Calgary Public Transit II - Page 127

fusili · #**2521** Posted **Mar 8, 2011, 4:38 PM**

In response to your comment (ad libbed) Policy Wonk:

Communities would be up in arms about additional density: All the communities around 16th Avenue have already agreed to additional density on 16th avenue through the 16th Avenue North Corridor Plan. We are talking building heights of 9 to 17 stories along the corridor and FARs of 4.0 to 8.0 (Arriva is 11.0). That is serious density. And all of that was without the promise of better transit.

Turning East on 64th Avenue As others have said, there is a massive ROW on Centre Street north of 64th avenue. An LRT ROW could easily fit here.

Redevelopment is better on the Nose Creek Alignment Because everyone wants to live in Greenview Industrial?

Policy Wonk · #**2522** Posted **Mar 8, 2011, 6:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bassic Lab

The current limitations of 7 Ave will be dealt with by burying the NW-S Line under 8 Ave.

Only partially so, 7th will still have to be addressed in its own right. The frequency that will ultimately be required can't effectively be served at grade in traffic.

Quote:

This will end interlining and effectively double capacity into the core. Having done that we will decide it makes sense to reinitiate interlining and cause ourselves the same problem all over again?

Interlining in and of itself isn't a problem, obstructing "rapid transit" in traffic is the problem.

Quote:

I do agree with you that some bus service would undoubtedly continue along major corridors in North Central Calgary. Just looking at the S LRT would show us the need. There is still bus service along Macleod Trail and the #3 continues to be busy despite operating on a parallel route in close proximity along Elbow Drive.

Great, were making progress.

Quote:

The only negative to the Centre Street Subway is cost. In every other aspect it is equal, if not superior, to the Nose Creek alignment. It would serve the northern suburbs just as well. It would increase the maximum theoretical capacity into the downtown core. It would service the area south of Beddington Trail much better. Those benefits are worth something. Are they worth the increased cost? That is a matter for debate. At a minimum the city should develop some more concrete cost estimates.

This exercise has been repeated over and over again since the 1970's, the horse is bone meal.

Policy Wonk · #**2523** Posted **Mar 8, 2011, 6:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by fusili

Calgary Transit will be starting the public consultation aspect of the Centre Street Subway in fall. That is a fact. They are as much on board about this as we are.

I don't know a soul at Calgary Transit who has expressed any thoughts on the subject other than "Oh no, not this shit again!.

MalcolmTucker · #**2524** Posted **Mar 8, 2011, 6:16 PM**

Quote:

They are as much on board about this as we are.

Remember they are mere bureaucrats, they are the government of the day's humble servants. Also, what agency is going to be against building something awesome for them to run? It is called empire building! I am sure the chief of transit would win an award for building mostly what would be called a subway in a small city and be headhunted by agencies across the continent to do the same for them.

None of that is to say I don't support the project with certain caveats, like supportive zoning, letting the bidder decide where it is cheapest to come above ground Canada Line style.

Just bureaucratic support is a given - look at Toronto's transit agency and how fast they moved from being in median LRT evangelists to subway or nothing supporters with the election of a new Mayor.

Policy Wonk · #**2525** Posted **Mar 8, 2011, 6:18 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by fusili

In response to your comment (ad libbed) Policy Wonk:

Communities would be up in arms about additional density: All the communities around 16th Avenue have already agreed to additional density on 16th avenue through the 16th Avenue North Corridor Plan. We are talking building heights of 9 to 17 stories along the corridor and FARs of 4.0 to 8.0 (Arriva is 11.0). That is serious density. And all of that was without the promise of better transit.

When have zoning concessions ever placated angry residents? Nobody will be seriously paying attention until significant proposals are made.

Quote:

Turning East on 64th Avenue As others have said, there is a massive ROW on Centre Street north of 64th avenue. An LRT ROW could easily fit here.

So, you propose running the C-Train at grade between Centre Street and the various Huntford/Huntridge named residential streets. Just ask Sunnyside - they will LOVE it.

Quote:

Redevelopment is better on the Nose Creek Alignment Because everyone wants to live in Greenview Industrial?

No, because Greenview Industrial will simply cease to exist. That is the nice thing about Greenview it is actually a manageable size for rapid redevelopment as opposed to say the wasteland east of McLeod Trail that is insurmountable.

fusili · #**2526** Posted **Mar 8, 2011, 6:49 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

When have zoning concessions ever placated angry residents? Nobody will be seriously paying attention until significant proposals are made.

