West LRT | 7 Stations | 8.0 KM | In Service

[fusili]

Originally Posted by suburb

200% or maybe even 300% might be okay. 900%, made up of your and my money, needs to be justified in a transparent way. No hand-waving 'will need more parking' business.

This isn't a matter of justifying it politically. It is legal justification. Most of these expropriations are dealt with through the courts.

[Robert in Calgary]

Originally Posted by suburb

WOW! They paid $6,750,000 for a one story church on 1/3 acre that was assessed at $750,000!

These realities reveal the problems with going up centre street for the NCLRT.

Please, get serious. It proves nothing of the sort.

[Aegis]

I think these kind of land spreads (900%, if we take City Assessment as market value, which is in and of itself a questionable assumption) show that there was significant political involvement in this project, ie: it needed to start before Bronco or shortly after Bronco left office. Paying this much over market-value tells me that they needed to acquire the land at any cost, to meet their self-imposed deadline.

[MichaelS]

Originally Posted by fusili

This isn't a matter of justifying it politically. It is legal justification. Most of these expropriations are dealt with through the courts.

In order to save on land acquisition costs, woudl the City ever consider granting an exception to the Land Use Bylaw for something like the church in question, to allow them to get back to what they were, not what they need to be to meet the updated bylaw? So a smaller lot with the same amount of parking spaces as before, and thus less expensive?

[fusili]

Originally Posted by MichaelS

In order to save on land acquisition costs, woudl the City ever consider granting an exception to the Land Use Bylaw for something like the church in question, to allow them to get back to what they were, not what they need to be to meet the updated bylaw? So a smaller lot with the same amount of parking spaces as before, and thus less expensive?

That's not how it works. Expropriation is based on what is called "the highest and best use" of the property. An owner with an empty parcel that is zoned for high-density residential is not just compensated for the bare land, but the added value of the land because of the zoning.
In the case of the church, the church had a development permit with a relaxation for parking which means the city must compensate them for that value of the parking.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by MichaelS

In order to save on land acquisition costs, woudl the City ever consider granting an exception to the Land Use Bylaw for something like the church in question, to allow them to get back to what they were, not what they need to be to meet the updated bylaw? So a smaller lot with the same amount of parking spaces as before, and thus less expensive?

I think to get passed development appeals a change like that would likely have to be applied on a blanket basis across the city, which would lower the value of the properties in question.

I'm sure the city had many lawyers look at various options and moved forward with what they thought would be cheapest and legal.

[You Need A Thneed]

Originally Posted by suburb

200% or maybe even 300% might be okay. 900%, made up of your and my money, needs to be justified in a transparent way. No hand-waving 'will need more parking' business.

Like I said, 200-300% barely buys a lot big enough to provide the required parking under the new bylaw. Relaxations could be made if the number were close, but you would have to grant something like a 75% relaxation, which would definitely lead to problems in a new location.

Let's say that the church had 200 people, they would require 50 parking spots. You can't fit 50 parking spots on their current lot, if the whole thing was parking. The construction cost of a new building of the same size is going to take up at least the $750,000 assessed value, and that doesn't include purchasing a new lot, which would have to be at minimum 3 times larger than the previous one. Also, you have to have 40% of the lot landscaped, ie not parking and not building.

300% of the assessed value here would have been the absolute minimum required. It's a totally different situation for a residential lot, where land use changes haven't completely changed the requirements.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by MichaelS

In order to save on land acquisition costs, woudl the City ever consider granting an exception to the Land Use Bylaw for something like the church in question, to allow them to get back to what they were, not what they need to be to meet the updated bylaw? So a smaller lot with the same amount of parking spaces as before, and thus less expensive?

What the city can do, and does, is it can "freeze" development by not changing the zoning on the land. This keeps land prices low. In fact, this is what happened with Nose Hill. The city wanted to purchase the land for a park, which was just zoned for agricultural residential, but didn't have enough money to do so. The landowner wanted to rezone (either to develop, or probably just to increase the value of the land), but the city refused the rezoning. The landowner sued, arguing that by refusing to rezone the land, the city was prohibiting development. The City won, and bought the property a few years later at a lower cost.

[MichaelS]

Thanks for the input and responses guys. Helps clear things up for me.

