Should the Calgary Region create a Metropolitan Regional Transit System?

[Chadillaccc]

I've been thinking lately... with the explosive growth of our suburbs, Airdrie creating the Airdrie Ice Commuter Busses and Cochrane talking about the use of double-decker busses to ferry people to Crowfoot Station... should Calgary Transit start looking into reforming itself into a regional transit network rather than a municipal transit system? Similar to Translink in Vancouver?

While clearly Metro Calgary has nowhere near a comparable population to Metro Vancouver, it is still something to think about. Our metro area is growing fast and before you know it, our suburban cities might be scrambling to service their people. Airdrie is already at 50 000, Cochrane and Chestermere near 20 000, and Okotoks nearing 30 000... So it could be a more pressing need earlier than most of us expect.

Not being an expert in the workings of Calgary and the region, I wanted to know what you all think.

[mersar]

See the answer in this thread (http://http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=154106).

[5seconds]

See the answer in this thread (http://http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=154106).

That's giving me a broken link

[DarthMalgus]

Absolutely we should. While not so long ago, the total population of the towns around Calgary totalled around 50,000, now there are over 200,000 people living in the satellite communities surrounding Calgary. That's euqivalent to a Regina. With the regional growth share of places like Airdrie, Cochrane and Okotoks only increasing, it won't be that far into the future when their combined population is a Halifax or a Victoria.

[Chadillaccc]

:previous: I agree Darth. It is happening right before our eyes. Our metropolitan area is now growing by between 50 and 60 000 a year too! Including the city of course.

That's giving me a broken link

Same here.

[VIce]

The cost of shuttling from Cochrane, Chestermere, and Okotoks to the nearest CTrain station isn't enormous at all, but would it not be a hard sell to suburbanite commuters to transfer mid-commute? A couple 40' busses and shelters isn't a huge investment though.

But for Airdrie there's no rail infrastructure to tap into, meaning the same fleet can only offer modest frequency. As far as I know their five busses a day run full to the brim - but that's only 600 people. I would love to see a couple DMU's a day run on CP ROW, but that probably wouldn't be viable.

[DizzyEdge]

This is probably the link he meant:

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=154106&page=20

[Chadillaccc]

Oh, that thread hasn't been used in 2 years. No wonder I didn't know about it! :P

[swimmer_spe]

All major centres need a regional transit commission. Toronto has one, as does Montreal and Vancouver.

[Doug]

All major centres need a regional transit commission. Toronto has one, as does Montreal and Vancouver.

All of which are bureaucratic disasters. Calgary should annex Cochrane, Airdrie and Chestermere. The carrot would be a significant property tax reduction delivered by reducing staffing levels through economies of scale. The stick would be water.

[Fuzz]

All of which are bureaucratic disasters. Calgary should annex Cochrane, Airdrie and Chestermere. The carrot would be a significant property tax reduction delivered by reducing staffing levels through economies of scale. The stick would be water.
.. And we may end up with Toronto, where the suburbs and former bedroom communities elect a Rob Ford and the interest of the inner city get trashed.

[Policy Wonk]

Calgary doesn't have to annex anywhere for that to happen, people just have to get pissed off and I think a housing affordability crisis will do just that.

[Doug]

.. And we may end up with Toronto, where the suburbs and former bedroom communities elect a Rob Ford and the interest of the inner city get trashed.

Us vs. them never works and sadly Calgary is headed down that path.

[Doug]

Calgary doesn't have to annex anywhere for that to happen, people just have to get pissed off and I think a housing affordability crisis will do just that.

Housing affordability only makes the situation worse by forcing more people into surrounding communities.

[para transit fellow]

Housing affordability only makes the situation worse by forcing more people into surrounding communities.

Most people don't realize that housing affordability is really housing plus transportation costs. Realtors and developers focus only on the housing costs...

An extra $25- $50 a week for gas in a longer commute somehow does enter entry-homeowner calculations.

[MasterG]

.. And we may end up with Toronto, where the suburbs and former bedroom communities elect a Rob Ford and the interest of the inner city get trashed.

This already is the reality. Calgary can still manage to trash the inner city despite electing as opposite to Rob Ford as is available.

It is changing for sure, but change can't come fast enough.