It is already approved. The land use redesignations have all gone through and the zoning is in place. I don't seem to grasp your point here. Are you saying people will be up in arms regarding an upzoning, because they weren't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

So, you propose running the C-Train at grade between Centre Street and the various Huntford/Huntridge named residential streets. Just ask Sunnyside - they will LOVE it.

Yup. That is what I am proposing. We ran an LRT up 17th avenue SW as well. If we have to trench, so be it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

No, because Greenview Industrial will simply cease to exist. That is the nice thing about Greenview it is actually a manageable size for rapid redevelopment as opposed to say the wasteland east of McLeod Trail that is insurmountable.

So you are proposing that we buy out every single property owner in that area, or just magically assume they will all come in with land use applications at the same time and all start building at the same time as well? Who would want to be first in in that situation. Let's build a residential condo adjacent to the LRT station, and oh yeah, acres upon acres of adjacent industrial!!

Changing an industrial area to a residential area is nearly impossible. I don't know what makes you think this can happen.

Policy Wonk · #**2527** Posted **Mar 8, 2011, 6:51 PM**

Nevermind, Redundant

Policy Wonk · #**2528** Posted **Mar 8, 2011, 6:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by fusili

It is already approved. The land use redesignations have all gone through and the zoning is in place. I don't seem to grasp your point here. Are you saying people will be up in arms regarding an upzoning, because they weren't.

Indeed, you are absolutely right - residents never complain about projects that conform with zoning. And even if 16th has really drunk the koolaid - what about the rest of the strip?

Quote:

Yup. That is what I am proposing. We ran an LRT up 17th avenue SW as well. If we have to trench, so be it.

Great, you can go door to door delivering the news. Were you around for the fight over the LRT alignment through Sunnyside?

Quote:

So you are proposing that we buy out every single property owner in that area, or just magically assume they will all come in with land use applications at the same time and all start building at the same time as well? Who would want to be first in in that situation. Let's build a residential condo adjacent to the LRT station, and oh yeah, acres upon acres of adjacent industrial!!

Changing an industrial area to a residential area is nearly impossible. I don't know what makes you think this can happen.

Yup, that is why Greenview works - it is an industrial wasteland but it is a small industrial wasteland. Redeveloping industrials areas is nearly impossible because they are huge and there is always another block of blight. Greenview Industrial is small, has explicitly defined boundaries and is already in close proximity to community amenities in the surrounding area.

MalcolmTucker · #**2529** Posted **Mar 8, 2011, 7:11 PM**

Some images from the Sunnyside fight (lifted from Scartissue):

Radley77 · #**2530** Posted **Mar 8, 2011, 7:31 PM**

When I looked at the 16th Avenue ARP, it didn't look like there was much upzoning for residential. At most 6 storeys for residential, and only directly against that block. The vast majority of residential zoning near 16 Ave are still zoned as R-C2. Maybe it just illustrates people are okay with upzoning if they believe it is on the edge of their community...

16 Avenue ARP

Centre and 16 Ave Land Use

sim · #**2531** Posted **Mar 8, 2011, 7:46 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

That is just taking for granted the people will exist to be served, the continued growth of the Northern fringe suburbs isn't in doubt. The serious intensification of the Centre Street corridor is unlikely.

Yes, if that kind of development continues - the kind that isn't at all conducive to efficient, operationally feasible transit. This isn't novel thinking, it's pretty damn obvious. Or... that kind of development is inched further and further away from, and we focus on increasing density - which is much friendlier to transit.

Quote:

Well, the purpose of the North Central line has never been to serve the inner city and the Nose Creek alignment is an extremely economical route to the area it is intended to serve. It will be the cheapest track they have ever put down. It also opens up redevelopment opportunities in the Nose Creek wasteland of warehouses and barren golf courses where there are no NIMBY's to wage war.

True, purposes should never be changed... Nothing changes, and first and initial ideas are always the best.

I also have trouble believing that you actually believe that that area has much hope of redevelopment before, well, about every other single area of the city that is slated for redevelopment. See Edmonton Municipal Airport thread.

Quote:

When 2173?

Even if this is built, it will never go an inch past 64th Ave, the costs of reaching the right-of-way north of Beddington Blvd are insurmountable.

How do you figure? So getting to 64th is fine, but that extra ca 2.5 km is gonna be a killer? Are you basing this off of property buy out, C and C, Boring, Elevating, Trenching?

