Calgary Public Roads vs. Calgary Public Transit

[korzym]

only $90m out of a "mobility" budget of $706m is being spent on roads.
http://calgaryinfrastructure.ca/Projects.html

95.3 million riders in 2008. works out to around 130,000 riders per day. city of 1 million people. something doesn't seem right about this picture, something isn't right.

roads not only are used by the majority of people for personal trips and commuting, but they are also used by businesses which are harbingers for jobs and economic activity.

Cars are far more superior to transit and their usage speaks for itself, the majority of people would rather drive. Funding ought to reflect that.

[mersar]

This has come up several times in the past, the thing that those numbers don't show is that funding has reflected far higher capital spending for roads in the past, and will again in the future once the huge one time costs for the current LRT projects are past. That list is also not exhaustive, I see numerous multimillion dollar roads projects missing from it.

And even in the costs for those transit projects are significant investment in roads. How many hundreds of millions in new bridges and road widenings have and will occur due to the 3 NW extensions, the 2 NE extensions and the WLRT in the past decade and into the future, many of which were badly needed even without the LRT implications.

Plus by my math its $140M, not $90M, on pure 'roads' projects on that site. If we add in the rest of the missing projects that overlap the same timelines (the earliest mobility project listed is 2005) we'd be far closer to even: $110M for the GE5, $60M for other glenmore upgrades, $15M+ for the Graves Bridge upgrades, $15M+ for Bow Trail, $20M+ for traffic calming, $20M+ for the 4th Street underpass, $20M+ for the 52nd street railway overpass, $60M+ for Beddington/Country Hills, and thats only projects that actually happened or are happening. Thats over $320M on top of the rest and still I likely missed a few things, and those are numbers from the budget estimates, many of which ended up higher. And also that doesn't include costs incurred by private developers on the road system, such as part of the Metis Trail funding, building/upgrading Country Hills Boulevard in the NW, etc. Nor the multibillion dollar ring road costs, which are still paid for by everyone

[SubwayRev]

Originally Posted by korzym

Cars are far more superior to transit and their usage speaks for itself, the majority of people would rather drive. Funding ought to reflect that.

I understand what you are saying...but that's a simplistic way of looking at it. More people would rather play golf than go to the hospital, but I don't think we should spend more on golf courses than hospitals.

Secondly, these figures, as Mersar pointed out, have so many road projects not included on that list. The two Ring Road come to mind, as they are being paid for by the Province. I believe the budget for the two legs currently under construction was over $1 Billion. Also, this list does not include annual maintenance of our road network.

While I completely agree that we cannot stop building a road network...the need to move goods alone, requires sophisticated and effecient roads and highways. However, transit is also necessary to move people around more efficiently, and there will be years where more is spent on transit and years where more is spent on highways. Both are essential services.

[waterloowarrior]

Compare the network of highways/major arterials versus rapid transit in any Canadian city (except for maybe Vancouver) and rapid transit and/or regional rail infrastructure is usually far behind and needs extra funds to catch up.

However as noted in many cities the cost of provincial infrastructure (highways) is not included in their transportation plans, meaning that the road capital budget will look much smaller than it really is.

Regarding usage, if the road network is much better (more developed) and cheaper (e.g. municipal roads subsidized through property taxes with no user fee) than the rapid transit network, of course people will use it more.

Of course many people will always prefer to drive no matter how attractive public transit can be, people will need to drive for work and moving goods, and for many trips transit is just not an option, so having a good road network is important. Look at European cities, they have high transit, pedestrian, and cycling routes but still have ring roads, bypasses, and intercity routes. When I was in the Netherlands recently I drove by a major intercity highway that was getting a new widening to a collector-express system.

[polishavenger]

One bit of reality that is overlooked here is that at a certain point, a city gets too big to rely primarily on roads to move everything without grinding to a virtual halt. I would like to see one large metropolitan area that has been able to achieve and efficient transportation system based purely on roads, without nearly paving over the entire city. All one needs to do is look at the US to see the folley of trying to build more roads to solve traffic problems. Roads are the best way to move goods within a city, however it is hard to argue that during peak periods, a well built transit network is far more efficient.

