HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Calgary > Transportation & Infrastructure


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #6661  
Old Posted Jul 9, 2020, 6:26 PM
Pegasus's Avatar
Pegasus Pegasus is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by Porfiry View Post
Seems like they were doing fine for 20-30 years.
Aw come on . . . my point was that they suffered under 2 - 3 years of construction after which access was worst than before.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6662  
Old Posted Jul 9, 2020, 6:37 PM
Porfiry Porfiry is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 792
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pegasus View Post
Aw come on . . . my point was that they suffered under 2 - 3 years of construction after which access was worst than before.
I do agree that the construction broke the backs of many businesses there, and things will probably only get worse. My point is that things were healthy there for decades (I just don’t agree that access was “never easy” before, I think it was fine).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6663  
Old Posted Jul 9, 2020, 6:55 PM
MalcolmTucker MalcolmTucker is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 10,902
The mall should look at re-configuring its internal circulation and parking they do bare some responsibility here. The southern right-in-right-out shouldn't have parking backing on to it, nor have two t intersections on it, nor end in a stop sign.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6664  
Old Posted Jul 9, 2020, 7:23 PM
Mazrim's Avatar
Mazrim Mazrim is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 1,338
Quote:
Originally Posted by Porfiry View Post
Well I prefer an incremental evidence-based approach. Start with something modest, upgrade as the need is proven. The risk is low if it fails. You’re free to hold another opinion, but that shows poor judgment in my mind.
Ask people in SW Edmonton how they feel about incremental upgrades to Anthony Henday and I doubt you'll find much agreement. You're asking for more disruption and higher costs if you do it incrementally.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6665  
Old Posted Jul 9, 2020, 8:01 PM
Porfiry Porfiry is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 792
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazrim View Post
Ask people in SW Edmonton how they feel about incremental upgrades to Anthony Henday and I doubt you'll find much agreement. You're asking for more disruption and higher costs if you do it incrementally.
How is the planning process in Edmonton relevant here? Bad planning is bad planning, whether it results in something underbuilt or overbuilt. If you think that some unrelated and entirely different project makes for a valid argument, I again question your judgment.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6666  
Old Posted Jul 9, 2020, 11:53 PM
Corndogger Corndogger is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 7,249
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazrim View Post

Just because they kept an out-of-date image on that webpage doesn't mean the costs haven't changed. The 2020 update is on a separate page and doesn't mention anything about costs. (EDIT: To be clear, my main focus on that image is 17th Avenue. I haven't seen anything that says that the SWBRT has changed in budget from that image)

https://www.660citynews.com/2019/04/...er-20-million/
You don't need to look hard to find a news article referencing a City statement. This article is in reference to 17th Avenue Phase 1. Malcolm helpfully explained the two phases of 17th Avenue to me and I updated the number with Phase 2 added on.
I never said the SWBRT had changed in price. I was questioning your various segment amounts as overall they appeared to low. The info I provided is correct as far as I can tell.

The news article you linked to has nothing to do with the 17th Ave S.E. BRT project.

Last edited by Corndogger; Jul 10, 2020 at 4:43 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6667  
Old Posted Jul 10, 2020, 4:23 AM
Nick's Avatar
Nick Nick is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: CYYC
Posts: 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by Porfiry View Post
Yah, and that Safeway might very well go out of business. A lot of shops in Glenmore Landing have already left.
I went down today and had a look. This is hardly a ghost town. I didn't see one vacant storefront and the parking lot was very full. Much better than the shopping centres where I live in North Central Calgary. This is just my objective view, but it looks the same as always in the shopping centre.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6668  
Old Posted Jul 10, 2020, 7:12 PM
Porfiry Porfiry is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 792
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick View Post
I went down today and had a look. This is hardly a ghost town. I didn't see one vacant storefront and the parking lot was very full. Much better than the shopping centres where I live in North Central Calgary. This is just my objective view, but it looks the same as always in the shopping centre.
I didn’t say it was a “ghost town”, I said “a lot of shops have already left”. Pet Planet, Callebaut, M&M Meats, at least one restaurant and a few clothing stores. I know that Safeway wanted to leave but was locked in, though COVID has probably helped them out, but even so it’s never busy.

