Freeway-Free City - Something Winnipeg can be proud of

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by feepa

^^^ Yes, imagine Calgarys roads now with an extra 200,000 vehicles on the road if there was no LRT.

Imagine the roads with competent designers and the money that went into the LRT system spent on roads. It's very questionable that the LRT has helped Calgary. For starters, eliminate the artificially high parking charges downtown and you'd see more than half of the people quit taking the train downtown. Too bad the City doesn't have the balls to conduct an unbiased survey to find out the real reasons why people take the train.

[vid]

If the city eliminated high parking charges downtown, 1: it would lose revenue and be forced to raise taxes and 2: the parking downtown would reach it's capacity, making parking downtown almost impossible anyway, resulting in people likely switching to mass transit to avoid the hassle of not being able to park.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by vid

If the city eliminated high parking charges downtown, 1: it would lose revenue and be forced to raise taxes and 2: the parking downtown would reach it's capacity, making parking downtown almost impossible anyway, resulting in people likely switching to mass transit to avoid the hassle of not being able to park.

I'll address each of your points.

1. The city is only allowing developers to put in 50% of the parking spots they want so by letting them build 100% of the spots the city's revenue could be balanced by the increase in parking. Also, what the city brings in on parking fees is a drop in a bucket in the overall big picture. If money is an issue they can just ask the developers for a big cut of 50% of the spots. I doubt the developers would bulk because parking spots are a valuable commodity and make their buildings more attractive.

2. As long as you have money and the will to spend it you can build a lot of parking. If the city let developers build as many parking spaces as they wanted we would be seeing some huge parking structures. As for people switching to mass transit, a lot of people don't because there isn't enough parking at the train stations. If the city builds more parking at LRT stations our taxes would go up even more due to the high cost of land and building materials. Then the 80% of the population that doesn't rely on transit might finally revolt demanding that transit fares be hiked considerably so it is a user-pay system. Then watch transit usage drop big time.

[newflyer]

Originally Posted by vid

If the city eliminated high parking charges downtown, 1: it would lose revenue and be forced to raise taxes and 2: the parking downtown would reach it's capacity, making parking downtown almost impossible anyway, resulting in people likely switching to mass transit to avoid the hassle of not being able to park.

I'm not sure how you can assume that increasing the number of parking spots downtown would cost the city a cent. First of all the mass majority of parking in downtown Calgary are not owned by the city.. and would not effect city direct city revenue. Those lots which are owned by the city lease spots to city employees at a discounted rate.

The real result of increased parking in downtown Calgary would see an increase in supply.... while short term demand remains constant, parking prices would decline. If parking is considered a inelastic product (which is what I'd assume), than the overall revenue generated would increase, as the number os units of parking rose. Increased revenues, would result in more taxes paid.

The transit infrastructure in Calgary is completely inadaquit .. and ussually makes sardin cans look like spacious containers. There are two alternatives ... one would be to add many billions of dollars of transit upgrades and expansion.. only those upgrades would never keep up with demand, as the city has offered no viable alteraive.... and even the rich governemnt of Alberta don't stand a chance of keeping up. As it is .. more and more companies are looking for locate outside of downtown, purely from an accessability point of view. This is further driving sprawl and defeating the original purpose... of which rapid (I use that word losely.. as you might have to wait for 2 or 3 trains before you find one with enough romm for one more person) transit was suppose to solve. The end result is by not giving people accessability it result to much more rapid growth of sprawl... (business parks are popping up everywhee), while costing the city billions in wastful focus on a few transit lines towards fighting declining accessability of downtown.

The second option would be to add significant accessability to downtown... which would include upgrading roadways and adding parking.. (which would be paid for by private interests.. if they where giving the green light to do so.) This would improve people flows in and out of the city centre .. and thus make the downtown more attractive.

Having some rapid transit is fine, but it can't replace the access needs of the downtown. If Calgary increased the accessability of its downtown.. there would be less sprawl. In addition if demand on transit were kept at the levels of supply than many of the current problems could be avoided. The only way to accomplish this is by investing in the much more efficiant traffic upgrades. Forcing 3X as many people to take the trains as the system is designed to handle is not really the anwser... especaily when there iis no alternative.

