Calgary Public Transit II

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by 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.

Irony: out at the extreme edge of the city, once the new Tuscany station is built, I'll be under a half hour transit ride to my work downtown, and I'm already a 10 minute walk to the local market (if Sobey's counts), pub, restaurants, and several parks.

Most of the inner city should already be like this though, so I may have read your comment wrong.

[SmokWawelski]

Hey Freeweed, I'm with you on this one

It's growth and not sprawl when we talk about the NW end of the city. A lot of the subdivisions that have been built in recent years have a higher density then the subdivisions of the 60's, 70'sand 80's. Take a look a University Heights and the lots there. I think the lots are 50 or 60 feet wide and well into the 120 or more in length, bungalows..... but because they are only a 15 minute drive from downtown, no one complains about the "sprawl". Yet you take a look at Rocky Ridge, Tuscany or Royal Oak, and you see condo's townhouses and homes blended in between each other but it's farther away and it's "sprawl". I would like to know how many people live per square meter between the older communities and newer, excluding parks, playgrounds and schools.

We want public transit there

Oh, and another thing... I work hard for my money, if I could afford to live a walking distance to downtown I would, but since the downtown scene is a 900sqf two bedroom condo at $500,000 plus condo fees, me and my family of four can not afford it.

Ok I'm done my Friday rant



Just to add to another come

[Riise]

Originally Posted by freeweed

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.

While this outwards growth is more efficient than the City's historical suburban development and neighbouring municipalities' current growth patterns, it is still inefficient and not up to an acceptable level*, which is why it is still referred to as sprawl. Since CTrain service to these neighbourhoods marginally increases their efficiency and sustainability but doesn't assist in fixing their inherent design and sustainability problems, it helps enable further sprawl type growth.

*Both in terms of density AND design.

Originally Posted by SmokWawelski

Take a look a University Heights and the lots there. I think the lots are 50 or 60 feet wide and well into the 120 or more in length, bungalows..... but because they are only a 15 minute drive from downtown, no one complains about the "sprawl".

We want public transit there

Nobody complains about those areas because although they are some of the worst offenders when it comes to sprawl, they were built a long time ago and you can't change the future by fighting in the past.

We want rapid public transit in the Beltline and along growth corridors like Centre Street and Edmonton Trail.

[SmokWawelski]

Riise,

I know that we can not turn back time, but we certainly can take old(er) neighbourhoods and redevelop them. I'm just tired that it's always the new "growth" neighbourhoods that get crapped on. While the NIMBY's in the older "sprawlers" bitch and complain about redevelopment. They complain about infills, they complain about apartments being too tall, they complain about a new bus stop in front of their house (keeping the subject on transit )

[Ferreth]

Originally Posted by SmokWawelski

Riise,

I know that we can not turn back time, but we certainly can take old(er) neighbourhoods and redevelop them. I'm just tired that it's always the new "growth" neighbourhoods that get crapped on. While the NIMBY's in the older "sprawlers" bitch and complain about redevelopment. They complain about infills, they complain about apartments being too tall, they complain about a new bus stop in front of their house (keeping the subject on transit )

If the city tried to expropriate an area in an older community to build houses, it would make the "crap" new growth neighborhoods get look like a tea party. Fortunately, we still have some poorly used low density retail/light industrial (that most importantly does not have the vote) for redevelopment. I'd argue that part of the reason the city is building LRT out to the edge of the city along the current corridors is it's cheap per km compared to any new lines, so it looks good for the $ spent. Any new lines are going to face NIMBY issues of varying degrees (more so if we go cheap surface route, less so if we go subway), and the to take full advantage, we are going to want to have high density development along as much of the line as possible, with more NIMBY issues.

[Ferreth]

Originally Posted by freeweed

Irony: out at the extreme edge of the city, once the new Tuscany station is built, I'll be under a half hour transit ride to my work downtown, and I'm already a 10 minute walk to the local market (if Sobey's counts), pub, restaurants, and several parks.

Most of the inner city should already be like this though, so I may have read your comment wrong.