Pre-BRT, it was often difficult to find any parking spot. I do suspect a lot of people use that parking lot to access Glenmore Park.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6669  
Old Posted Today, 4:24 PM
Mazrim's Avatar
Mazrim Mazrim is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 1,338
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corndogger View Post
I never said the SWBRT had changed in price. I was questioning your various segment amounts as overall they appeared to low. The info I provided is correct as far as I can tell.

The news article you linked to has nothing to do with the 17th Ave S.E. BRT project.
Whoops! Good catch, thanks. Not sure why I thought that was the same project. I suppose the SW one should be added to the road projects list, though.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6670  
Old Posted Today, 4:33 PM
Mazrim's Avatar
Mazrim Mazrim is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 1,338
Quote:
Originally Posted by Porfiry View Post
How is the planning process in Edmonton relevant here? Bad planning is bad planning, whether it results in something underbuilt or overbuilt. If you think that some unrelated and entirely different project makes for a valid argument, I again question your judgment.
You used terms like "incremental evidence based approach" and "the risk is low if it fails". Do you understand how infrastructure projects are planned in the first place? They used forecasted traffic volumes and the development forecasts for the city at the time, and the standard is 30 years down the road. The best evidence can fail you, because they are predictions.

For a more local example, when the Deerfoot extension from Anderson to 22X was in the planning stage, they had an initial design and a 30 year ultimate design planned to account for growth. When it came time to build the initial design interchanges at 130th Avenue and McKenzie Towne, the modeling showed that they would need the ultimate design sooner than expected - in about 10 years. They decided to build the ultimate design for the road right away. There was only a few years between the planning stage and the construction stage.

Things change and thankfully they were able to catch that change before they started construction. It would have really sucked to have to go back in there a few years later and redo a bunch of Deerfoot over again, which unfortunately happened a lot in Calgary between 2003 and 2013.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6671  
Old Posted Today, 5:22 PM
milomilo milomilo is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 7,709
I do wonder how they came up with the specific BRT designs though, it seems far more based on where it is easy to build infrastructure than where demand needs it. Are there really more bus users on 14th St SW than there would be on 16 Ave N?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6672  
Old Posted Today, 6:53 PM
Porfiry Porfiry is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 792
Quote:
For a more local example, when the Deerfoot extension from Anderson to 22X was in the planning stage, they had an initial design and a 30 year ultimate design planned to account for growth. When it came time to build the initial design interchanges at 130th Avenue and McKenzie Towne, the modeling showed that they would need the ultimate design sooner than expected - in about 10 years. They decided to build the ultimate design for the road right away. There was only a few years between the planning stage and the construction stage.
So where is the model that shows the “ultimate” version of the SWBRT would be needed anytime in the foreseeable future? We went from zero bus service and zero actual data about ridership needs along that route to the ultimate build out with no intermediate phases.

It’s obvious that the SWBRT is 1000x overbuilt for the needs today, and any promises about future needs is wishful dreaming. Feel free to dream all you want, but that’s exactly what leads to bad models and bad plans.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6673  
Old Posted Today, 7:59 PM
MalcolmTucker MalcolmTucker is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 10,902
Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo View Post
I do wonder how they came up with the specific BRT designs though, it seems far more based on where it is easy to build infrastructure than where demand needs it. Are there really more bus users on 14th St SW than there would be on 16 Ave N?
It isn't about the number of users though. It is about the amount of congestion those users are facing.
With 16th Ave, I remember more early on there was active consideration of HOV lanes. Then, the engineers got to work and they found congestion was localized and that the buses would pass by almost all of the congestion with skip lanes where there is congestion which combined with post intersection stop placement you get results with a far lower cost.
If you can get 95% there at 10% the cost, that is what you do. Where there is still congestion today, or 10 years from now, you can extend the skips, or put in more skips to make up even more time elsewhere.
It isn't always about the simple analysis of users justify investment. It is utility justifies investment. The SW BRT infrastructure adds a lot of utility that was otherwise missing, and for far more potential users than solely the SW BRT to Woodbine.
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Calgary > Transportation & Infrastructure
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:32 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.