[TSN]

Originally Posted by Andy6

Most companies in Winnipeg are in the manufacturing business, and it is easy enough to locate near the Trans-Canada Highway or Highway 75 (=Interstate 29) if you want easy access to the U.S. and Canadian road networks. An upgrade of Highway 75 to limited access status would help, but that is a provincial matter and there are no NDP MLAs from south of the city so it won't happen for awhile.

Bang on. It all boils down to where you ultimately locate the plants. Efficient connections between these businesses and the interprovincial/state highways is important, just throwing up roads anywhere won't work if it doesn't help these guys export their products. A grade separated 75 would help from a safety perspective, you still have fatalities/injuries happening. Not sure how much it does for efficiency.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by newflyer

First... welcome to skyscraperpage.


Second.. your comments are very well stated. Calgary is witnessing its transit system grinding down ..while the bill to upgrade the current system is looking to exceed several hundred million dollars... replacing and adding cars .. and upgrading the older stations to handle 4 cars.. PLUS three quarters of a Billion to add new 6 stop line.

Roadways have proven to be vastly superior at handling trafic, no to mention it has much greater freedom for destination. Winnipeg is not the downtown centric city that Calgary is. In addition Winnipeg relies on its transportaion industry to a much higher degree than Calgary to support the economy.... I don't see large amounts of distribution of goods moving on the Sommerset Line ine Calgary.. and I don't think Winnipeg would either.

Your point that transit system don't deliver goods is such a basic point yet so many people don't seem to get it. Without roads our economy would be screwed yet the anti-road people want us to quit building and maintaining our roads. Relying totally on transit also means committing economic suicide. Is that really what the transit lovers want?

[Boris2k7]

What a load of bullshit.

Originally Posted by Corndogger

I've never posted before so hopefully I'm doing this right!

I can't get over how many people in this forum buy into the notion that you can't build your way out of congestion and that roads create traffic etc. It has been proven that roads do not create more traffic by themselves which really isn't surprising when you think about it. It is economic prosperity that helps people buy cars and social engineering and inept road planners that cause congestion.

You are entirely wrong here. Induced traffic is a proven concept. Roads DO create more traffic by themselves. Traffic creates sprawl and sprawl creates traffic. It is the fault of highway building and road planners that they created such conditions that allowed this cycle to flourish. You cannot build your way out of congestion. Even if you put in tens of billions in federal funding, a return to congestion will be at most a few years away.

As for your point about light rail being so efficient in moving people I have to disagree with your notions despite the fact that they keep getting mentioned over and over by the anti-car lobby. I'll take Calgary, where I live, as an example. Our Mayor during the current election campaign has said he wants the city to build a new LRT line that will cost about $700 or $750 million. The line is going to have 5 stations I believe and be about 6.5 km. long. In other words, nothing special. This line is supposed to handle the equivalent of two lanes of free flowing traffic--at least that's what I read and it makes more sense than the eight lane figure you mention. LRT might handle massive amounts of people but it only does so at certain times and if you happen to being going where it goes. Which in Calgary usually means downtown during rushhour or home at the end of the day.

Again, wrong, wrong, wrong. Each LRT line, during Rush Hour, is capable of handling as much as 16 lanes of freeway traffic. This again, is proven. To build that much freeway would only create more traffic congestion, and rip up existing neighbourhoods, in the end a total waste of money.

As a counter example, the province in a P3 deal is building a 21 km. stretch of freeway that will be totally freeflow with a number of interchanges and flyovers and be setup to handle expansion in the future. The cost is something like $930 million but this includes all of the maintenance work for 30 years. The LRT figure of $750 million doesn't include any extra costs.

Let's revisit the LRT funding again, and the purpose. The LRT takes cars off the road, the freeway adds cars to the road. You even have your LRT figures off. That's $700 Million for 7.7Km of traffic, 6 stations, 21 cars, and will have a catchment area of over 120 000 people. The initial capital cost alone for the Ring Road will be 1.2 Billion dollars, will only increase sprawl, and will stretch the city's finances to the point of breaking (because although the city won't have to pay for the ring road, it will have to service all that sprawl).