Yeah, I didn't word that quite right - I was thinking 1/2 transit ride as being 1/2 hour, door to door. Even from Mayland heights, I was looking at close to an hour between walking to the bus, bus ride, walking to the train, train ride, walking to the office. Tuscany seems like one of the better builds in town - smaller retail area in the center that people can walk to.

[fusili]

Maybe I should have been more clear. I have no problem with extensions to Tuscany and Saddleridge, provided they are completed after 4 car train upgrades, and possibly before the SE LRT to Quarry Park, the West LRT to Westbrook and a North Central LRT to Mcknight or so. I really do believe those extensions are needed, but I feel the priorities are all backwards. We are building a commuter transit system without an inner city system in place. Essentially we are building the complements to a system that doesn't exist. It would be like have commuter rail in NYC without the subway, or the Renfe and FGC in Barcelona without the metro.

And I totally agree about NIMBYs in the inner city. Only a few communities welcome a development, Beltline being the biggest exception. Developers and people at the city are continually surprised when Beltline pushes for more density in projects rather than less and fights for increased height. Other communities, not so much. The 1960s and 1970s suburbs are the worst to blame for sprawl, because they have been so resistant to densification.

In my opinion, new suburban growth in Calgary is doing more or less what it needs to do in terms of density, but definitely not in terms of lot and road structure, as it will be difficult to densify in the future. The real problem, IMHO, is the lack of meaningful infill in many inner city communities.

[Aegis]

Been skimming over the debate in recent pages.. but what most of the arguments lack is an acknowledgement that we have the benefit of hindsight now.

There was no money in the 1990s for much of anything, let alone LRT expansion.

It's a shame we have to play catch up, but what's the alternative? Many cities have built projects that turned out to be white elephants under the guise of planning for growth.

Take for example, Montreal's airport authority. When Mirabel was planned and built, Montreal was expected to become a major hub because jet aircraft from Europe needed to stop and re-fuel. So, billions of the dollars of debt were incurred to build a new airport to meet the expected demand. Debt that is still outstanding, now.

What looked like logical planning then turned out to be a major mistake because of a failure to anticipate change. (Aircraft being designed with longer range).

A parallel can be found in LRT development/planning. Why would we build out the LRT to sparsely populated areas now, when we don't know what future demand for housing will be in the future? Expanding to Crowfoot in 1982 may have been pre-mature because there wasn't much past Ranchlands at the time. Could have been built in the 1990s, if there had been money.

The most urgent need now is the SE LRT. Building a subway under 8th ave is a complete and unnecessary waste of money. Keep it above ground to save cost.

[LFRENCH]

Originally Posted by Aegis

Been skimming over the debate in recent pages.. but what most of the arguments lack is an acknowledgement that we have the benefit of hindsight now.

There was no money in the 1990s for much of anything, let alone LRT expansion.

It's a shame we have to play catch up, but what's the alternative? Many cities have built projects that turned out to be white elephants under the guise of planning for growth.

Take for example, Montreal's airport authority. When Mirabel was planned and built, Montreal was expected to become a major hub because jet aircraft from Europe needed to stop and re-fuel. So, billions of the dollars of debt were incurred to build a new airport to meet the expected demand. Debt that is still outstanding, now.

What looked like logical planning then turned out to be a major mistake because of a failure to anticipate change. (Aircraft being designed with longer range).

A parallel can be found in LRT development/planning. Why would we build out the LRT to sparsely populated areas now, when we don't know what future demand for housing will be in the future? Expanding to Crowfoot in 1982 may have been pre-mature because there wasn't much past Ranchlands at the time. Could have been built in the 1990s, if there had been money.

The most urgent need now is the SE LRT. Building a subway under 8th ave is a complete and unnecessary waste of money. Keep it above ground to save cost.

What about Edmonton's LRT, I only lived there briefly but there really didn't seem to be much up near Claireview that was built in the early part of the 1980's

[Aegis]

Originally Posted by LFRENCH

What about Edmonton's LRT, I only lived there briefly but there really didn't seem to be much up near Claireview that was built in the early part of the 1980's

I know nothing about Edmonton's transit system ; I wasn't extending my analysis to all cases of lack of transit expansion in any city, merely pointing out that we have the benefit of hindsight now, and fundamental factors that could influence the decision can change dramatically over time.