Regional transit is a good idea. But take the GO Transit approach, a separate entity to the city transit. Let's not let scope creep make Calgary Transit's job any harder than it already is; there are enough challenges already.

[swimmer_spe]

This already is the reality. Calgary can still manage to trash the inner city despite electing as opposite to Rob Ford as is available.

It is changing for sure, but change can't come fast enough.

Regional transit is a good idea. But take the GO Transit approach, a separate entity to the city transit. Let's not let scope creep make Calgary Transit's job any harder than it already is; there are enough challenges already.

That is what I mean.

GO Transit, AMT and Translink are not the local transit commission. They are regional transit commissions. Each local area still have their own locally run system.

https://mapsengine.google.com/map/edit?mid=zJh1JiVkvThc.kHKkmO2ME3hA

My thoughts on what could be done using existing rail.

[Chadillaccc]

That's not the case. Translink is the transit system for all of Metro Vancouver. Vancouver does not have an independent transit corporation, nor do any of the suburbs, except maybe Langley and White Rock, but I doubt it.

You are thinking of West Coast Express. That is the commuter rail agency for the lower mainland, the only equivalent in the west to AMT and GO.

[ue]

Simply put, yes. So should Edmonton, Toronto, Montreal (off-Island), and Quebec City. Vancouver, Ottawa, and Halifax are the only cities in Canada I know of with a singular metro-wide transit agency and I'm frankly surprised it isn't more popular in other cities to make things easier on passengers and get rid of needless bureaucracy.

[Wooster]

Housing affordability only makes the situation worse by forcing more people into surrounding communities.

Land has become extraordinarily expensive in Calgary - and is growing rapidly in surrounding communities too because of limited land supply in municipal boundaries (Chestermere a bit of an exception) and limited water license capacity. The other cost that is affecting affordability is labour and materials - which are costs common to the entire region. The prices of Calgary and surrounding communities will become more similar than divergent.

A homebuilder told me the other day that the days of land developers and homebuilders being different entities is probably over. Land developers are building more and more houses themselves, and larger homebuilders are becoming land developers because neither on their own is sustainable in the long term.

[Wooster]

All of which are bureaucratic disasters. Calgary should annex Cochrane, Airdrie and Chestermere. The carrot would be a significant property tax reduction delivered by reducing staffing levels through economies of scale. The stick would be water.

That and the fact that they don't have a commercial tax base to subsidize residential tax rates like Calgary. Calgary's downtown for instance contributes 25% of the entire tax base of the city.

[Doug]

Most people don't realize that housing affordability is really housing plus transportation costs. Realtors and developers focus only on the housing costs...

An extra $25- $50 a week for gas in a longer commute somehow does enter entry-homeowner calculations.

It doesn't justify $200K in extra mortgage debt.

[Doug]

That and the fact that they don't have a commercial tax base to subsidize residential tax rates like Calgary. Calgary's downtown for instance contributes 25% of the entire tax base of the city.

For now. As the satellite municipalities grow, they will draw more commercial development. This has happened in pretty much every North American metro. Calgary's unicity municipal structure was unique and is now breaking down.

I am permanently soured on regional agencies as well as municipal charters after living in Seattle. The Seattle metro blew 2 decades and billions of dollars through municipal infighting and constant attempts to poach each other's tax bases (aka retail). The Toronto region is an even bigger cluster.

[Doug]

There are easy ways to avoid traffic congestion, especially in Calgary as most employers are flexible on work hours. I left in 2001 when traffic was no where near as bad, but easily commuted from the SE by leaving at 5:30 AM. I'd leave work around 3. Seattle was even better as most west coasters don't roll into work until 9. When I drove, I would leave shortly before 7 and even the bridges were wide open.

[RWin]

Us vs. them never works and sadly Calgary is headed down that path.

I'm not sure the average person in Calgary thinks in terms of us vs them. I think most people just want a place to live and a place to work.

This formum on the other hand is very good at us vs them. Whether it's Calgary vs the east or the suburbs vs the inner city.

[freeweed]

For now. As the satellite municipalities grow, they will draw more commercial development. This has happened in pretty much every North American metro. Calgary's unicity municipal structure was unique and is now breaking down.

