In 1992, Anthony Downs, now a senior fellow at the prestigious Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C., wrote an influential book titled “Stuck in Traffic — Coping with peak-hour traffic congestion.” In it Downs draws on the concept of “induced demand” to explain why building new roads does not relieve traffic congestion. In simple terms, providing more of something can lead to increased consumption. With roads this has the counter-intuitive effect, in only a few years, of making congestion worse than it was before the new road was built.
Here’s how it works. Building new roads creates what Downs calls “triple convergence.” First they entice drivers, who because of the original congestion had given up rush-hour driving, back to old habits. Second, drivers using alternate routes are drawn to the new, faster roads. And third, new roads lure both old and new users away from public transit, which in this city can be a chore in itself.
So, not only do new roads not relieve traffic congestion but they further create a feedback loop that draws money away from the one kind of investment that does: public transit. More road users mean fewer transit users, which creates a temptation to reduce transit spending even further. Worsening matters, this downward spiral fosters, even promotes, the fiction that money spent on public transit is a “subsidy” to those too poor to drive, as though car-lessness were a disease searching for a cure.
“So what?” say free-marketers. “People make a rational choice to use their cars.” Right? Wrong! The truth is we lack real choice. How can a threadbare transit system compete with a lavishly endowed road network on even terms? It can’t. In fact, historically our city has spent three times as much on roads as on transit.
But, an efficient, well-appointed, properly planned transit network providing convenience, reliability and a radically expanded roster of destinations certainly could compete. In such a system, high user satisfaction rates and significant long-term savings to the city and to individuals offset the lack of garage-to-garage convenience.
Here are five suggestions to build a better Calgary transit system that breeds confidence and loyalty enough to be competitive with cars.
1. Provide seamless, citywide connectivity. The ability to get to (almost) anywhere from (almost) anywhere in a city is the hallmark of a great transit system. If people can’t get to where they need to be from where they are, they won’t choose transit no matter how user-friendly it is. Currently, Calgary’s system is centred downtown, leaving many major destinations difficult to reach via transit (Mount Royal University and the airport, for example). And, because everything passes through the core, quadrant-to-quadrant connectivity is poor at best. In previous articles we made a case that streetcars are an ideal means to supply such connectivity.
2. Provide reliable, timely travel information. Knowing with certainty when the next train, tram or bus is expected allows users to arrive at their stop “just in time” to make their connection. Many transit systems employ GPS-equipped transit vehicles, which transmit their real-time geographic co-ordinates to a central server. The updated information is displayed at transit stops and sent to wireless and Internet networks so travellers can access the information before they leave home. Such systems are relatively inexpensive and easy to install but have a very high payoff in terms of increasing user satisfaction.
3. Make ticketing friendlier. Many cities have convenient swipe cards that can be recharged online. Others pay using cellphone apps. We do it for parking, so why not for transit? Offer a variety of ticket packages to make the system more convenient for casual users, families and tourists. Reduce prices on weekends to build further ridership during non-peak periods. Very cheap prices for neighbourhood travel (one or two stops) help local businesses by providing extended access to nearby customers. Give change at ticket machines or take credit and debit cards. Or better yet — do both.
4. Integrate the system. Everything possible should be done to encourage ease of transfer between transit modes. If public transit can’t be the whole trip it can be part of it. Park-n-ride should be free, although a case could be made — in the name of easing congestion — for charging at inner-city lots. Provide secure bike parking too, and lots of it. Find more ways to have bike-friendly buses and trains for cyclists.
5. Get the language right. Urban transit is an essential element of sustainable world-class cities, not a charity. Removing the word “subsidy” from the transit conversation and replacing it with the word “investment” would be a good start.
In building a better transit system, the principle of induced demand should be applied in reverse: relieve congestion not by building new roads, but by creating a transit system people love. In 2010, for the first time in decades, the city spent more on transit than on roads. Let’s hope that’s the beginning of a long-lasting trend. We have a lot of catching up to do.
Next article: Johnny on the spot: Public toilets and social sustainability
Geoff Ghitter teaches Urban Studies at the University of Calgary. Links to the research used in this article and can be found on his blog at geeessgee.blogspot.com. Noel Keough is an assistant professor in the Faculty of Environmental Design at the University of Calgary and is co-founder of Sustainable Calgary Society.