[suburb]

Originally Posted by You Need A Thneed

Like I said, 200-300% barely buys a lot big enough to provide the required parking under the new bylaw. Relaxations could be made if the number were close, but you would have to grant something like a 75% relaxation, which would definitely lead to problems in a new location.

Let's say that the church had 200 people, they would require 50 parking spots. You can't fit 50 parking spots on their current lot, if the whole thing was parking. The construction cost of a new building of the same size is going to take up at least the $750,000 assessed value, and that doesn't include purchasing a new lot, which would have to be at minimum 3 times larger than the previous one. Also, you have to have 40% of the lot landscaped, ie not parking and not building.

300% of the assessed value here would have been the absolute minimum required. It's a totally different situation for a residential lot, where land use changes haven't completely changed the requirements.

Make it 450% of the assessed value. That would still be HALF of what they paid.

[danofkent]

Originally Posted by fusili

The city now as a practice expropriates more land than is necessary for actual construction, builds the infrastructure and sells it at a profit. The city will expropriate a few lots in to each block extra, and the value of these properties after the construction is massive. Heck, the city might even initiate a rezoning process for these parcels.

There are some lots here and there, but it is far from the systematic over-expropriation that you suggest.

Around 45 St station, for instance, the city owns one house (currently rented out) on 47 St plus the small triangle of land which was initially to be the approach to the station, before it was relocated west of 45 St.

[You Need A Thneed]

Originally Posted by suburb

Make it 450% of the assessed value. That would still be HALF of what they paid.

Still way too many variables to just throw out a number like that. For now, we'll have to trust the city's lawyers.

I don't think that they are too far off, though its really hard to say either way without having more information.

Here's my guesses though:

Land cost: $1-1.5 million
Construction cost $1.5-$2.5 million (really rough guesses)

+
Hassle of moving +
moving cost +
Temporary rental +
hassle of temporary rental +
(as article mentioned) cost of shuttle to bring parishioners to new church +
If church was starting to think about expansion, you can't force them to get a site and build a building that would only meet current needs. Some allowance would have to be made - though obviously the allowance shouldn't cover the whole extra amount for future expansion.

[suburb]

Originally Posted by You Need A Thneed

Still way too many variables to just throw out a number like that.

I don't disagree with you. That is why several posts ago I said that after it goes beyond 200% or maybe 300% there needs to be transparency on the process that led to a 900% payout.

Originally Posted by You Need A Thneed

For now, we'll have to trust the city's lawyers.

Problem with lawyers is that they are not the ones paying the bill. I think there needs to be a report on these transactions - especially in light of other land / building moves under the prior council's watch.

Originally Posted by You Need A Thneed

If church was starting to think about expansion ... Some allowance would have to be made

Why? If they are thinking of expansion prior to this, they would have only stood to make what they could sell the plot of land for - which would be close to city assessment if that.

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by You Need A Thneed

The city paid 44 million for 5 blocks of ROW from CP rail. How much would it cost to buy up ROW from CP Rail to get from Memorial all the way up to 96th Ave? Roughly 10 kms.

I think that's what Jeffwhit was getting at.

If CPR charged as much, per kilometre, for Nose Creek land as they did for Sunalta land we would be paying them something like half a billion dollars for the ROW. Now that is unlikely to be the case, the land really ought not cost as much there, but a competition for space could also develop with the province for a commuter/high speed rail ROW. If a number like that ends up being what CP wants then it really makes the Nose Creek option deeply flawed. A half billion could buy a fair chunk of cut and cover tunnel. The only expropriation necessary would generally, outside of possible complications around 16 Ave, entail a single house at each station for an entrance. I would be shocked if it couldn't be done for five million.

If anything, expensive expropriations would add weight to any plan that entails using existing city ROWs, even if that means the expense of building above or below city streets.

[5seconds]

Originally Posted by Bassic Lab

A half billion could buy a fair chunk of cut and cover tunnel. The only expropriation necessary would generally, outside of possible complications around 16 Ave, entail a single house at each station for an entrance. I would be shocked if it couldn't be done for five million.

Where would you cut and cover though? Centre street itself? How long would that take? And how much of the street would be closed?