Which brings up another point. Transit isn't nearly as cost effective as some people want us to believe. Last year or two years ago Calgary bought 32 LRT cars for $128 million or $4 million/car. I believe we got a deal because we piggybacked on to the order another city had placed. In the next year or so the city needs to spend a considerable amount of money replacing old cars. And once the system grinds to complete a halt downtown they'll be forced to build a tunnel. But before that happens they'll waste between $150 and $200 million redesign the current stations. I know someone else from Calgary will dispute that last point but having lived here my entire life I'll go with my experience over what should be common sense.

You must be an idiot. Transit isn't cost effective? Versus an endless demand for roads? The old cars aren't going out of service anyways, the system is at capacity because it is so well used. A transit system at capacity is WAY more cost effective than any expressway will ever be. The notion that the system will grind to a halt is hilarious. It's not like the trains will be forced to slow down when moving from block to block. If anything, the system will be faster as the increased number of cars indicate higher frequency outside of the downtown area, which will draw in more ridership. The downtown subway, like all LRT infrastructure, is a one-time capital expense that doesn't require the addition of more rails. With a downtown subway, increased frequencies, and increased station and car sizes, the system will be ridiculously efficient, especially when compared to your petty freeways.

Any city in Western Canada with decent planners and given all of the gas tax money that drivers pay should easily be able to build a road system that efficiently and effectively moves drivers around the city. Not to mention that it would be fully paid for unlike transit where fares only pay for about 35% of operating costs in Calgary and none of the capital costs.

Hahahaha. You honestly think that money can solve this issue? Anyways, all you have said here is that you support subsidizing road construction but not transit construction. Your supposed point about the fares is rather incomprehensible. What the hell are you trying to get at? Roads could be 35% paid for too if we put tolls on them.

[Boris2k7]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

Your point that transit system don't deliver goods is such a basic point yet so many people don't seem to get it. Without roads our economy would be screwed yet the anti-road people want us to quit building and maintaining our roads. Relying totally on transit also means committing economic suicide. Is that really what the transit lovers want?

While roads are necessary to move goods, they are also necessary to move busses. Expressways are not. Freeway building in the name of supporting "the economy" has hurt our cities more than helped them. Industry is stuck with roadways filled with commuters, and cities are stuck with expensive infrastructure to fund and an eroding tax base as people and jobs flee to the suburbs. And it is mostly the industry's fault for getting into this mess, as they opted for sprawling suburban complexes (much cheaper to operate of course) and demanded all that infrastructure in the first place. So everyone is screwed in the end.

[Boris2k7]

Ah, the ever-amusing Newflyer.

Originally Posted by newflyer

The transit infrastructure in Calgary is completely inadaquit .. and ussually makes sardin cans look like spacious containers. There are two alternatives ... one would be to add many billions of dollars of transit upgrades and expansion.. only those upgrades would never keep up with demand, as the city has offered no viable alteraive.... and even the rich governemnt of Alberta don't stand a chance of keeping up. As it is .. more and more companies are looking for locate outside of downtown, purely from an accessability point of view. This is further driving sprawl and defeating the original purpose... of which rapid (I use that word losely.. as you might have to wait for 2 or 3 trains before you find one with enough romm for one more person) transit was suppose to solve. The end result is by not giving people accessability it result to much more rapid growth of sprawl... (business parks are popping up everywhee), while costing the city billions in wastful focus on a few transit lines towards fighting declining accessability of downtown.

As I just finished explaining to your misguided friend, your alternative road building scheme can never possible keep up with demand, and that transit is much more efficient. That you can say that downtown is less accessible than any suburban business park is laughable. If companies are looking for space outside of downtown, and there is no such evidence of a mass exodus, it is because of the rising value of downtown office space. Sprawl is driven by road building schemes, and providing increased access to those business parks. Your entire point is nonsensical and flies in the face of both planning theory and its application. Who are you, a planner from the early 50's?