Comments: 18
onegoodread wrote:
on Jan 6th, 2011 at 8:26pm Report Abuse
That Scott Guy wrote:
You bring up points in a manner that suggests Calgary Transit is negligent and NOT doing these things. Shame on you.
Calgary Transit is bringing in the primary transportation network that should go a long way to accomplishing quick transit to more than just the downtown. A network of LRT, BRT, and regular bus systems running quick and extended service is arriving and now.
Calgary Transit is indeed bringing in real time passenger information systems that will give you accurate next bus times.
Calgary Transit is bringing in smart and integrated smart card systems that will make payment friendlier with many more options.
The park and ride fee is going away in April. A system of reserved stalls is likely to be forthcoming for those who would wish it otherwise it will be free again for those who don't. Plus many bus and even some LRT lots are still free. There are secure bike lockers at many key transit nodes...use them.
Further, Calgary Transit uses the word subsidy because fares are subsidized. Riders do not pay the full cost of their ride. Call it like it is....
Please!
on Jan 6th, 2011 at 11:23pm Report Abuse
Centreman wrote:
The comment I'd like to make is in regards to integrating the alt-transport system, and specifically how Calgary Transit seems to go out of their way to inconvienence cyclists.
- The C-Trains are brutally difficult to get on/off with a bike because they demand that we use the end of the cars and those doors have a pole right in the middle of those doors and CT will not let you use the areas on the trains where strollers/wheelchairs also go. Remove that stupid pole and let cyclists use the areas where strollers and wheelchairs are.
- There is no secure bike parking at C-train stations so who is going to risk riding to the train if they know their bike is going to get stolen or vandalised?
- Bikes on buses, ugh. CT says that bike racks on buses are available on certain routes but routinely fail to make sure ALL the buses on those routes have racks making the effort pointless. I have a solution - but them on ALL buses like other similarly sized cities and be done with it.
- Safe bike routes that connect to transit - big fail. The city has a long way to go to make cycling onstreet safe for all cyclists. Until that happens most people will simply stay in their car because they feel safer there.
Integration is a huge part of the alt-transport puzzle and until CT and the city take it seriously, we'll never see the uptake in transit and other alt-transport options that will help reduce congestion on our existing road network.
on Jan 7th, 2011 at 1:35pm Report Abuse
Centreman wrote:
Perhaps from now on everytime a new road project is announced the city should announce it as a "subsidy" instead of an "investment", because thats what's really happening. Here is a starting point...
http://www.vancouversun.com/opinion/Bikes+cars+pays+their+fair+share/3579272/story.html
on Jan 7th, 2011 at 1:38pm Report Abuse
Clairvoyant wrote:
Bikes: yikes. The transportation system is most stressed during the winter, especially in bad weather. That is the time when only a very few bike rides commute by bike. Thus bikes do not reduce the road & public transit capacity requirement. Bike riders are mostly (and rationally) fair-weather friends, and that is the time when the transportation system is least stressed: the road conditions are good; many people are on vacation; and most kids are not commuting to school.
"Find more ways to have bike-friendly buses and trains for cyclists." Perhaps the "ways" should not impact other: loading & unloading time; space; cost: if these impacts do occur, then there is one more reason for most people to not ride the bus & train.
For the suggested change in terminology from "subsidy" to "investment", please reread "1984". And consider the question in terms of capex versus opex.
For the proposed utopian public transit+ system, the earnest academics have put no costs. "If you have to ask, you can't afford it." Well I have to ask. And I also have to ask, who pays? Full life cycle cost analyses for both public transit systems and road systems (though apportioning road costs amongst commercial traffic, emergency vehicles, buses, taxis, and private automobiles is a very difficult task) would move the debate forward. And the other side of the ledger also needs work: where is the money coming from: fuel taxes; parking "taxes"; license fees; sales taxes; income taxes; property taxes; tolls. Maybe "Centreman" is paying too much, but maybe not: although she "don't drive much", if she drives at all, or uses the bus, or bikes, the road (maybe not as many lanes) must still be there: sharing out the road cost is not simple: maybe it's the macho man commuting with his H1 that is the one paying too much? Numbers, only with numbers, can the debate move beyond blind ideology. And our academics seem loath to do math.
on Jan 9th, 2011 at 2:50pm Report Abuse
Zdenek wrote:
You attack academics for saying they don't do the math, so I'd like to see some of your stats to support your claim that cars are inherently safer than using public transit.