[DarkKeyo]

Originally Posted by Aegis

Building a subway under 8th ave is a complete and unnecessary waste of money. Keep it above ground to save cost.

Stop and think about this for a minute. Think about how many people use the trains downtown at rush hour. The system is at capacity now, and it's only going to grow, especially with the new extensions we are already building (and TOD). Route 201 and 202 will have more riders than the SE LRT, which will be getting a subway itself. If we want to have a chance of keeping up with how many people will use the train, we need 4-car trains, at 2-3 minute headways, on separate lines (which are needed for those headways anyways). Three separate routes downtown, only one of which interacts with traffic, will just be able to keep up with demand.

[jeffwhit]

Originally Posted by Aegis

The most urgent need now is the SE LRT. Building a subway under 8th ave is a complete and unnecessary waste of money. Keep it above ground to save cost.

Where do yo propose we run these trains? 7th Ave can't accommodate a new line.

[srperrycgy]

Comparing our successful LRT system to Mirabel Airport is unbelievable.

[Aegis]

Originally Posted by jeffwhit

Where do yo propose we run these trains? 7th Ave can't accommodate a new line.

Make 6th ave an LRT right of way, just like 7th ave.

[Aegis]

Originally Posted by srperrycgy

Comparing our successful LRT system to Mirabel Airport is unbelievable.

Was comparing the planning concepts, not the actual pieces of infrastructure themselves.

[srperrycgy]

Originally Posted by Aegis

Make 6th ave an LRT right of way, just like 7th ave.

Seriously? Why 6th and not 8th? As much as I support transit, that would be disastrous.

[Aegis]

Originally Posted by srperrycgy

Seriously? Why 6th and not 8th? As much as I support transit, that would be disastrous.

Why would it be disastrous?

[Riise]

Originally Posted by SmokWawelski

I'm just tired that it's always the new "growth" neighbourhoods that get crapped on. While the NIMBY's in the older "sprawlers" bitch and complain about redevelopment.

Okay, that's understandable. One of the reasons why critics of sprawl harp on new suburbs and kind of let inner-city NIMBYs off easy is due to the fact that making greenfield growth sustainable is perceived as an easier task than urban regeneration. In other words, it's easier to change what is about to come than what is already there and, as such, the former is where people have chosen to start.

Originally Posted by fusili

In my opinion, new suburban growth in Calgary is doing more or less what it needs to do in terms of density, but definitely not in terms of lot and road structure...

As weak sustainability is better than no sustainability I have to agree with you that we should extend the LRT after other projects have been completed, however, I have to disagree with you about the density of new suburbs. Although it has been increasing, it still isn't high enough and we need to squeeze out a bit more.

Originally Posted by Aegis

Many cities have built projects that turned out to be white elephants under the guise of planning for growth.

...

What looked like logical planning then turned out to be a major mistake because of a failure to anticipate change. (Aircraft being designed with longer range).

A parallel can be found in LRT development/planning. Why would we build out the LRT to sparsely populated areas now, when we don't know what future demand for housing will be in the future? Expanding to Crowfoot in 1982 may have been pre-mature because there wasn't much past Ranchlands at the time. Could have been built in the 1990s, if there had been money.

I won't lie, it is a bit of a risk. However, I think Mirabel and the CTrain are two vastly different creatures. With the LRT the risk isn't as high and could be mitigated.

[srperrycgy]

Originally Posted by Aegis

Why would it be disastrous?

An already constrained road network would be even more stressed by removing another E-W road. Just bury it on 8th already.

[Aegis]

Originally Posted by srperrycgy

An already constrained road network would be even more stressed by removing another E-W road. Just bury it on 8th already.

But the same argument could have been made when 7th ave was designated as an ROW. Burying the line under 8th, or building it above ground on 6th, provides the same utility to the end-user, but the above-ground option the cost is reduced. The extra cost of burying (and maintaining) and underground line would be better invested in more LRT expansion elsewhere.. that's all I'm saying.