If you could name one ridiculous thing.....

[Leeman4Gilmour]

I've never had to manage a city over a million people while competing with the city's major industry for staff and resources when that industry can pay significantly more for these resources, so......... I think all in all they do a pretty good job.

[skins]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

Alright, time for clearing up some transit-related things...

Wow, thanks for the informative post. It makes a little more sense to me why the West leg is leaving downtown from 7th Ave. I assumed they were abandoning the idea of having trains go through 8th Ave downtown, but it sounds like you're saying the NW/SW leg will be shifted there eventually.

[WilsonFourTwo]

Originally Posted by Leeman4Gilmour

I've never had to manage a city over a million people while competing with the city's major industry for staff and resources when that industry can pay significantly more for these resources, so......... I think all in all they do a pretty good job.

Get lost......your rational thinking and solid logic has no place here.

I appreciate that any operation the size of a city is going to have some significant problems, and I think that as far as a government goes, the city is reasonably well run.

My only real pet peeve is seeing obvious problems go unsolved. Case in point is the constant outward growth of the city. Council has identified it, the Mayor has spoken publicly on the matter, yet more and more communities get approved/built. I could go on about transit, community development, infrastructure, etc etc........nobody actually seems to solve the problems.

[Pinner]

I notice allot of complaints about transit, as someone mentioned earlier, people ride the C Train for free, and have been since it opened.

If everyone was forced to pay, maybe some of these transit problems could be addressed.

[SeoulFire]

Originally Posted by Pinner

I notice allot of complaints about transit, as someone mentioned earlier, people ride the C Train for free, and have been since it opened.

If everyone was forced to pay, maybe some of these transit problems could be addressed.

This goes back to the initial decision of fare/customer management and how the stations were designed. Poor model with poor enforcement.

With turnstiles or mag-lock gates there will still be 'jumpers' but will almost definitely be less than the current state of affairs.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by SeoulFire

This goes back to the initial decision of fare/customer management and how the stations were designed. Poor model with poor enforcement.

With turnstiles or mag-lock gates there will still be 'jumpers' but will almost definitely be less than the current state of affairs.

So how does that work if I get on the bus at my house and take it to the train station, do I still have to pay a 'token' a second time to get on the train? I can see how it would work with a swipe card, assuming it would store your trip info on a centralized server and count entry on the train as the same fare, but what if you paid cash? Would they give you a swipe card transfer?

[WilsonFourTwo]

nm

[Pinner]

Originally Posted by SeoulFire

This goes back to the initial decision of fare/customer management and how the stations were designed. Poor model with poor enforcement.

In all fairness, people still had honor, when the system was designed.

[SeoulFire]

Originally Posted by Rathji

So how does that work if I get on the bus at my house and take it to the train station, do I still have to pay a 'token' a second time to get on the train? I can see how it would work with a swipe card, assuming it would store your trip info on a centralized server and count entry on the train as the same fare, but what if you paid cash? Would they give you a swipe card transfer?

In modern systems - yes

With the smart card technology ctrain and bus integration should be simple. The system I had experience with is scan on and scan off. For transfers within a certain time period the next scan will not deduct any payment. This system also had a scaled payment system with increasing fares for increasing distances.

Let's say you scan on a bus and it deducts the standard fare from your pre-loaded card (for example). Scanning again when you get off the bus sets the card for transfers to the ctrain for example. Upon entering the ctrain station, you will still scan to get in but no fare will be deducted (unless they adopt a distance scaled fee structure in which case an additional fee may be deducted).

The cards were available for a nominal fee and were chargeable so to speak. Remarkably simple and efficient system once implemented. They came in credit card size as well as key ring/cell phone attachments.

TBQH I am not sure how it worked with people who want to pay cash.

Edit: sorry - was a bit distracted when I read your post.

[Pinner]

Originally Posted by Rathji

So how does that work if I get on the bus at my house and take it to the train station, do I still have to pay a 'token' a second time to get on the train?

You get a "transfer" from the bus driver that is good where ever you want to go, trains buses where ever. I think.

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

The majority of the work being done there is to make 16th ave 3 lanes each way, work that is not wasted even when an interchange will be done.

One of the biggest complaints I often hear about the city "redoing" work is with paving, i.e. Why did they pave and then come back and repave a year or two later?

Repaying is done like that out of necessity, they wait until the ground beneath has settled before putting the final layer on.

A good example of waste would be the province spending money widening the interchange in Airdrie, then, like 2 or 3 years later, demolishing everything to build a new interchange.

I understand that, but I don't understand why they couldn't just kill two birds with one stone. Get the 3 lanes done AND have a interchange completed. The little work they've done to tweak the EB to NB ramp, WB to SB, and SB to WB ramp isn't going to be there if they upgrade in the near future.

[Mad Mel]

Originally Posted by SeoulFire

TBQH I am not sure how it worked with people who want to pay cash.

The swipe system where I live works just like you described. I'd guess that 90%+ of users are regular commuters, and they all have swipe cards which let them through the gates. For cash, there are ticket dispensers. There are no transfers; you buy a time-constrained ticket which allows travel between particular zones of the city, and it doesn't matter if you take any combination of the city's trains, buses, ferries, or catamarans. The way that they police it is that there are people who check your ticket at the exit gate at the train stations. All the time at major stations, and frequently enough at others to keep people honest. Especially at rush hour, most people are commuters who swipe and therefore don't get checked, so the ticket checking really doesn't slow things down at all.