People wonder why some of us get a bit freaked at IOL's moving into the middle of nowhere with Quarry Park. Well, from a distance perspective Balzac is closer to a lot of Calgarians. And Airdrie isn't that out of the question. From a commute time perspective, I'd say Airdrie is closer for probably half of the city than QP is.

It's only a matter of time, which is why we need to annex these localities NOW, so that we can manage our exurban sprawl. 10 years ago, Calgary basically didn't have exurbs. Only the really desperate/poor planning types were moving 20km outside of the city. Today, people are doing it by the 10s of thousands every year. Airdrie feels like it could surpass Red Deer in the near future. Absolutely insane.

[Chadillaccc]

Airdrie really needs to start thinking about its own economic future, rather than hijacking Calgary's. Inner density is what they really need to start planning for. They are probably the largest city in North America without a building over 10 storeys tall, at around 55 000 (as of this year [est.]).

[ue]

Airdrie really needs to start thinking about its own economic future, rather than hijacking Calgary's. Inner density is what they really need to start planning for. They are probably the largest city in North America without a building over 10 storeys tall, at around 55 000 (as of this year [est.]).

Doubtful. Sherwood Park has ~65,000 and no tall buildings to speak of. I don't recall Milton, Ontario building any high-rises. That's without mentioning the endless, nameless suburbs of American cities.

There's also the obvious example of Washington, which proves height isn't everything. It's more about walkability and sustainability which can be achieved in part through high-rises, but not wholly.

[Full Mountain]

People wonder why some of us get a bit freaked at IOL's moving into the middle of nowhere with Quarry Park. Well, from a distance perspective Balzac is closer to a lot of Calgarians. And Airdrie isn't that out of the question. From a commute time perspective, I'd say Airdrie is closer for probably half of the city than QP is.

It's only a matter of time, which is why we need to annex these localities NOW, so that we can manage our exurban sprawl. 10 years ago, Calgary basically didn't have exurbs. Only the really desperate/poor planning types were moving 20km outside of the city. Today, people are doing it by the 10s of thousands every year. Airdrie feels like it could surpass Red Deer in the near future. Absolutely insane.

We are, through the use of water licenses (Calgary has the only non-used ones in the basin), something that will be come extremely valuable in the semi-arid environment we live in and most of the municipalities surrounding us are approaching the limits of their existing licenses. At some point these municipalities will have to make a decision stop growing or sign up with Calgary and follow the leader.

[Chadillaccc]

Why couldn't they get their water licenses expanded? At 100 000 people, Airdrie will be the 3rd - 5th largest municipality in this province, a major city in its own right. If other cities can get big water licenses, why couldn't they?

[freeweed]

This is where I think you both have a point. The Province controls it all, so hopefully the Province plays ball with the bigger city in Calgary - essentially annexing these communities in everything but name.

It sure would be easy for an up-and-coming party to try to pander for votes by promising easing on water rights though... 50-80,000 extra votes could swing an election in this province some day.

[mersar]

Why couldn't they get their water licenses expanded? At 100 000 people, Airdrie will be the 3rd - 5th largest municipality in this province, a major city in its own right. If other cities can get big water licenses, why couldn't they?

Because the province won't grant any more, and the people/businesses/organizations that have unused/sparsely used ones want huge $$$ for them, and its dependent on the province still okay'ing it.

[freeweed]

Because the province won't grant any more

That is a very dangerous assumption to make in perpetuity. I hope you're right, I really do, but I don't know that we can base all of our future planning on that.

Water rights issues should have stopped the ridiculous unsustainable growth in the American desert a long time ago, but by chipping away incrementally, they've managed to put millions of people in Phoenix and done untold damage to California. I pray we're smarter than that, I really do.

[Full Mountain]

That is a very dangerous assumption to make in perpetuity. I hope you're right, I really do, but I don't know that we can base all of our future planning on that.

Water rights issues should have stopped the ridiculous unsustainable growth in the American desert a long time ago, but by chipping away incrementally, they've managed to put millions of people in Phoenix and done untold damage to California. I pray we're smarter than that, I really do.

I believe it's law, been the same number for a long time. I also believe most of the drainage basins in the province have reached the max licenses. I believe the licenses were granted once and no more exist or can be granted.

[freeweed]

I believe it's law, been the same number for a long time. I also believe most of the drainage basins in the province have reached the max licenses. I believe the licenses were granted once and no more exist or can be granted.

