Calgary Public Transit II

[frinkprof]

Nevermind.

[mersar]

Well the one rumor over on cptdb from someone from CT is that it may be closed for a bit this summer. I guess a lot of it will depend on the scope of what needs to be done to the platform, the one advantage most of the stations outside the core have is that they've weathered far better compared to the ones downtown, especially the newer ones (even going back as far the original NE line stations), and won't need as drastic of work as tearing it all down.

I'd love to go to the open house that night but its the night prior to the launch of the new faculty at the U of C so I'll be stuck on campus all night doing the last minute work on the new web site. So hopefully someone else can make it there.

[frinkprof]

Nevermind.

[frinkprof]

Nevermind.

[fusili]

I agree with Ferreth. Why are we extending the system when it is at capacity? It seems counter-intuitive to me. By building Tuscany and Saddleridge, you are just pushing out further the stations where you cannot get on. Why live in Bridgeland if the train is full when it gets there? When will it be Marlborough, or even Brentwood, where the train is full as it arrives. Once the LRT started to hit capacity, they should have stopped all plans for expansion, worked on new lines and upgrading to 4 car trains. Otherwise you just end up displacing riders, which is what I believe Tuscany and Saddleridge will do.

[Ferreth]

Originally Posted by mersar

Well just let me disagree with your opinion for a bit

The NW line doesn't really encourage any more sprawl, as there's really no where left to sprawl that wouldn't be developed anyways (there won't be another subdivision build anywhere west of Sarcee for many many years, Rocky Ridge/Royal Oak and Tuscany are all bounded by what will be an impenetrable (to developers) sea of acreages that already exist. Even the current stations in the NE aren't exactly encouraging more development, they're going into already developed areas. If they were to start pushing the line past Saddle Ridge then I would buy into the argument for that area. And in the south most of the area surrounding the south line was already well underway when the extension was built. While some of the new communities further south of the terminus do contribute some ridership, the LRT alone has little influence on their development (I've never seen anyone say they moved to Silverado due to the proximity of the LRT, for that matter the two people I know who live in Silverado drive to downtown daily)

And in terms of suggesting the other extensions should be on a 20 year drawing board, really we're at that point. The extension to Crowfoot according to the city's original plans should have been built in 1982. Not 2009. If it had gone through back in the 80's then it would be more akin to if they decided to start building past Saddle Ridge, but building the line past there to the middle of three established communities with a total population of nearly 5% of the city, isn't encouraging anything. Its reacting to something.

The SE LRT will likely have an initial terminus around Quarry Park from the various plans and discussions people have had at events with the city, mainly as thats the likely minimum distance from downtown as its the only real place they could build the maintenance facilities for the line. There will be a decent amount of TOD like development there, the current component thats been built is essentially offices and retail, the southern half of the project is where the residential components will be and I wouldn't be too surprised to see at least some of those in the next couple years now that the rest is there and open. In some ways QP has actually turned into what was originally envisioned for Crowfoot with a mass of both jobs and retail, and will surpass it when the residential starts.

I agree that the NW isn't likely to sprawl so fast anymore due to the acreage road bumps. I'd say close LRT is going to encourage development along the 1A, outside of the current acreage belt, which certainly does not extend to Cochrane right now. Even now, people in Cochrane take advantage of the LRT to go downtown; only going to be more so if the LRT is further out.

As far as the NE goes, yes, LRT is going into developed (mostly) areas now. I'm arguing that the areas within 5 minutes drive to the LRT are going to develop faster due to LRT being there, with a lesser effect extending out to 10 minutes. That's a lot of territory. I did a quick check with Google Maps, a 5 minute drive right now from McKnight - Westwinds gets you to the middle of Saddletown circle, couple of more minutes to the furthest edge of town. Once the LRT extends out to Saddletown circle, most of the remaining greenfield inside the ring road will be within 10 minutes drive of the LRT.