[Wooster]

The ring road alone will cost more than all capital costs of the LRT to date, including the WLRT.

[frinkprof]

I'll keep it simple. This argument is a false dichotomy, or excluded middle, if you will. There's really no such thing as roads "vs." transit.

Spending on either benefits the other, but only if the other is being spent on accordingly. Spending only or too heavily on one hurts the entire transportation network beyond a certain point. Transit needs roads for operations, and so people can access the elements that don't use roads (LRT). In turn, there is less need for capital and maintenance spending on roads if there is effective transit that uses roads more efficiently (a bus filled to a certain capacity) or not at all (LRT). Hence the need for balanced spending, which is reflected in the incomplete numbers provided by the original poster, and the corrections and filling of gaps done in the following posts.

[Wooster]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

I'll keep it simple. This argument is a false dichotomy, or excluded middle, if you will. There's really no such thing as roads "vs." transit.

Spending on either benefits the other, but only if the other is being spent on accordingly/ Spending only or too heavily on one hurts the entire transportation network beyond a certain point. Transit needs roads for operations, and so people can access the elements that don't use roads (LRT). In turn, there is less need for capital and maintenance spending on roads if there is effective transit that uses roads more efficiently (a bus filled to a certain capacity) or not at all (LRT). Hence the need for balanced spending, which is reflected in the incomplete numbers provided by the original poster, and the corrections and filling of gaps done in the following posts.

Agreed.

Broadening the distribution of the modal share vastly increases the capacity of the overall transportation system. Too heavy investment in one mode pretty much guarantees massive congestion on that one mode. It's a self fulfilling prophecy. If you plan only for cars, guess what you'll get? lots and lots of cars (congestion). land use planning and transportation need to be thought of much more in tandem. Creating communities where that modal split can be as evenly distributed as possible.

In the SE for example, I bet the introduction of the SE LRT line would do far, far more to relieve automobile congestion than will the ring road (which will induce auto demand). Just think of a 4 car C-train full of people (500 or so cars worth of people) not on the road in front of you on Deerfoot.

[Me&You]

Originally Posted by Wooster

...

In the SE for example, I bet the introduction of the SE LRT line would do far, far more to relieve automobile congestion than will the ring road (which will induce auto demand). Just think of a 4 car C-train full of people (500 or so cars worth of people) not on the road in front of you on Deerfoot.

Out of curiosity, are there any projected ridership numbers for the SE LRT once built to the McKenzie area? (Not sure what stage that would be...)

[Riise]

Originally Posted by korzym

something doesn't seem right about this picture, something isn't right.

Close, something wasn't right... Something was horribly wrong. The transportation infrastructure funding balance prior to today's current balance was imbalanced and heavily focused on road infrastructure. This funding imbalance created an inefficient transportation system that contributed to our city's current dependence on the private automobile. Like Prof has already mentioned, the key the a healthy city is a balanced and efficient transportation system. In order for Calgary to achieve achieve some sort of transportation equality, we will have to suffer from budget inequalities that favour public transport. These will allow our transit infrastructure to catch up to our road infrastructure.

However, I'd think that after being around here for so long you'd already know this. As such, who the hell pissed in your cornflakes? Did you enter a relationship with Corndogger or something?

[mersar]

Originally Posted by Me&You

Out of curiosity, are there any projected ridership numbers for the SE LRT once built to the McKenzie area? (Not sure what stage that would be...)

The various studies had put the entire line (at phase 2 to the south health campus) at 55,000 trips/day assuming a catchment area of 230,000 people with the city population at 1.5 million (which are a bit low compared to the numbers for the WLRT at around 40,000 trips with catchment area of 120,000 people)

[Me&You]

Originally Posted by mersar

The various studies had put the entire line (at phase 2 to the south health campus) at 55,000 trips/day assuming a catchment area of 230,000 people with the city population at 1.5 million (which are a bit low compared to the numbers for the WLRT at around 40,000 trips with catchment area of 120,000 people)

That'd be a lot of cars off the road...