The second option would be to add significant accessability to downtown... which would include upgrading roadways and adding parking.. (which would be paid for by private interests.. if they where giving the green light to do so.) This would improve people flows in and out of the city centre .. and thus make the downtown more attractive.

Hahaha, wait, so where are these upgraded roadways going to go Newflyer? Where is all this parking going to go? The only way to put these in is to rip up existing communities, either through demolition or expropriation. Great plan, huh?

Having some rapid transit is fine, but it can't replace the access needs of the downtown. If Calgary increased the accessability of its downtown.. there would be less sprawl. In addition if demand on transit were kept at the levels of supply than many of the current problems could be avoided. The only way to accomplish this is by investing in the much more efficiant traffic upgrades. Forcing 3X as many people to take the trains as the system is designed to handle is not really the anwser... especaily when there iis no alternative.

*laugh*

Yes Newflyer, sure. Ripping up the innercity to build roads, increasing capacity of expressways running to and from the suburbs, and making it overall easier to live in Cranston and commute to downtown Calgary (or your job in Foothills Industrial) will decrease sprawl. Hahaha

Who paid you to say this, really?

[niwell]

You don't have to look further than the experience of any actual large city to realize that road-building is not an efficient congestion remover. Transit is. I don't have time to properly articulate this argument right now, as I'm busy somewhat related schoolwork and Boris seems to be handling it pretty well. But before anyone makes a comment advocating freeways (especially over transit) for better access they should fully research the issue. Congestion issues aside, a cost-benefit analysis should be enlightening to say the least.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by Boris2k7

What a load of bullshit.

You say it's bullshit because I had the nerve to disagree with the propoganda you have bought into.

Originally Posted by Boris2k7

You are entirely wrong here. Induced traffic is a proven concept. Roads DO create more traffic by themselves. Traffic creates sprawl and sprawl creates traffic. It is the fault of highway building and road planners that they created such conditions that allowed this cycle to flourish. You cannot build your way out of congestion. Even if you put in tens of billions in federal funding, a return to congestion will be at most a few years away.

Roads do not create more traffic by themselves. That is a crazy myth propogated by anti-car planners. When a new road is build drivers will flock to that road because it flows better and takes less time to go from A to B. Once that road hits a limit people will start to shift back to other roads. To imply that building roads creates more traffic is wrong and that has been proven.

Originally Posted by Boris2k7

Again, wrong, wrong, wrong. Each LRT line, during Rush Hour, is capable of handling as much as 16 lanes of freeway traffic. This again, is proven. To build that much freeway would only create more traffic congestion, and rip up existing neighbourhoods, in the end a total waste of money.

That number of lanes of freeway figure sure seems to change alot. You guys need to get your facts straight but I'm sure 16 is a gross exaggeration. And why does building freeways always have to result in ripping up existing neighborhoods? Given how new cities are in western Canada the planners should have had the foresight to have set aside properly sized transportation corridors. Unfortunately, our planners are social engineers and no squat about planning and design road systems that work.

Originally Posted by Boris2k7

Let's revisit the LRT funding again, and the purpose. The LRT takes cars off the road, the freeway adds cars to the road. You even have your LRT figures off. That's $700 Million for 7.7Km of traffic, 6 stations, 21 cars, and will have a catchment area of over 120 000 people. The initial capital cost alone for the Ring Road will be 1.2 Billion dollars, will only increase sprawl, and will stretch the city's finances to the point of breaking (because although the city won't have to pay for the ring road, it will have to service all that sprawl).

Add in inflation to the figure and we'll well past $750 million. And that catchment figure is a bit of a joke. Now lets discuss the road figures. The NE portion of Stoney Trail is going to cost $930 million which includes maintenance costs for 30 years. The LRT figure doesn't include any maintenance costs and no operating costs. And how can you say the freeway will increase sprawl? The city is already built out to the road and past in some areas so that is a nonstarter.