And when you say that people who leave the comfort of their cars face "extreme penalties" (i.e. using transit), one has to wonder who is victim to "blind ideology".
-----
This is a terrific article and it highlights how much Calgary has yet to grow to make it a transit-oriented city. As anyone who has been to many major European cities of the same size knows, it is far easier and more efficient to get around using transit than by car.
Flying in from London last year, I took the 57 from the airport to the LRT to another bus to get home. After being accustomed to the dozens of lines on various European cities' transit maps, I laughed when I looked up at the two meager purple and blue lines on the Calgary Transit map in the LRT.
This city has so much potential. If Calgary wants to be a world-class city, it needs a world-class transportation system. 25 million dollar bridges won't do much for the cause, neither will wider roads and more overpasses.
on Jan 9th, 2011 at 9:34pm Report Abuse
Clairvoyant wrote:
Safety: two words: "Arcelie Laoagan". Would you let your daughter ride the Calgary LRT alone after dark?
"World-class" is a much used & abused phrase, and it is totally subjective. Calgary is a great city: it is beautiful, spacious, & relatively safe: medical & dental care are available to all: it has a wonderful four-season climate: it has the wonders of nature inside the City boundaries, and on all sides: it has a history (albeit short) and a culture (cowboys, oil & gas, dinosaurs): it has a huge range of choice in housing, transportation, education, entertainment,& employment. Perfect, no: but great, yes. Calgary is a "world-class" city: but no, Calgary is not Manhattan or London: it is also not Seoul or Hong Kong. "Be what you is, cause if you is what you isn't, then you isn't what you is."
on Jan 10th, 2011 at 1:09pm Report Abuse
shootingstar wrote:
Now just moved here for past few months.
I look outside on 4th AVE SW (I live on this street in a highrise): 1 one-way street, 4 lanes wide. No bike lane. BUT car parking is allowed on both sides of the road!! This is so unheard of in downtown Vancouver or Toronto. Vancouver has traffic calming circles in downtown residential areas. What a radical thought that would be for Calgary.
The traffic lights in Calgary are timed for cars..and pedestrians are forced to wait too long when it's cold winter. Have push button activated lights like Vancouver and Toronto.
People complain about traffic in ...Calgary?? Please...over 1 million work commuters pour into downtown Toronto daily by car, subway, bus and bike. And walking. If Torontonians can still live and enjoy their city, Calgarians can adjust.
Wait until we grow old and we can't drive. (Our population is not getting a whole lot younger, folks) Then we learn what it feels like to be vulnerable among a sea of fast cars. And don't count on young folks to chauffeur us around. They have their own lives.
So there's public transit. :)
on Jan 11th, 2011 at 9:28pm Report Abuse
shootingstar wrote:
Now Calgary..jump onto this ..to get locals enthused, think transit, talk transit and talk about it with everyday suggestions and discussion.
http://buzzer.translink.ca/
on Jan 12th, 2011 at 10:20pm Report Abuse
shootingstar wrote:
Above covers interurban rail. But some applicability to local light rail transit.
As for racks on bike buses, it's actually more common on North American bus systems than you would believe. But more about that later.... :) I'm sure the bus bike rack manufacturers would be happy to furnish a list of their corporate clients.
on Jan 12th, 2011 at 10:26pm Report Abuse
peterpan wrote:
There are some serious things lacking in calgary's transit system. They are easily 30 years behind where they should be. This article hit the nail on the head. Calgary transit staff should take note.
Buses are full, use an archaic payment system, are not frequent enough, and often go from nowhere to nowhere. We need better transit hubs where you can get anywhere easily, and reliability needs to improve.
on Jan 13th, 2011 at 1:45pm Report Abuse
mahkwi wrote:
on Jan 15th, 2011 at 1:35am Report Abuse
Tim wrote:
on Jan 16th, 2011 at 8:24pm Report Abuse
Just Jonathan wrote:
on Jan 20th, 2011 at 10:37pm Report Abuse
Subvertisement wrote:
on Jan 22nd, 2011 at 10:36pm Report Abuse
Eoure wrote:
on Mar 18th, 2011 at 9:21pm Report Abuse
officematt2002 wrote:
on Mar 19th, 2011 at 9:13am Report Abuse
Eoure wrote:
on Mar 23rd, 2011 at 1:19pm Report Abuse
Post comment: (Login or Register)