Calgary Public Transit - Discussion

[para transit fellow]

Spread thin: How urban sprawl is stretching Calgary Transit to the max

https://www.sprawlcalgary.com/calgar...t-urban-sprawl

In 2009, city hall set a 60-year goal of 3.7 transit service hours per capita, up from a baseline of 2.2. But this number has gone down, not up, as the city grows both in size and population—sliding from 2.4 service hours per capita in 2011 to 1.8 in 2024.

[Jimmy Stang]

^ Included in that is a small bit about the free fare zone, which narrowly survived council's axe and appears to be hanging on by a thread.

The city estimates that if the free fare zone was to be eliminated, 75% of people would stop utilizing it, but that 25% would pay $4 to go a few blocks downtown, resulting in an increase in revenue. I think that's very optimistic.

Without distanced-based fares, and perhaps even with, I think that the unintended consequence would be more desolate stations downtown, which would actually increase "social disorder" because there will be considerably fewer "good" people on the platforms and trains downtown. Higher levels of pedestrian traffic is a proven, effective crime deterrent.

[Weitz]

Not a chance in the world 25% will pay $4 to go a couple blocks.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by para transit fellow

Spread thin: How urban sprawl is stretching Calgary Transit to the max

https://www.sprawlcalgary.com/calgar...t-urban-sprawl

Is there more here? Because you'd have to be a Grade A Moron to think about setting a 60-year goal.

This City changes so fast even a 5-10 year goal or plan is overly ambitious.

[Jimmy Stang]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Not a chance in the world 25% will pay $4 to go a couple blocks.

To be fair, part of the argument against the free fare zone is that people would just walk, increasing pedestrian traffic, healthier, etc. which is also true. But it isn't like the train is door to door - free fare zone users are also pedestrians on the street and in the +15.

But I still think that far fewer than 25% of people would continue to use it downtown if they had to pay a full fare.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Stang

To be fair, part of the argument against the free fare zone is that people would just walk, increasing pedestrian traffic, healthier, etc. which is also true. But it isn't like the train is door to door - free fare zone users are also pedestrians on the street and in the +15.

But I still think that far fewer than 25% of people would continue to use it downtown if they had to pay a full fare.

Wasnt there something about TD sponsoring the Free Fare Zone and they just recently bailed?

[Jimmy Stang]

Originally Posted by Locke

Wasnt there something about TD sponsoring the Free Fare Zone and they just recently bailed?

Yep - they pulled out two years early, which is unfortunate. I don't believe that there was any sponsorship prior to the recent TD thing.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Stang

Yep - they pulled out two years early, which is unfortunate. I don't believe that there was any sponsorship prior to the recent TD thing.

So whats the scoop there? They need a sponsor for the 'Free Fare Zone' or it becomes a regular fare zone? Because that seems like a bad idea as people aren't going to pay to go a few blocks.

Why did TD bail? And if there was no sponsorship before...is it really required? I'm sure the cash influx is nice to have but is it critical to maintaining the free fare zone?

[Jimmy Stang]

Originally Posted by Locke

So whats the scoop there? They need a sponsor for the 'Free Fare Zone' or it becomes a regular fare zone? Because that seems like a bad idea as people aren't going to pay to go a few blocks.

Why did TD bail? And if there was no sponsorship before...is it really required? I'm sure the cash influx is nice to have but is it critical to maintaining the free fare zone?

That's the issue - they've lost the "sponsorship" revenue, but now seem to be seeing the free fare zone as a cost that needs to be recovered through fares.

I see it the other way. The trains are running through there anyway, it is a value-added thing for downtown workers and tourists. Taking it away does not mean that those riders will suddenly become fare payers and recover the loss of sponsorship revenue - they'll just find a different mode or not make those cross-downtown trips.

One of those "we know the cost, but not the value" sort of things.

[jwslam]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Not a chance in the world 25% will pay $4 to go a couple blocks.

If you're riding from city hall to 7 St, sure it doesn't make sense 25% would now choose to pay...

But maybe it discourages free-loaders riding from Victoria Park or Sunnyside to 7 St to actually start paying now that there's potential increase in fare enforcement?