Originally Posted by Boris2k7

You must be an idiot. Transit isn't cost effective? Versus an endless demand for roads? The old cars aren't going out of service anyways, the system is at capacity because it is so well used. A transit system at capacity is WAY more cost effective than any expressway will ever be. The notion that the system will grind to a halt is hilarious. It's not like the trains will be forced to slow down when moving from block to block. If anything, the system will be faster as the increased number of cars indicate higher frequency outside of the downtown area, which will draw in more ridership. The downtown subway, like all LRT infrastructure, is a one-time capital expense that doesn't require the addition of more rails. With a downtown subway, increased frequencies, and increased station and car sizes, the system will be ridiculously efficient, especially when compared to your petty freeways.

I've already proven that transit isn't cost effective and that roads are. Pay attention. Drivers in Calgary pay about $400 million/year in gas taxes and we sure in the hell don't spend that much each year on building new roads or maintaining the current ones. Transit users on the otherhand only pay for about 35% of the operating costs and non of the capital costs. Everyone benefits from roads even if they don't drive but a relatively small percentage benefit from transit.

And what do you mean that the old cars are not going out of service? Do you think they last forever! They have to maintained (just like roads) and eventually they die and have to replaced. Also, why is it that a transit system at capacity is a good thing but roads are not? Is our socially engineered at capacity transit system not going to cost us more money, a significant portion which gets siphoned off of the gas tax money drivers pay which was intended and should be going to maintain our road system? What happens when the social engineers have forced too many drivers on to transit and there isn't a constant supply of gas tax dollars to steal? Our fucking taxes will go through the roof and we will become just like Europe--an overall economically depressed region run by a bunch of nutcase bureaucrats! That is the last thing I want and I'm sure the last thing the vast majority of Calgarians want.

Originally Posted by Boris2k7

Hahahaha. You honestly think that money can solve this issue? Anyways, all you have said here is that you support subsidizing road construction but not transit construction. Your supposed point about the fares is rather incomprehensible. What the hell are you trying to get at? Roads could be 35% paid for too if we put tolls on them.

Once again, the roads are fully paid for by users with a lot of money left over. Transit is far from being paid for by its users. And where did I say we should subsidize road building. I said we should invest our money wisely to build the best transportation system. I also strongly implied that such a system should not be based on ideology which is the main point of entire argument.

[Boris2k7]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

Our fucking taxes will go through the roof and we will become just like Europe--an overall economically depressed region run by a bunch of nutcase bureaucrats!

Wow, that one quote said it all. Absolutely fucking hilarious. Thanks for the rant, maybe you should actually read up on the subject before spouting off this much crap. Welcome to my ignore list, moron.

[spiritedenergy]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

You say it's bullshit because I had the nerve to disagree with the propoganda you have bought into.



Roads do not create more traffic by themselves. That is a crazy myth propogated by anti-car planners. When a new road is build drivers will flock to that road because it flows better and takes less time to go from A to B. Once that road hits a limit people will start to shift back to other roads. To imply that building roads creates more traffic is wrong and that has been proven.




That number of lanes of freeway figure sure seems to change alot. You guys need to get your facts straight but I'm sure 16 is a gross exaggeration. And why does building freeways always have to result in ripping up existing neighborhoods? Given how new cities are in western Canada the planners should have had the foresight to have set aside properly sized transportation corridors. Unfortunately, our planners are social engineers and no squat about planning and design road systems that work.



Add in inflation to the figure and we'll well past $750 million. And that catchment figure is a bit of a joke. Now lets discuss the road figures. The NE portion of Stoney Trail is going to cost $930 million which includes maintenance costs for 30 years. The LRT figure doesn't include any maintenance costs and no operating costs. And how can you say the freeway will increase sprawl? The city is already built out to the road and past in some areas so that is a nonstarter.




I've already proven that transit isn't cost effective and that roads are. Pay attention. Drivers in Calgary pay about $400 million/year in gas taxes and we sure in the hell don't spend that much each year on building new roads or maintaining the current ones. Transit users on the otherhand only pay for about 35% of the operating costs and non of the capital costs. Everyone benefits from roads even if they don't drive but a relatively small percentage benefit from transit.