When I say 20 year drawing board, I'm thinking of the plans as of 2005ish. I'm still peeved Bronco decided to move up the current NE / NW extensions as part of his election campaign when his own planners were thinking 10-15 (which is reasonable, I just extend it out a bit more). I think it would've mean the current extensions under construction would've been started around 2015-2020. It's all good stuff, but you always have to balance that with what else we could have been building.

I'm somewhat encouraged by what you have to say about Quarry Park. I've been unclear about what they exactly planned for that space. I think the initial terminus of a SE LRT is currently planned for Douglas Glen, where the new Park n Ride is going to be built. It's not the worst location in the world, but not the greatest transit hub in my opinion. Quarry park in contrast could (is?) going to be developed from scratch with a transit node in mind. I suppose you could have both since they will serve different functions.

[frinkprof]

Nevermind.

[Bassic Lab]

There is something to be said about establishing use of transit from a communities inception. The complaints against extending the lines to the edge of the city do have some merit but are also problematic. Yes, commuter rail systems do tend to encourage sprawl. They serve riders who own automobiles as a matter of course so the neighbourhoods are autocentric. The people still drive every where, including to the train station, so it doesn't change development patterns. On the other hand, a transit system that functions as a primary mode of transportation does not contribute to sprawl. It instead leads to increased density. The problem is that the C-Train operates as something of a hybrid between the two, especially with some of the massive station gaps existing in the far NW.

[Riise]

I'm going to have to agree with Ferreth for the most part. However, I don't think the expansion of the CTrain is inducing sprawl but is rather enabling it. The CTrain is helping urban sprawl, which is an unsustainable form of urban development, sustain itself in the short-term. Instead of being used as a tool that can help channel and shape development/growth into sustainable patterns, it is helping to make sprawl slightly more feasible.

Developers are not building suburbia around CTrain stations but they are benefiting from their proximity to them as the CTrain helps shorten the commute. It basically increases the efficiency of a bedroom suburb.

[freeweed]

Just to be the fly in the ointment, is there any infrastructure development that you guys DON'T think encourages sprawl?

Roads? Sprawl. Transit? Sprawl. New housing? Sprawl.

I seriously think many of you confuse "growth" with "sprawl" most of the time.

Just look at where Calgary is acgtually going to grow the most in the next 20 years. Most new suburban development that I see is very far from the LRT. North of the city (Symons Valley/"Hills" area), the eventual growth out towards Chestermere, all the stuff down Hwy 2...

Yes, if we want to be pedantic, LRT can enable sprawl. So can electricity, telecommunications, and fuel efficient/electric cars. ANYTHING can "enable" sprawl if you look at things that way.

[MalcolmTucker]

^ Same with sustainability. Hybrid cars since they enable people to drive further on less gas are the worst enablers of sprawl. Conversely, Hummers encourage urban form :p

[Riise]

Originally Posted by freeweed

Yes, if we want to be pedantic, LRT can enable sprawl. So can electricity, telecommunications, and fuel efficient/electric cars. ANYTHING can "enable" sprawl if you look at things that way.

I don't think it is a matter of being pedantic but rather cautious. Like you pointed out, almost anything could be used for good or evil. As such, the CTrain could be used as a tool to help curb sprawl or enable it. What some people on this forum would like to see are more transit developments/projects that help channel growth more intelligently, i.e. tram lines in the inner-city and crosstown rapid transit.

Originally Posted by freeweed

I seriously think many of you confuse "growth" with "sprawl" most of the time.

Please explain.

[Surrealplaces]

A shot taken by me, of the new LRT platform at TD Centre. (click on image for large)

[mooky]

I love these new platforms, they sure make the block feel more pedestrian friendly. 3rd ties in awesomely with the mall.

It's a shame that 7th in general isn't a more pedestrian friendly mall with shops and services, though i won't say it hasn't improved in the past few years. And it will get even better if they ever get that strip of old buildings by The Bay going with renovations. Are they still working on getting zoning for the automatic jukebox-style parkade the developer wanted or what?

[fusili]

Transit in the existing inner city doesn't encourage sprawl. A streetcar to Marda Loop, or up Centre Street or Edmonton Trail wouldn't encourage sprawl, it would encourage densification of the inner city. The West LRT, up until about 45th street station wouldn't encourage sprawl either.