[Rathji]

Now, typically in places that have them, would a swipe pass be a 'permanent bus pass' that you would just need to activate online (or at a store/transit terminal) on a monthly/yearly basis or more like a debit card that you need to keep balanced topped up on?

I would love the idea of a yearly bus pass, or an online or automatically recurring monthly payment from my credit card.

[bizaro86]

Most places I've been have both types of options. Think of it like cell phones. You can "pay-as-you-go" or get the automatic monthly contract. The smart card in London works the same way. You get the card, and then you can add a daily, weekly, or monthly pass to it, and do automatic renewal from your CC if you wish.

Or, you can add a specific amount of money ($20 or whatever) and use it until it runs out. They debit your account for whatever rides you use.

Michael

[SeoulFire]

The one I used had a self-serve recharge kiosk in the station. Put in your money and place the card in the appropriate spot then voila! Charged. You could also do it at the window with the worker as well (remember those in the ctrain stations?).

Some people also had them go straight on a credit card - lots of options.

[Mad Mel]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Maybe it's just me but that intersection seems like it's been constantly tinkered with for the last 10 years. I'm not sure if a year's gone by when you haven't seen something being built, added, bulldozed etc.

It's not just you. I can't say whether it's been 10 years or not, but I lived up that hill from 2003-2008, and it was continual through that time.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by SeoulFire

The one I used had a self-serve recharge kiosk in the station. Put in your money and place the card in the appropriate spot then voila! Charged. You could also do it at the window with the worker as well (remember those in the ctrain stations?).

Some people also had them go straight on a credit card - lots of options.

I really like the self-serve kiosk type, because its easier to get what you want when a machine can translate into a bunch of languages, versus trying to buy a ticket from someone who only speaks Spanish or German or whatever.

Michael

[nieuwy-89]

Originally Posted by Crazy Bacon Legs

I used to work for the City of Calgary and once spoke with one of the City engineers about the transit system. I know this story is anecdotal and I could not find anything online referencing it, but I found the story he told me extremely interesting. He worked as an engineer at the City at the time all this was going on.

Apparently, when they were first planning the LRT, there was a very wealth Saudi man who basically approached the City and offered to completely finance a LRT-like system. It would have had multiple legs, (I believe it was 2 south, one west, and two north including one clear up to where the the airport is, but that might be my memory messing up) and he would have fronted the entire cost. He would have expected a certain percentage return (fairly high) on each ticket sold for the first 10 years or so, and then a lower percentage in perpetuity thereafter. It would have been a very high quality system he was offering. The total cost would have ran into the tens or hundreds of millions. He approached City Council with all the plans and everything ready to go pending acceptance and approval of his plan.

This was, however, the 1970s. Back then, anything private was a bad idea. It didn't matter that he would have built the entire bloody system on his own coin, but City Council essentially said "thanks, but no thanks," and proceeded to build what is, in my opinion, one of the worst transit systems in any major city.

Anyhow, I don't know if the story is 100% true, but if it was then I think City Council messed up big time. Not that it matters to me now, because I no longer live there, but there you go.

That sounds sketchy. Lyle Lanley sketchy.

[nieuwy-89]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

Actually, the decision to built the c-train out made it a success and helped keep it a success. Look at the Edmonton LRT, which did go the opposite route of Calgary's, and what a failure it is compared to our LRT.

Failure may be harsh - Edmonton's downtown subway is actually quite a success story. It has an amazing safety record and offers great potential for future growth of the LRT system that is now appearing to come to fruition. Edmonton's LRT ridership per capita is second only to Calgary in North America. Unfortunately after the intitial LRT line was complete a succession of incredibly risk averse City Councils decided to ignore all infrastructure needs in Edmonton - not just the LRT.

[nieuwy-89]

Originally Posted by SeoulFire

I guess I lied about last post (not that there was ever any doubt).

Think small remain small and that about sums up my feelings on this. The Seoul subway was initiated in the 70s (above ground line) and expanded in the late 70's to 80's. The three expansion lines were either elevated or underground. At the time S. Korean economy was 1/10 the size of Canada. And yes, Seoul was about 10 times as big as Calgary when it began. There are now 9 lines with 5 spinoff lines - all constructed under existing roadways without shutting down traffic at a very very high cost. They considered that the investment in the infrastructure and the non-disruptive nature was well worth it in the long term.

If the city/province/country was serious about getting things done while thinking for the future the money would be allocated. Sadly we are left faced with bureaucrats who are not willing to make the difficult calls (to maintain their popularity and job security) while selling out the future. People continue to make comparisons to Edmonton but I prefer to choose a more successful model.

For the record, I was not referring to the downtown core for the traffic disruptions - it was in regards to the NE line and the S line mostly.Any more above ground and not over/underpassed is just laying the foundation for future traffic problems which the "fix" could cost more than doing it right in the first place.

If you are happy with glorified cable cars so be it. I am just happy that my job does not require that I have to use the pathetic excuse for public transit in this city. vote Nenshi It is overpriced (rider and parking) and under-serviced using 1980s technology in fare collection/management.

So after all of this I will concede that you are correct - it was not a ridiculous decision. It was merely a decision lacking in vision and ambition rationalized by budgetary constraints.

Rant over.

You can't compare cities with metro populations of well over 5 million (mega-cities) with Calgary. All of the "modern" LRT systems in Europe and North America are at-grade systems similar to Calgary. Portland is the gold standard for LRT in the USA and it is entirely at grade. Tunnels or Elevated Guideways are not economically feasible for mid-sized cities.