And what do you mean that the old cars are not going out of service? Do you think they last forever! They have to maintained (just like roads) and eventually they die and have to replaced. Also, why is it that a transit system at capacity is a good thing but roads are not? Is our socially engineered at capacity transit system not going to cost us more money, a significant portion which gets siphoned off of the gas tax money drivers pay which was intended and should be going to maintain our road system? What happens when the social engineers have forced too many drivers on to transit and there isn't a constant supply of gas tax dollars to steal? Our fucking taxes will go through the roof and we will become just like Europe--an overall economically depressed region run by a bunch of nutcase bureaucrats! That is the last thing I want and I'm sure the last thing the vast majority of Calgarians want.




Once again, the roads are fully paid for by users with a lot of money left over. Transit is far from being paid for by its users. And where did I say we should subsidize road building. I said we should invest our money wisely to build the best transportation system. I also strongly implied that such a system should not be based on ideology which is the main point of entire argument.

your arguments are idiotic, shut up please.

P.s.: Europe would kick the ass of your stupid suburbian highway-riddle ideal city anyday

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by Boris2k7

Wow, that one quote said it all. Absolutely fucking hilarious. Thanks for the rant, maybe you should actually read up on the subject before spouting off this much crap. Welcome to my ignore list, moron.

Based on your communist sounding screen name I'm not surprised at your reaction. I'm also not surprised at how clued out you are about the world. Do you have any idea of what taxes are like in Europe? Do you pay attention to how the European Commission dictates nearly every aspect of live in the EU? If you did you wouldn't be disagreeing with me.

By the way, you can call me a moron all you want but you've done nothing to prove anything I've said is wrong. But you have proven that you've bought in big time to social engineering and the evils that go along with it.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by spiritedenergy

your arguments are idiotic, shut up please.

P.s.: Europe would kick the ass of your stupid suburbian highway-riddle ideal city anyday

Am I upsetting your idealized notion of the world? My arguments are backed by solid facts that you can easily look up. I suggest you start thinking for yourself and quit repeating the nonsense you've been fed.

And Europe couldn't kick the ass of any half ass decent city in North America. If Europe was so great we would be seeing mass migration from North America to Europe. But we aren't and Europe can't even maintain it's own population levels. That is usually a sign of an area where things are not going all that great. And you say my arguments are idiotic? Another typical leftist social engineer--make a point they disagree with and they start personally attacking you.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by Boris2k7

Ah, the ever-amusing Newflyer.

As I just finished explaining to your misguided friend, your alternative road building scheme can never possible keep up with demand, and that transit is much more efficient. That you can say that downtown is less accessible than any suburban business park is laughable. If companies are looking for space outside of downtown, and there is no such evidence of a mass exodus, it is because of the rising value of downtown office space. Sprawl is driven by road building schemes, and providing increased access to those business parks. Your entire point is nonsensical and flies in the face of both planning theory and its application. Who are you, a planner from the early 50's?

Sprawl actually started in US cities when street cars allowed people to leave congested cities and this was before cars came on the scene. A lot of people couldn't wait to leave the crowded cities and have their own piece of property. I'd say not much has changed since then. This isn't Europe--we have a totally different perspective in North America about how and where we want to live and that is not going to change because social engineers tell people that the world is going to end if they don't. People are not that stupid.

Originally Posted by Boris2k7

Hahaha, wait, so where are these upgraded roadways going to go Newflyer? Where is all this parking going to go? The only way to put these in is to rip up existing communities, either through demolition or expropriation. Great plan, huh?

As has been pointed out to the parking can go where the developers initially wanted it to go--into their underground parking garages. That is not a problem. For the most part the roads we have now just need to be made freeflow and have a lot less access points. Certain places might have to get ripped up but you don't seem to have a problem with that when it comes to transit projects and I'm assuming that 'great' urban corridor project on the TCH.

Originally Posted by Boris2k7

*laugh*

Yes Newflyer, sure. Ripping up the innercity to build roads, increasing capacity of expressways running to and from the suburbs, and making it overall easier to live in Cranston and commute to downtown Calgary (or your job in Foothills Industrial) will decrease sprawl. Hahaha

Who paid you to say this, really?