And I don't think we confuse "growth" and "sprawl" at all. I think we have a fairly good understanding that "sprawl" is a type of growth, characterized by low-density, single use, automobile dependence land use patterns, as opposed to more "urban" growth, which would constitute higher-density, mixed use and transit-supportive land use patterns. My issue with the LRT extensions is that they do nothing to promote the latter and do everything to enable the former.

Originally Posted by freeweed

Just to be the fly in the ointment, is there any infrastructure development that you guys DON'T think encourages sprawl?

Roads? Sprawl. Transit? Sprawl. New housing? Sprawl.

I seriously think many of you confuse "growth" with "sprawl" most of the time.

Just look at where Calgary is acgtually going to grow the most in the next 20 years. Most new suburban development that I see is very far from the LRT. North of the city (Symons Valley/"Hills" area), the eventual growth out towards Chestermere, all the stuff down Hwy 2...

Yes, if we want to be pedantic, LRT can enable sprawl. So can electricity, telecommunications, and fuel efficient/electric cars. ANYTHING can "enable" sprawl if you look at things that way.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by Riise

Please explain.

I remember one planner or official from the City of Calgary did a presentation in which the claim was made that "Calgary doesn't sprawl".

It sounds preposterous at first but he made the point that by many of the usual definitions what Calgary was doing was growing, not sprawling.

New residential development wasn't unplanned and unserviced, it didn't escape development charges, it didn't "leap frog" (apparently this is evil), it was no longer low-density, etc.


To the extent that Calgary's growth is sprawly, it's more the commercial and even the schools than it is the residential development that is responsible. The difference between Garrison Woods and many new subdivisions can be little more than the lack of a commercial mainstreet in the latter.

Which is not to say that all new residential development is great. Dwelling design often leaves little to be desired and, frankly, I don't see the point of building single detached houses on 25' lots. A bunch of them all together just look stupid; they'd look far better as taller townhouses on the same sized lots. The exact same density (as measured in units) can look more or less sprawly just depending on what the housing looks like.


One definitely does need to define sprawl and how it differs from growth. I've heard people in exurban subdivisions complain about the "sprawl" of a city and what they mean is the growth of tightly-packed houses coming towards them, even though by any rational measure they themselves are far more sprawly than the approaching tide of small houses on the horizon. To them, if those little houses were acreages they might not even think of it as sprawl.

[Riise]

Originally Posted by Dado

I remember one planner or official from the City of Calgary did a presentation in which the claim was made that "Calgary doesn't sprawl".

[...]

One definitely does need to define sprawl and how it differs from growth.

Yup, I remember Bronconnier saying that a few years ago. Technically, it would be correct but it is a cop-out that fails to address the real problem a lot of people are trying to point out; unsustainable growth/development. I think sprawl has become synonymous with unsustainable development/growth for a lot of people, including academics and theorists. We're probably getting OT here, but the other week I was reading an article that suggested growth is inherently unsustainable and we should be attempting to just develop, which is a human right.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Dado

I remember one planner or official from the City of Calgary did a presentation in which the claim was made that "Calgary doesn't sprawl".

It sounds preposterous at first but he made the point that by many of the usual definitions what Calgary was doing was growing, not sprawling.

This is just the City of Calgary playing semantics to try and seem like they are doing the "right thing." Much like greenwashing. But the fact that for decades growth in the inner city of Calgary was in the negative percentages, shows that Calgary wasn't just growing, it was growing in a very particular way. A way I would describe as sprawl.

And Calgary was leapfrogging, as long as you conceive of things like Airdrie, Okotoks and Cochrane as part of the metro area. That is definitely leapfrogging. Leap frogging hardly ever occurs in a unitary municipal area, because the municipality would rather contiguous development occur in order to make efficient use of resources. Rather, it happens a lot in multi-jurisdictional metropolitan areas as the different jurisdictions compete for tax dollars, especially for commercial development (cheap to service and brings in lots of tax revenue).