Laws can be changed with the stroke of a pen. Water licenses aren't some natural force that we can control, they're simply our attempt to manage resources sustainably. All it takes is a loud (and highly motivated to vote) contingent in a few communities to claim that they're being "bullied" by the big cities, and short-sighted politicians will listen.

Like I said, I hope I'm worried over nothing. The real test should be coming shortly with communities like Airdrie, no? Surely they're approaching the limits of their growth (in terms of water)?

[Full Mountain]

Laws can be changed with the stroke of a pen. Water licenses aren't some natural force that we can control, they're simply our attempt to manage resources sustainably. All it takes is a loud (and highly motivated to vote) contingent in a few communities to claim that they're being "bullied" by the big cities, and short-sighted politicians will listen.

True, but I think the rest of the basin would be in the fight too and would be against the proponent (i.e. Med Hat, Lethbridge, etc. would be opposed to changes to the upstream licenses).

Like I said, I hope I'm worried over nothing. The real test should be coming shortly with communities like Airdrie, no? Surely they're approaching the limits of their growth (in terms of water)?

IIRC High River is closer to theirs than almost anyone else and have had caps on the growth partially due to it.

[Chadillaccc]

I would imagine so. They have doubled in population in less than 10 years. I wouldn't be surprised to see them close to 60 000 as of this municipal census, as the province just recorded a year-over-year growth of around 140 000.

[Bassic Lab]

Laws can be changed with the stroke of a pen. Water licenses aren't some natural force that we can control, they're simply our attempt to manage resources sustainably. All it takes is a loud (and highly motivated to vote) contingent in a few communities to claim that they're being "bullied" by the big cities, and short-sighted politicians will listen.

Like I said, I hope I'm worried over nothing. The real test should be coming shortly with communities like Airdrie, no? Surely they're approaching the limits of their growth (in terms of water)?

New water licenses would go beyond the province and invite litigation from Saskatchewan. It's funny that you brought up the American Southwest because it actually provides a strong counter example to your argument. Growing urban areas are forced to stretch existing water licenses while California's central valley remains an a major agricultural producer in a former desert based on old water rights that are essentially untouchable.

[Doug]

The irrigation districts are sitting on a gold mine. They will cut deals with Airdrie etc. eventually.

[RWin]

It doesn't justify $200K in extra mortgage debt.

Yeah, that's over 66000 trips by transit on the principle alone. To and from work every day (including Saturday and Sunday) for 90 years.

Or 160000 litres of gas at todays price. 2.6 million Km in my car. I live 17 Km from downtown so thats about 76000 trips to and from work for $200000.

Never really though about it before but I guess (except for parking) it's actually cheeper to drive to work than take the bus.

I'm pretty sure my math is correct.

[DizzyEdge]

The irrigation districts are sitting on a gold mine. They will cut deals with Airdrie etc. eventually.

So if the irrigation districts sell water licenses for bit bucks, whose pocket exactly would those bucks flow into?

[Chadillaccc]

So if the irrigation districts sell water licenses for bit bucks, whose pocket exactly would those bucks flow into?

All money and resources from the districts go directly to President Snow.

[Full Mountain]

Yeah, that's over 66000 trips by transit on the principle alone. To and from work every day (including Saturday and Sunday) for 90 years.

Or 160000 litres of gas at todays price. 2.6 million Km in my car. I live 17 Km from downtown so thats about 76000 trips to and from work for $200000.

Never really though about it before but I guess (except for parking) it's actually cheeper to drive to work than take the bus.

I'm pretty sure my math is correct.

Given a cost of $0.54/km (the current CRA rate for reimbursement of mileage) $200k would give you just over 370,000 km. Given your 17 km trip that would equal 10,893 round trips or approximately 48 years of commuting. Note though that it's likely that the cost per km of a driving downtown commuter in Calgary is higher than the $0.54/km due to parking (on your 17km single direction commute it would be an additional $0.59/km at $20/day). So given an additional amount of $0.35/km for parking (lowered due to the likelihood that most peoples costs are below the $0.54/km rate), this would give you a total of ~$0.85/km or ~235,000 km for $200k (Approx 30 years @ 225 days/year). On my old car I used to have around the $0.50/km without driving to work or paying for parking, so I can only imagine how much it would add. Any drivers on here track their vehicle costs and mileage?