We should be asking you the same question. Isn't the city catering to sprawl by continuely extending the LRT to the edges of the city? If Calgary is so spread out, and it isn't despite what you think, then we should stop extending the LRT until we have a critical mass of condos, etc. at each of the suburban stations. If transit is as popular as you think people will flock to such developments. Personally I don't see it happening. I used to live very close to an LRT station and it seemed like just about every proposal to increase density in the area was met by fierce opposition by area residents. This seems to be happening all over the city which is why I really question investing huge sums of money into the system. Better to have demand drive the system than the other way around. At least with roads we know the majority of people want more of them and better designed ones.

[IntotheWest]

Everytime I visit this thread, the subject seems to get thrown back to Calgary - thanks Newflyer

Corndogger - I live in the burbs in Calgary, own (and drive - but not to work) two cars, and I still believe Boris' points are absolutely valid (and, since this is his field of expertise, he knows a bit about the subject ). As Boris mentioned, your points don't hold-up. I'm not going to go through each one, as Boris has done that perfectly.

But one thing I do notice is your constant blabbing about a "small percentage" of Calgarians using transit...I'm sure you're aware that over 200,000 ride it daily (more than Van's Skytrain). As well, the only reason it's pretty much stagnating at that number is because of capacity during the busy hours. Once this is addressed, more people will continue to use it...more TOD has to be done as well around these stations.

For me, it's a 25-minute ride to downtown from Somerset. However, I will also point out (since it comes up a lot) it took me 32 minutes to drive downtown on Friday, park, and get to my office...so driving isn't a nightmare anyway. Parking is though, as capacity even in the beltline is near - and at $19/day (in the Beltline), most don't want to park anyway.

One thing I wish planners would consider too (Boris - directed partially at you), is the options companies can place on their employees to make the commute better - I think this is something planners can help to persuade corporations to do. For example, I travel downtown once a week to the office - at most (I work for one of the largest companies). My wife as well - who's in a position that requires a lot of face-time, also travels only 3 times a week to work. Both of us also have flexible starting/ending times - so, if we roll into the office at 9am- 9:30am, we miss that morning rush. This is becoming far, far more common.

One more thing Corndogger, Boris didn't even get into the whole environment/climate change points - which, you'd have an incredibly tough time to argue otherwise

[itom 987]

The next forumer to insult another forumer will be suspended for a week.

Please keep the debate civil.

[newflyer]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

Am I upsetting your idealized notion of the world? My arguments are backed by solid facts that you can easily look up. I suggest you start thinking for yourself and quit repeating the nonsense you've been fed.

And Europe couldn't kick the ass of any half ass decent city in North America. If Europe was so great we would be seeing mass migration from North America to Europe. But we aren't and Europe can't even maintain it's own population levels. That is usually a sign of an area where things are not going all that great. And you say my arguments are idiotic? Another typical leftist social engineer--make a point they disagree with and they start personally attacking you.

Yes.. people like Boris who base there aurguements solely on ideogy.. without anything to back it up.

Well Boris let me inform you that LRT's have not only reinforced the advancement of suburban sprawl, but has provided a completely false sence of minimizing the decentralizing of urban centres. The whole concept has been partially highjacked by a minority of misinformed individuals.

Yes Light rail does reduced the traffic on roadways, but it is a extremely expensive option, which isn't viable for many centres. In Winnipeg's case it would be nice, and I would love using it as a daily transit user myself, but Winnipeg's finances could not afford to subsitdize such a nonself-sufficient public mega project... which would also rapidly increase suburban sprawl. To even suggest it wouldn't would be little more than pure denile of the facts.

It is too bad some people are so blinded by pure emotion and even have to resort to insulting those who make well informed arguements. With that aside all the extreme retoric is really meaningless drivel.

Increasing transportation options to the suburbs only increases the attractiveness of those suburbs. There are many people who live in the inner city to maintain easy access to the innercity .... but by developing mass rapid transit, it makes the suburbs a much better option than without rapid transit.

