time ever.

 

[jhappy77]

Looks to be a rehash of this map from the Calgary Transportation Plan:

From: https://www.calgary.ca/pda/pd/municipal-development-plan/municipal-development-plan-mdp.html
(I was unable to notice any differences)