One further thought this assumes that your time has no value, or the time requirements of both commutes are equal. Both of these would seem to be poor assumptions. If your $200k more expensive home had a 15 min/direction shorter commute you would save 112.5 hrs/year or at $20/hr = $2,250/year or approximately 89 years to achieve $200k in time.

Taken together you end up with a value proposition that looks alot better than looking at one factor in isolation. Also note though that most people don't consider either of the above factors when they are choosing where to live.

[RWin]

One further thought this assumes that your time has no value, or the time requirements of both commutes are equal. Both of these would seem to be poor assumptions. If your $200k more expensive home had a 15 min/direction shorter commute you would save 112.5 hrs/year or at $20/hr = $2,250/year or approximately 89 years to achieve $200k in time.

To bad the bank doesn't take time as payment on the mortgage :) My time is worth something but since I'm on salary, it's only worth something to me. And it's not a dollar value. Unfortunately I'm still at a point in my life where every dollars counts and ...

Actually, I don't really need to justify what I do.

[Full Mountain]

To bad the bank doesn't take time as payment on the mortgage :) My time is worth something but since I'm on salary, it's only worth something to me. And it's not a dollar value. Unfortunately I'm still at a point in my life where every dollars counts and ...

Actually, I don't really need to justify what I do.

IMO this is why we need a variety of housing stock in the inner city, alot of the population can't or doesn't want to afford a 600-800k SFH in the inner-city. It would be better if we had a significant stock of 3-8 storey condo buildings at key locations throughout the inner city. This would provide a home for those that are looking in the 200-500k range, myself included. They would also provide options for those people looking to downsize but want to stay in the community they have lived in for many years.

[MalcolmTucker]

Laws can be changed with the stroke of a pen. Water licenses aren't some natural force that we can control, they're simply our attempt to manage resources sustainably. All it takes is a loud (and highly motivated to vote) contingent in a few communities to claim that they're being "bullied" by the big cities, and short-sighted politicians will listen.

Like I said, I hope I'm worried over nothing. The real test should be coming shortly with communities like Airdrie, no? Surely they're approaching the limits of their growth (in terms of water)?
Airdrie iirc receives most of its water via pipeline from Calgary, but are approaching the current agreement's max levels. To buy a license from elsewhere you have to include the cost of new water and sewage treatment plants.

There was a story in the Herald on the Calgary Regional Partnership (http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/calgary/Calgary+frustrated+slow+progress+regional+land+plan/9832162/story.html). The gist: areas can sign on to the development and governance plan, and access water and shared services or be on their own. Several municipalities have balked. Some of the councils want every municipality to have a veto, an entirely ridiculous option. The offer on the table from the city is 2/3rds including Calgary to pass a policy. Provincial legislation passed in the fall requires consent of all member municipalities to create a binding regional growth board (http://alberta.ca/release.cfm?xID=354664B1CE51A-A0DB-A423-40788D680EB8FABA).

But some communities want total freedom plus the province to force regional collaboration on water allocation. Fortunately that is politically untenable, and logically inconsistent for most of the members' communities fervent support of property rights.

[RWin]

IMO this is why we need a variety of housing stock in the inner city

I agree with you there. Variety makes things interesting. It gives more than one segment of the population (as in not only the wealthy) more choice.

It would be better if we had a significant stock of 3-8 storey condo buildings at key locations throughout the inner city. This would provide a home for those that are looking in the 200-500k range, myself included. They would also provide options for those people looking to downsize but want to stay in the community they have lived in for many years.

I'd go a step further and say throughout the entire city (variety is good for more than the inner city). The city is what it is at this point and it's not like we're going to shrink it. Redevelopment can happen further out too. I'm sure we could live within our current boundaries for another 3 million people at least. London is probably an unfair comparison but they have 8 times the population in an area only twice as big. And I don't think there is a lot of highrise residential there. I'd like to see some redevelopment that has everything from single family houses to row houses, low rise appartments, and high rise appartments (condo, rental, whatever).

Then I wonder, what attracts people to Calgary? Is it the jobs? Is it the possibility of a large house on the edge of town for a lower price than they could get in Vancouver? If there was more multi-family housing and less single family housing available, would the desirability factor of Calgary decrease?