Boris you like to see things in black and white... (rail is good .. roads are bad), but imagine for example if there was a rapid rail line connecting Stonewall to downtown Winnipeg. This would be a huge plus for Stonewall as a means to attract new residents, while vastly improving the commuting lives of the current residents already living there.

Yes I know what you are thinking .. but Stonewall is not part of the city, but in reality it would have the same impact to any suburb within the citylimits as well. The truth was revealed to me when the Sommerset station was established on the far south end of the city of Calgary (argued it would assist in reducing the traffic conjestion).. but bedroom communities (like Okotoks among others) further south became a much more inviting option to developers and people who were looking to commute from out of town. Those bedroom communties as well as the far south end of the city of Calgary exploded in response to the increased access to rapid transit, far beyond areas without the rapid transit option.

For the record .. I have close ties in Europe and am very aware the amount of commuters who travel into the major cities from out of town.. either by car or rail. Europe is not the omnipure society as you like to project it... It has traffic conjestion ... smog and the many other problems faced by North American cities. Perhaps you should see it before you make your vast assumptions.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by IntotheWest

Everytime I visit this thread, the subject seems to get thrown back to Calgary - thanks Newflyer

Corndogger - I live in the burbs in Calgary, own (and drive - but not to work) two cars, and I still believe Boris' points are absolutely valid (and, since this is his field of expertise, he knows a bit about the subject ). As Boris mentioned, your points don't hold-up. I'm not going to go through each one, as Boris has done that perfectly.

You guys keep saying my points don't add up but offer no proof that I'm wrong. I have provided some figures--if they're wrong show me correct figures.

Originally Posted by IntotheWest

But one thing I do notice is your constant blabbing about a "small percentage" of Calgarians using transit...I'm sure you're aware that over 200,000 ride it daily (more than Van's Skytrain). As well, the only reason it's pretty much stagnating at that number is because of capacity during the busy hours. Once this is addressed, more people will continue to use it...more TOD has to be done as well around these stations.

You do realize that those transit usage figures count most people twice--once for the trip in the morning and then again in the evening. The percentage of people who use transit to go to work for the entire city is no more than 20%. Yes the figure is higher for trips downtown but only about 20% of people work downtown. If someone is going to tell me those figures are out to lunch then they can also tell Stats Canada.

Originally Posted by IntotheWest

For me, it's a 25-minute ride to downtown from Somerset. However, I will also point out (since it comes up a lot) it took me 32 minutes to drive downtown on Friday, park, and get to my office...so driving isn't a nightmare anyway. Parking is though, as capacity even in the beltline is near - and at $19/day (in the Beltline), most don't want to park anyway.

How long does it take you to get to the station? That is one of the key factors that turn so many people off of transit. The parking issue can be solved easily. Take restrictions off of developers and they would build the right number of spaces. I'll trust the market over social engineers any day.

Originally Posted by IntotheWest

One thing I wish planners would consider too (Boris - directed partially at you), is the options companies can place on their employees to make the commute better - I think this is something planners can help to persuade corporations to do. For example, I travel downtown once a week to the office - at most (I work for one of the largest companies). My wife as well - who's in a position that requires a lot of face-time, also travels only 3 times a week to work. Both of us also have flexible starting/ending times - so, if we roll into the office at 9am- 9:30am, we miss that morning rush. This is becoming far, far more common.

If I understand you correctly you are asking for more flexible transit and you want planners to convince employers to have more flextime. I'm not sure if it is the job of planners to tell employers how to run their companies but I'm a firm believer in flextime and people working from home.

Getting back to the more flexible transit, I often wonder if we didn't screw ourselves by starting with a mass transit when we had such a small population. How much better off would we be if we had implemented a driverless system? I'm thinking we would be much better off but I have no idea of how much more such a system would cost.

Originally Posted by IntotheWest

One more thing Corndogger, Boris didn't even get into the whole environment/climate change points - which, you'd have an incredibly tough time to argue otherwise

I don't buy the climate change scare tactics at all but I do believe that we need to reduce pollution as much as possible without committing economic suicide, which I think is quite doable.