[korzym]

the problem with arguments FOR transit is that you hear these arguments from a minority of how much better this mode of transportation is for the majority, yet the majority accepts cars as the superior mode. Actions speak loudly. Car > transit. No matter how good you argue something is, nobody has the right to force the majority to pay for something they deem inadequate.

its not a conspiracy as to why the road network has received more funding historically. simply it reflects what citizens want. The amount of people that transit serves on a daily basis doesn't come close to users of unfunded roads and intersections, yet alone current road infrastructure.

The list for unfunded road projects is greater than unfunded, even u/c transit projects in terms of users. This is classically where government fails us, not being able to meet supply & demand properly.

[korzym]

Originally Posted by mersar

The various studies had put the entire line (at phase 2 to the south health campus) at 55,000 trips/day assuming a catchment area of 230,000 people with the city population at 1.5 million (which are a bit low compared to the numbers for the WLRT at around 40,000 trips with catchment area of 120,000 people)

Originally Posted by Me&You

That'd be a lot of cars off the road...

27,000 cars to be exact.

If its trips/day you have to divide that number by 2 or 1.8, so you have around 27,000 users..for the se and 20,000 users for the wlrt. so $35,000 spent on every person for the WLRT

[korzym]

Originally Posted by Wooster

Agreed.

Broadening the distribution of the modal share vastly increases the capacity of the overall transportation system. Too heavy investment in one mode pretty much guarantees massive congestion on that one mode. It's a self fulfilling prophecy. If you plan only for cars, guess what you'll get? lots and lots of cars (congestion). land use planning and transportation need to be thought of much more in tandem. Creating communities where that modal split can be as evenly distributed as possible.

In the SE for example, I bet the introduction of the SE LRT line would do far, far more to relieve automobile congestion than will the ring road (which will induce auto demand). Just think of a 4 car C-train full of people (500 or so cars worth of people) not on the road in front of you on Deerfoot.

To be honest I have no problem with congestion, I can get through it quick. I used to make trips to the south, using the LRT, and then a bus to my house which is at the very back end of the bus route's loop. 1 hour to do all that transit non-sense. to go up deerfoot, then my feeder road and I'd be home no sweat in rush hour in around 20-30 mins, 30 km trip. Being told to read a book doesn't fly for me during those wasted hours, takes away my freedom in more ways than one. transit is ok for downtown workers and TOD. the infrastructure in place now is suffice [which includes approved and u/c extensions]. For poor people out there, having a car affords them more time to work overtime or to commute to a second job, the Lord helps those that help themselves.

I call for the city to ease off transit spending, I'd rather see spending on wasteland side walks downtown and addressing other road network needs. Theres absolutely nothing wrong with TOD or the current network if you choose to use it [even though how inadequate it was for me]. Land use/higher density is ok too, I'm all for the government easing regulations and accommodating it - on the open market, which seems to be thriving.

p.s. sure i made the ring road thread, but its pathetic to look at transportation improvements within the city. its basically all about transit, and using the ring road as a scapegoat to justify under-investment on road spending.

[Riise]

Originally Posted by korzym

simply it reflects what citizens want.

And when did these citizens explicitly state what type of transportation they want? Did the Herald forget to send a reporter to cover this plebiscite?

[MalcolmTucker]

^ No one forces the public to pay for anything. We elect our different levels of government and they set the spending priorities based on the knowledge that if not aligned with voters priorities they will not be re-elected.

As our city's electoral record shows, the city is pretty well aligned with resident's wants. Why? Because all those residents that don't have LRT access when you poll them will tell you they want it.

The biggest problem with the road vs transit argument presented is: These are not the numbers from the city budget.

Here are the numbers from the city budget:

2009-2011 Total
Operational
Transit $472 million
Road $367 million

2009-2013 Totals
Capital
Transit $811 million
Roads, Pathways, Bridges, Interchanges $1.794 billion

This isn't even including any work on the Deerfoot or Ring Road. As you can see roads remain a much larger expenditure.