Quote:

I will be blunter still, the Centre Street subway will NEVER be built. And the great thing about Nose Creek is it wouldn't cost a billion dollars, indeed it will be the cheapest track ever laid.

May well be true. The cheapest and the stupidest. That may have an upside though - it can then be used in the future as an example for what not to do.

Quote:

Nobody is breaking new ground here, these issues were flogged to death twenty five years ago and nothing has really changed in that time other than costs of all kinds have increased.

Lots has changed, well for some people, and it will continue to do so. Transit perception, construction technology, energy prices, development perception, environmental focus, etc.

We are arguing different things anyway. You're arguing what is/was, and I'm arguing what could (or should) be. Change is good.

fusili · #**2532** Posted **Mar 8, 2011, 7:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radley77

When I looked at the 16th Avenue ARP, it didn't look like there was much upzoning for residential. At most 6 storeys for residential, and only directly against that block. The vast majority of residential zoning near 16 Ave are still zoned as R-C2. Maybe it just illustrates people are okay with upzoning if they believe it is on the edge of their community...

16 Avenue ARP

Centre and 16 Ave Land Use

Depends on what you are building. Typical residential floor height is about 3m, and commercial is 4m. So most of the C-COR1 zoning on 16th avenue would get you 1 commercial storey and about 6 residential stories on top of that, if not more.

And it is more important to note the FAR rather than the height, because FAR is what controls density not height. A FAR of 4.0 can get you some considerable density.

kw5150 · #**2533** Posted **Mar 8, 2011, 7:58 PM**

The stations between Stampede and Chinook Centre on the south LRT line seem utterly useless....no? Why would we repeat this condition? It has taken 30 years for just a few condos to be built along that stretch. We need something that serves the people now not later. AND......some solutions only seem to focus on moving people from the suburbs to the city centre.......these people knew what they were getting into when they moved way out there. If I moved to the burbs.........I would EXPECT to drive or take a lengthly bus trip everyday. I wouldn't expect the city to build a train line for me right away. The most successful areas of train lines (interms of vibrancy and popularity) run next to shopping malls, houses, and important venues. The lines running through industrial areas are quickly forgotten.

The best route would be something that runs through the inner city.....then out to the burbs........just as fusili is pointing out. Policy, you have to weigh all of the points. I do like the idea that an industrial area could slowly convert into a mixed commercial - residential area but there are reasons why that area is NOT a residential area right now that may be hard to change until 30 years later. Surely we can find a great solution.

Why is it ok to bulldoze 300 homes for a ring road but doing it for a sensible, semi quiet, train line is not?

OMG....talking in circles and no time to edit.....

Policy Wonk · #**2534** Posted **Mar 8, 2011, 8:08 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Some images from the Sunnyside fight (lifted from Scartissue):

The city tired (unsuccessfully) to get the crown to press sedition charges for that one,

DizzyEdge · #**2535** Posted **Mar 8, 2011, 8:14 PM**

So funny since everyone I know who loves in the area loves that the train is right there.

MalcolmTucker · #**2536** Posted **Mar 8, 2011, 8:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

So funny since everyone I know who loves in the area loves that the train is right there.

The lovers may love, but the haters gonna hate.

DizzyEdge · #**2537** Posted **Mar 8, 2011, 8:56 PM**

Er lives in the area.
.....well probably loves too.

MalcolmTucker · #**2538** Posted **Mar 8, 2011, 9:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

Er lives in the area.
.....well probably loves too.

Where will the children play takes on a whole new meaning ...

kw5150 · #**2539** Posted **Mar 8, 2011, 11:28 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Where will the children play takes on a whole new meaning ...

lol.....that line will never get tiring. Although, oddly enough, I have been factoring that into my daliy thoughts about design. Where will the children play?

Koolfire · #**2540** Posted **Mar 9, 2011, 12:39 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

Mayland Heights is a toilet in its own right with or without the industrial and was there first, that doesn't address the potential for redevelopment of the Greenview Insdustrial area.

Right Greenview Industrial is such a nice area with it dirt roads and active rail line. Greenview with all it's amenities makes it sooo attractive. The grocery store, nope, walking clinic, nope, fitness/gym,nope, school, 1 but Mayland has 3. Greenview has nothing to compare. Like you say the subway won't exist, let me be clear Greenview industrial will not be redeveloped. EVER. History is not on your side. 39th ave station has beautiful homes on the other side of McLeod, it was part of the original LRT line, and there has be no, zip, residental redevelopment in the industrial area.

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against Greenview, it's not a better candidate for redevelopment.