I suppose then to answer the question of thread title, I don't think a regional transit system is the way to go. Why encourage growth in satalite communities when we have years of space left in Calgary. Just build a system here that makes it more convenient to take the bus than the car.

[MasterG]

I agree with you there. Variety makes things interesting. It gives more than one segment of the population (as in not only the wealthy) more choice.



I think a part of this is the ideas around the corridor plans and alternative nodes to the centre city. The big section that is lacking in Calgary is so few transition zones: it's either the burbs or it's downtown with skyscrapers.

If we want to get serious on offering choice, the inner suburbs need to open up to a variety of choices and options. Some are already (see Marda Loop / Altadore etc.) but largely driven by the high-end market and caps redevelopment at only 2-3X the density of the previous built form. Neighbourhoods that are inner, but resistant to change, create this barrier. Hell, it took Sunnyside and Hillhurst 40 years of being the desirable inner city location before even the current condo and density boom broke through the resistance. Many neighbourhoods are still holding strong against development pressures, forcing their properties ever higher and pricing out many people that aren't in the same demographic and socioeconomic tranche.

There neighbourhoods need to start allowing mid-rises at key spots, 5-15 storey buildings should follow the corridors all the way out into the SFH burbs. This is the only way to get truly mixed neighbourhoods, the Beltline will not be a place for 3 bedroom houses ever again, nor should it.

It takes a lot of neighbourhoods being willing to see much more change than they are willing to see currently, on a much wider swathe of the inner city. A Drake-sized tower should not be out of place in Brentwood, Westbrook, 17th or 17 Ave SW as it would be on 17th Ave SE, 16 Ave N, Centre, Macleod, Elbow etc.

Allow the zoning, encourage much more that the duplex density in key areas and let the development happen.

[RWin]

An interesting Blog Post:

http://transportblog.co.nz/2013/10/11/learning-from-calgary/

[freeweed]

New water licenses would go beyond the province and invite litigation from Saskatchewan. It's funny that you brought up the American Southwest because it actually provides a strong counter example to your argument. Growing urban areas are forced to stretch existing water licenses while California's central valley remains an a major agricultural producer in a former desert based on old water rights that are essentially untouchable.

Except that the Central Valley is returning in many parts to scrub desert as less and less water is available for agriculture, while LA and Phoenix and Vegas continue to grow. I realize that these aren't necessarily connected, and yeah, *some* water restrictions are happening (especially in Vegas), but the fact is that politically, large urban centres win out over agriculture or even logic all the time

Not that I think we're going that route, but I just don't think water rights are as set in stone as people seem to believe these days. Hell, it's been less than a century since Alberta even owned its own resource rights. Anything can change given enough screaming.

[MasterG]

Except that the Central Valley is returning in many parts to scrub desert as less and less water is available for agriculture, while LA and Phoenix and Vegas continue to grow. I realize that these aren't necessarily connected, and yeah, *some* water restrictions are happening (especially in Vegas), but the fact is that politically, large urban centres win out over agriculture or even logic all the time

Not that I think we're going that route, but I just don't think water rights are as set in stone as people seem to believe these days. Hell, it's been less than a century since Alberta even owned its own resource rights. Anything can change given enough screaming.

Especially with the only two political parties of significance currently being extremely pro-rural vote and largely pro-rural vote. Perhaps this will change, but not if the polls are correct right now.

Calgary needs to join forces with Edmonton to throw some political weight around, we have much more in common with them than with Rockyview in terms of needs, funding issues and regional development issues. If no one takes the city and its issues seriously enough, no wonder the city tries to protect it's own interests through using whatever means it has, in this case water-rights.

A regional transportation network plan would be a great thing for the area as a whole; but only if the rural counties want to play ball and make the necessary compromises to make the investment worth it and sustainable.

[freeweed]

Especially with the only two political parties of significance currently being extremely pro-rural vote and largely pro-rural vote. Perhaps this will change, but not if the polls are correct right now.


That's precisely what scares me. Now, I think it's a bit of a stretch to call Red Deer or Airdrie "rural", but... in terms of the non-Calgary/Edmonton vote, these areas could hold a LOT of political power. And their influence is growing, proportionally.