So, be careful how people define issues with regard to jurisdictions and defined areas. Which is why I hate it when people from Toronto say things like "Toronto isn't sprawling." Toronto may not be sprawling, but when you look at the GTA, that place is a massive sprawling mess. It would be like me saying "Calgary Centre City isn't sprawling." Of course it isn't, it's just all the stuff around it that is. Be careful how people frame arguments and what they present as facts.

I will say it again, and again and again, growth does not mean sprawl. Calgary grew a tremendous amount in the last 10 years, and all of that growth was in new suburban areas. The inner city lost population. That, in anybodies books, is sprawl. Densifying the existing city, building TODs and places like the East Village, while rapidly increasing population in places like the Beltline, that constitutes growth without sprawl. And for decades, and even recently, this City has been pretty hostile to inner city development. The City of Calgary does one thing well, and that is greenfield development. When it comes to anything else, they are completely lost.

Sorry for the rant.

[Ferreth]

Sprawl in my books is simply inefficient growth, where population growth happens using far more land than necessary. If we had a top-notch transit system in the inner city such that you don't need a car (gasp!) people might be more willing to try the apartment lifestyle rather than the suburban lifestyle. I'm thinking a nice under half hour transit ride to work, and a 10 minute walk to the local market, nip at the local pub, restaurant, park. I'm a realist: in Calgary I don't expect many people to give up their cars, but if the typical couple went from cars to car it would make a big difference.

A intensified core with good transit will come naturally over time. Traffic will only get worse no matter how many lanes we add to the Deerfoot - multiplied by further and further commutes from new 'burbs. People will eventually draw a line at 1, 1.5, 2 hour commutes and give up the back yard for a couple of hours back in their day not sitting in a car. I'd rather see the city plan for it and encourage it so the traffic doesn't get so bad.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by fusili

And Calgary was leapfrogging, as long as you conceive of things like Airdrie, Okotoks and Cochrane as part of the metro area. That is definitely leapfrogging. Leap frogging hardly ever occurs in a unitary municipal area, because the municipality would rather contiguous development occur in order to make efficient use of resources. Rather, it happens a lot in multi-jurisdictional metropolitan areas as the different jurisdictions compete for tax dollars, especially for commercial development (cheap to service and brings in lots of tax revenue).

So, be careful how people define issues with regard to jurisdictions and defined areas. Which is why I hate it when people from Toronto say things like "Toronto isn't sprawling." Toronto may not be sprawling, but when you look at the GTA, that place is a massive sprawling mess. It would be like me saying "Calgary Centre City isn't sprawling." Of course it isn't, it's just all the stuff around it that is. Be careful how people frame arguments and what they present as facts.

And this is exactly why I said that the LRT in Calgary is not really contributing to sprawl. It's contributing to outwards GROWTH and there's a huge difference. The recent LRT extensions are not out to Airdrie, or Okotoks, or Cochrane, or Chestermere, or any of the bedroom communities that are truly sprawl. Every new LRT station is built into some of the densest communities in Calgary (short of the Beltline).

When you guys blindly attack any new suburban community as sprawl, and claim that every service provided to that community just encourages/enables sprawl, that's what I mean when I say you don't really distinguish between growth and sprawl.

There's a metric assload of difference between the GTA and Calgary growing radially out by 1km or so.

Do these new communities primarily consist of people who drive cars? Yes, just like EVERY OTHER NEIGHBOURHOOD IN CALGARY (go ahead, find me a large area of Calgary where car owners are in the minority). Are these new communities more car-dependent than inner city neighbourhoods? Yes, just like every single new community in the western world. The further out you go from things, the more likely people need a car to get to things.

When someone makes commuter rail to Cochrane, THAT is most definitely encouraging sprawl. Extending the LRT another km along an existing line into an even denser community encourages more LRT use, and nothing more. On that note, I will somewhat agree with the folks who say we should have gone 4 car first - when Tuscany station opens, the NW train is going to be packed in the mornings by the time it hits Dalhousie.