In the long run, would it make more sense to buy the buildings on one side, cut + cover, and then re-sell the land on top? With the extra value of transit in the area, the city could sell the land for a profit a couple of years down the road...?

I don't really know, just thinking out loud.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by 5seconds

Where would you cut and cover though? Centre street itself? How long would that take? And how much of the street would be closed?

In the long run, would it make more sense to buy the buildings on one side, cut + cover, and then re-sell the land on top? With the extra value of transit in the area, the city could sell the land for a profit a couple of years down the road...?

I don't really know, just thinking out loud.

If there were to be a Subway under Centre Street, we would have to consider that a TBM would probably have to be used to go under the river, which may mean that the rest of the Subway would be tunneled using the TBM. That could help reduce expropriation costs south of 16th street.

That being said, it isn't inconceivable to have an elevated portion from say, 16th to 64th, or 28th to 64th or any combination thereof.

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by 5seconds

Where would you cut and cover though? Centre street itself? How long would that take? And how much of the street would be closed?

In the long run, would it make more sense to buy the buildings on one side, cut + cover, and then re-sell the land on top? With the extra value of transit in the area, the city could sell the land for a profit a couple of years down the road...?

I don't really know, just thinking out loud.

Well the south portion, under the river and north to just past 16th, would need to be bored to deal with the elevation change. I would then cut and cover the rest, it would likely take out the two centre lanes for most of the route. This would be phased to ensure that something like half of the perpendicular roads would stay open to allow people to make connections across Centre Street. Station locations would likely require pits to be dug across all four lanes. This could be dealt with by using a series of temporary one way detours. It would definitely affect traffic but a lot could be rerouted down 4 St, 12 Ave, 1 St, and 7 Ave. It shouldn't be as painful as when the Centre Street bridge itself was closed a few years back.

I personally favour keeping the route underground until it crosses Beddington Trail and can then use the existing ROW, along with stations every half mile. Others favour elevated, or surface running from a given point along the route and fewer stations.

[Blue_Cypress]

You want to tbm under the river and up through the north hill? There's a word for that: Arduous. That'll easily run 2 years behind whatever schedule you put it on.

[albertantraingeek]

Originally Posted by Bassic Lab

If CPR charged as much, per kilometre, for Nose Creek land as they did for Sunalta land we would be paying them something like half a billion dollars for the ROW.

It's extremly rare for RRs to sell the land that they own unless it is being abandoned. Even for renting land, it's not very common practice in the RR industry.

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by Blue_Cypress

You want to tbm under the river and up through the north hill? There's a word for that: Arduous. That'll easily run 2 years behind whatever schedule you put it on.

There is no real way to tunnel under a river without a TBM. I have no particular issue with having the cut and cover section start closer to the river or the bored section extending further north. I simply picked the vicinity of just 16 Ave because, my understanding of the engineering, leads me to believe that it would be the most feasible and least expensive option. I don't think the LRVs could manage the kind of grade that it would take to have a tunnel climb from below the river to an elevation suitable for cut and cover much further south than that.

I see no reason why it would add significant delays to the project. We will be digging a pit in Eau Claire for the (planned) terminal station of the SE LRT. It would not be that difficult to include provisions for lowering the machine there. The project, as I envision it, would essentially be a replication of Vancouver's Canada Line. It included a bored tunnel under downtown and across False Creek, followed by a length of cut and cover roughly equivalent to the distance from 16 Ave to Beddington Trail. The cost should be quite comparable, when adjusted for inflation and local conditions; we would likely want longer station platforms, driving up the cost, but we would not need the additional ~10 km of elevated track, allowing for some savings. In fact if, for whatever bizarre reason, we were inclined to include an airport connection along 96 Ave/Airport Trail, then it would basically be Calgary's Canada Line. If other cities can manage it, then I am sure Calgary can too.

The thing is, our ridership actually justifies projects of this scope. Compared to our North American peers, the C-Train sees ridership per route mile for in excess of any other surface LRT and quite comparable to, if not better than, many American subway systems like Washington, Atlanta, Los Angeles, and Baltimore. The only North American LRT systems that are really in Calgary's league are Monterrey's, in which one line is underground and the other is elevated, and Boston's Green Line, which includes significant underground portions. If we were an American city, the kind of ridership we could estimate would have the Feds giving us billions for Subways.