There was a time when rural Alberta was moving towards the margins. Well, exurbs can change that dynamic a lot. That's the sort of thing that scares me. We'll see how long it takes until we see terminology like "elites" being lobbied towards Calgary and Edmonton on a regular basis. That will be the opening salvos.

[Boris2k7]

That's precisely what scares me. Now, I think it's a bit of a stretch to call Red Deer or Airdrie "rural", but... in terms of the non-Calgary/Edmonton vote, these areas could hold a LOT of political power. And their influence is growing, proportionally.

There was a time when rural Alberta was moving towards the margins. Well, exurbs can change that dynamic a lot. That's the sort of thing that scares me. We'll see how long it takes until we see terminology like "elites" being lobbied towards Calgary and Edmonton on a regular basis. That will be the opening salvos.

Divide and conquer. The Tories are forced into a territorial battle over rural voters and risk alienating the urban base that allowed them to gain power in the first place.

[MalcolmTucker]

Divide and conquer. The Tories are forced into a territorial battle over rural voters and risk alienating the urban base that allowed them to gain power in the first place.
Rural isn't even as rural as you might think. The concerns are similar, schools and hospitals. There is a fight between parties, but it is the same fight. Then you have very local concerns that get magnified up by fear (property rights, medevac). It isn't an easy environment to operate it, but all the parties realize all they need is a majority - you don't need to run up the total at the expense of becoming a mile wide but an inch deep.

[MasterG]

Rural isn't even as rural as you might think. The concerns are similar, schools and hospitals. There is a fight between parties, but it is the same fight. Then you have very local concerns that get magnified up by fear (property rights, medevac). It isn't an easy environment to operate it, but all the parties realize all they need is a majority - you don't need to run up the total at the expense of becoming a mile wide but an inch deep.

Allowing the big cities to have more control over their own areas would be a big help in mitigating the fear of being ignored. Transit, homelessness and the overall rate of complexity and cost of infrastructure projects in big urban areas are all real concerns that aren't shared by many smaller communities.

Giving Calgary and Edmonton the means and authority to deal with these issues more independently could head off a lot of issues of being left out by a rural-dominated political system.

[Chadillaccc]

I think eventually the PCs will take the urban votes of Calgary, Edmonton, and Red Deer, with rural support in Northern and Northeastern Alberta, while the Wild Rose will take the rural and suburban votes of all of Southern and Central Alberta, with an urban base in Lethbridge, Medicine Hat, and High River.


Well, that's pretty much what it already is.

[lightrail]

That is what I mean.

GO Transit, AMT and Translink are not the local transit commission. They are regional transit commissions. Each local area still have their own locally run system.

https://mapsengine.google.com/map/edit?mid=zJh1JiVkvThc.kHKkmO2ME3hA

My thoughts on what could be done using existing rail.

In British Columbia the province supports public transit through BC Transit and Translink. Translink is a body run by Metro Vancouver (the regional district) and it is the provider of public transit for all of the municipalities within the region (there are 20 of them). Each of them are represented in some way on the Mayor's council and that council approves budgets and sets fares. They also have input into routes and infrastructure decisions.

In the rest of BC the service area is defined and a transit commission established made up of representatives from each municipality served by the transit system. The transit commission decides on fares and routes and service levels. BC government provides the professional staff to plan the routes and estimate costs, provides and maintains buses from a provincial unified fleet and administers and manages the transit system. A private contractor (in most cases) provides the drivers (in some it is the district or local government). The local government provides bus stops and shelters (BC Transit provides the bus stop signs and poles).

BC Transit (the government) funds 56% of new transit systems, reducing to 40% after three years. The local governments in the service area make up the difference after fare revenue (and if the fare revenue exceeds their 60% of the bill, they get to keep it, making money from the transit system - this happens in Whistler).

The only municipality that runs its own transit system in BC is West Vancouver and even then, it is contracted to Translink and it has integrated fares with the rest of the Translink system,, so other than different colour and style of buses, you'd never know it was a separate system.

Using this model, BC Transit operates 72 transit systems in practically every municipality and many rural unincorporated areas. This is in addition to Translink.

If you want more information - check out BC Transit website, and look at Municipal Systems Program.

[DizzyEdge]

Mods, could we merge this thread and this thread http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=154106&page=22 together?