[mooky]

Originally Posted by korzym

For poor people out there, having a car affords them more time to work overtime or to commute to a second job, the Lord helps those that help themselves.

I don't even know where to start with this facepalm statement.


I'll give it a try . . .

If you're poor, having a car makes you even more poor, not less poor. But by necessity you may require a car because transit to your job may be inefficient, which it is for a lot of poor working class people; that's not an argument for more roads, if anything that's an argument for better transit infrastructure.

Telling them to simply work more because god helps those that help themselves, ... I won't even dignify how mad that statement makes me at your selfish "republican-jesus" values.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by korzym

I used to make trips to the south, using the LRT, and then a bus to my house which is at the very back end of the bus route's loop. 1 hour to do all that transit non-sense.

You're saying transit sucks, so we should spend LESS money on it?

Every penny of transit money I've seen spent in this city has only made my commutes on transit BETTER. And hell, on those rare occasions I drive when transit is full of people (rush hour, Stampede, Flames games, etc) - transit kicks sweet Jebus ass! I can only imagine how annoying driving to Stampede would be with another 50,000 cars on the road. Or trying to get out of the parking lots by the Saddledome when a Flames game lets out.

Transit in Calgary is in a state of tremendous flux right now. It's moving from a "small city" model, like you see in Winnipeg or other cities of similar size - inconvenient outside of rush hour, doesn't go where you want it to go, and takes FOREVER to get anywhere beyond downtown. What we're moving towards is what much larger cities have - transit that goes everywhere, and fast.

Unfortunately you're looking at the legacy of 60 years of massive investment in road infrastructure and thinking hey, this is great! No kidding - it's the accumulation of decades of major spending. Do that for transit and I promise you taking the bus/train wouldn't be any worse than a car, for a lot of things.

Disclaimer: I'm a car-loving, transit-only-at-rush-hour guy too. I find the current state of transit in Calgary to be a huge pain in the ass for most things. But I do think (and other cities prove) that we need to spend MORE on it, to IMPROVE it. Not to leave it in the sorry state it is.

What you're basically saying is "transit sucks because we've never spent the money on it, so let's not spend the money on it anymore". That's almost a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Imagine actually being able to go out at night, and drink, and never, EVER worry about being DUI. Or worrying about finding a cab (and paying $50+ to get home). In Calgary this is impossible unless you either live downtown or you leave the bar by about midnight. In many cities, it's a reality.

[korzym]

Originally Posted by freeweed

You're saying transit sucks, so we should spend LESS money on it?

Every penny of transit money I've seen spent in this city has only made my commutes on transit BETTER. And hell, on those rare occasions I drive when transit is full of people (rush hour, Stampede, Flames games, etc) - transit kicks sweet Jebus ass! I can only imagine how annoying driving to Stampede would be with another 50,000 cars on the road. Or trying to get out of the parking lots by the Saddledome when a Flames game lets out.

Transit in Calgary is in a state of tremendous flux right now. It's moving from a "small city" model, like you see in Winnipeg or other cities of similar size - inconvenient outside of rush hour, doesn't go where you want it to go, and takes FOREVER to get anywhere beyond downtown. What we're moving towards is what much larger cities have - transit that goes everywhere, and fast.

Unfortunately you're looking at the legacy of 60 years of massive investment in road infrastructure and thinking hey, this is great! No kidding - it's the accumulation of decades of major spending. Do that for transit and I promise you taking the bus/train wouldn't be any worse than a car, for a lot of things.

Disclaimer: I'm a car-loving, transit-only-at-rush-hour guy too. I find the current state of transit in Calgary to be a huge pain in the ass for most things. But I do think (and other cities prove) that we need to spend MORE on it, to IMPROVE it. Not to leave it in the sorry state it is.

What you're basically saying is "--------------------------------------". That's almost a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Imagine actually being able to go out at night, and drink, and never, EVER worry about being DUI. Or worrying about finding a cab (and paying $50+ to get home). In Calgary this is impossible unless you either live downtown or you leave the bar by about midnight. In many cities, it's a reality.

You stick to speaking for yourself.