News   Apr 03, 2020
Pastel Morning
 6.5K     1 
News   Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 8.1K     4 
News   Apr 02, 2020
Soon to be Gone
 4.8K     0 

Calgary Transit

Calgary's proposed 2026 Budget is out...

www.calgary.ca

2026 Budget

www.calgary.ca www.calgary.ca

$14M is earmarked in Ongoing Operating and described as, "increase ongoing funding for the implementation of the RouteAhead strategy meaning more frequency of service for Calgarians where it’s needed most: the busiest routes on the network."

Definitely required and long overdue.

Also an interesting metric... The Operating Cost per Passenger Trip.

1758134713851.png
 
Last edited:
CalgaryTiger said:
Calgary's proposed 2026 Budget is out...

www.calgary.ca

2026 Budget

www.calgary.ca www.calgary.ca

$14M is earmarked in Ongoing operating and described as, "increase ongoing funding for the implementation of the RouteAhead strategy meaning more frequency of service for Calgarians where it’s needed most: the busiest routes on the network."

Definitely required and long overdue.

Also an interesting metric... The Operating Cost per Passenger Trip.
Click to expand...
Nice and to the conversation in the other thread about the pros/cons of free transit, here's the line item for the low income subsidy pass:

1758146377744.png


To be clear, I am in full support of the fare subsidy program - it's exactly who and what we should be subsidizing, majorly improving mobility for a huge amount of lower income families. That's a net good!

....but it's hardly cheap (1.5x the budget that entire frequency improvement cost). Expanding the free fare zone or further subsidizing fares has a direct impact on what can be funded for service expansion in practice.
 
New convenience store coming in the Bridgeland station. Also mentions a cafe coming to Westbrook, that one seems to be at street level.

newsroom.calgary.ca

Coming soon – storefront at Bridgeland Station

Calgary Transit is enhancing convenience for commuters and community members with the arrival of a new retailer at Bridgeland Station. Opening in mid-October, the convenience store will offer a range of on-the-go items for CTrain riders, nearby residents, and visitors on the move.It’s part of...
newsroom.calgary.ca newsroom.calgary.ca

www.calgary.ca

detailstab-new

www.calgary.ca www.calgary.ca
 
Honestly Calgary transit should just look into adding vending machines or just a small info kiosk selling a few food items and drinks. They really don't need to go all in on a storefront if they aren't going to make money.
 
Roaring Flames said:
Honestly Calgary transit should just look into adding vending machines or just a small info kiosk selling a few food items and drinks. They really don't need to go all in on a storefront if they aren't going to make money.
Click to expand...
Good idea in theory.

But the vending machines would get vandalized within 24hrs of opening. We no longer live in a high trust society. I also feel sorry for the people that will have to work at the convivence store.
 
So dumb. Unless you do the meat-grinder style full height barrier then a turnstile isn't much of an impediment without human enforcement behind it. So just do more human enforcement.


Turnstiles could also make the experience quite a bit worse in many places. Chinook Station would be very easy to secure because there is just one way in/out. But a turnstile would make the egress bottleneck much worse as you'd only have half the space for each direction. Nevermind mobility challenges and strollers. And relocating all of the ticket machines outside the gate. But of course we've discussed all of this before.

Screenshot 2025-10-06 at 5.22.27 PM.png
 
I come from a place with really aggressive turnstiles/gates (Paris). Guess what, people who do not want to pay still find ways to bypass them.

Having more safety officers and actively removing people who show antisocial behaviour on the train would be a far more effective solution. You might think turnstiles are a one-time expense while patrolling is an ongoing cost but increased patrols would actually build trust in the C-Train and encourage more people to use it. In the long run, it’s a win.

And maybe it’s just me, but I actually find it "cool" that you can walk freely into the stations here.
 
boreal96 said:
I come from a place with really aggressive turnstiles/gates (Paris). Guess what, people who do not want to pay still find ways to bypass them.

Having more safety officers and actively removing people who show antisocial behaviour on the train would be a far more effective solution. You might think turnstiles are a one-time expense while patrolling is an ongoing cost but increased patrols would actually build trust in the C-Train and encourage more people to use it. In the long run, it’s a win.

And maybe it’s just me, but I actually find it "cool" that you can walk freely into the stations here.
Click to expand...
Great post.

Unless, you're building a Metro system from scratch, there's no need to install turnstiles. Especially when the system is mostly at grade. The $300 million could be better spent on other transit infrastructure projects.
 
For say $10 million they could hire a lot of security personnel, assuming a cost for wages, and other costs, that could be as high as 90 security personal, which in today's dollars out of $300 million would be 30 years of security. 90 personal, would be one security person per station covering two 8 hour shifts.
 
Google any videos of the MTA and no amount of gate can stop people that really want to skip a fare. This is being pitched as a safety measure, to keep certain people out of transit stations. The reality is, for those people, it is not that hard to get a transit ticket, and the $300 million fare gates will fail to keep them out the second they get a ticket anyways. Or, a situation where they try to enter the platform through the intersection to climb on the platform, and that's a disaster waiting to happen.

It's also ironic this announcement is with Dan Mclean, I'd like to know when's the last time this dude who drives a pickup to city hall took the train.
 
Surrealplaces said:
True. Anyone who's taken trains on a closed system, will see still see homeless people and what we would call the 'bad element'. One issue is a lot of the bad element are paying users of the system. Personally, I'd rather they spent more on security.
Click to expand...
NY and Toronto both did security surges after elevated crime levels after Covid. The effectiveness of that was rather dubious, with most of the decline occurring naturally. The best way to get the bad element out is to increase ridership. Or at a minimum they don't create the feeling of being unsafe as a half empty train.
 
Surrealplaces said:
True. Anyone who's taken trains on a closed system, will see still see homeless people and what we would call the 'bad element'. One issue is a lot of the bad element are paying users of the system. Personally, I'd rather they spent more on security.
Click to expand...
I think investing in frequency helps here a lot, perhaps even more than additional security in some cases.

Just having more buses and trains out there spreads people out - it means fewer people are likely to be stuck on the same vehicle as the occasional person with anti-social behaviour. It also changes an individual's risk calculus - I won't risk going onto the train with a sketchy looking situation if the next one is in 5 minutes, I might risk it if the next train is 20 minutes away.

By reducing the chance of exposure to anti-social stuff, by simple having more capacity - not only do I get around faster due to more frequency, I also perceive less anti-social behaviour at all, because I don't spend as much time on the system, and I just don't see it because it's more spread out (even if total amount of anti-social stuff remains the same).
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top