Calgary Public Transit II

[MalcolmTucker]

Have to weigh it all in 'technology neutral tender'. I doubt the longer length for a given capacity of LRV would make it worthwhile, especially if the LRVs have to fit within a standard traffic lane width (if a staged approach is taken, which I doubt will happen).

[Doug]

How much headcount would the City need to whack to pay for SELRT? More funding from higher levels of government won't happen anytime soon and higher fuel taxes would be political suicide.

[fusili]

Interesting article....

Let the north-central LRT leg go first? Them’s fighting words to S.E. residents

Battle lines being drawn over the next CTrain expansion

By Jason Markusoff, Calgary Herald July 17, 2012

Despite the long-standing cries from Douglasdale and McKenzie Towne, the southeast LRT is no shoo-in as the next CTrain expansion project.

The numbers — both city council votes and otherwise — could tip the scales in favour of a north-central line up Centre Street N. becoming the next route after the west LRT is complete.

A council committee debates Wednesday a report predicting the southeast route may not be finished down to Seton until 2039. But residents in both corridors may also learn their place in the light rail pecking order this fall, when a draft priority list comes out.


Read more: http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/north+...sidents/6948924/story.html#ixzz20zV7F5UP

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/calgar...hting+words+residents/6948924/story.html

[jeffwhit]

Originally Posted by You Need A Thneed

The bombardier looks too small for the SE or NC LRT. That aisle is pretty narrow.

It might be a good vehicle for the 17th AVE SE corridor transit way.

I would not want the C train to be any narrower feeling. The Montreal Metro and the Skytrain, for example are horribly cramped.

[polishavenger]

Originally Posted by fusili

Interesting article....



http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/calgar...hting+words+residents/6948924/story.html

I wonder how palatable it would be to do a special levy for the catchment area for each line in order to raise funds to build the LRT faster. After the line is built, revenues from operations could be used to pay back the home owners over time, or could go against property taxes for a few years.

[Calgarian]

So what they are considering for the SE LRT is to build a ROW that would just have busses running until such time as there is the demand / financing to convert it to an LRT line? I think this is a great idea actually.

[eggbert]

My big question with this idea is when they decide to start building the LRT what happens to the buses using the ROW for the years and years of construction?

[shreddog]

Originally Posted by eggbert

My big question with this idea is when they decide to start building the LRT what happens to the buses using the ROW for the years and years of construction?

Someday Ottawa may be able to answer that exact question for us! Hopefully sooner than later.

[Calgarian]

Originally Posted by eggbert

My big question with this idea is when they decide to start building the LRT what happens to the buses using the ROW for the years and years of construction?

I would guess they would stop servicing the part of the ROW that is under construction. Probably would transfer to the regular road network while the first few stations are u/c.

[Offside_Ref]

Originally Posted by You Need A Thneed

Updates on the City's webpage:

7th Ave between 8th and 11th Update - July 9

Closure of 10th St West info

Downtown West - Kerby Station update

7th Ave refurb phase 4 update

Thanks for the heads up. Does anyone know how they're going to turn around City Centre - McKnight trains? I couldn't see anything in those documents. If they're realigning the tracks west of 9th, does that mean the crossover would be out of commission? The only way of operating, from what I can tell, is have every westbound train use the NW (or do a turn-back at Sunnyside, which would be kind of weird). If so, 2 minute rush hour frequency sounds like a sweet deal for NW riders. Though, I can't imagine residents next to the line or those turning left from 19th St to 14th Ave (Lions Park) would like it as much.

[mersar]

Originally Posted by Offside_Ref

Thanks for the heads up. Does anyone know how they're going to turn around City Centre - McKnight trains? I couldn't see anything in those documents. If they're realigning the tracks west of 9th, does that mean the crossover would be out of commission? The only way of operating, from what I can tell, is have every westbound train use the NW (or do a turn-back at Sunnyside, which would be kind of weird). If so, 2 minute rush hour frequency sounds like a sweet deal for NW riders. Though, I can't imagine residents next to the line or those turning left from 19th St to 14th Ave (Lions Park) would like it as much.

Only the one track west of 9th needs to be realigned, the other is on the right alignment and already connected to the new track west of 10th. The last plan I'd heard was they were going to setup a temporary platform for the operator to be able to switch ends (probably made of scafollding) along the track that doesn't need to be relocated (I believe its the outbound track along the north side of the 7th) and then have the trains unload fully at 7th, go past 9th and use the crossover there, then go back to 8th and head back to the NE.

[Cage]

Originally Posted by polishavenger

I wonder how palatable it would be to do a special levy for the catchment area for each line in order to raise funds to build the LRT faster. After the line is built, revenues from operations could be used to pay back the home owners over time, or could go against property taxes for a few years.

The special levy would require approximately $25,000 per home in the NC and SE area (based on TransitCamps numbers of following catchment area assumptions SE = 90K, NC 160k, 2 residents per home, plus an assumed 3B cost for the entire line). Further Calgary transit only recieves 47% of funds from the fare/customers, so it is not realistic that there would be excess funds to pay back the owners over time.

The SE LRT will always have the problem of economics and ridership for Inglewood to Douglasdale portion. NC LRT option does not have this problem.

[Cage]

Originally Posted by polishavenger

I wonder how palatable it would be to do a special levy for the catchment area for each line in order to raise funds to build the LRT faster. After the line is built, revenues from operations could be used to pay back the home owners over time, or could go against property taxes for a few years.

2nd follow-up. If you split the two lines, it might be possible to get the NC LRT line built with a special levy of 10-12k per household and even break down lower than 10k if one includes some of the areas conservatively allocated to the NW LRT catchment area by Transit Camp. At this point the special levy might be attractive to get NCLRT residents, especially those who all ready utilize BRT.

A combined special levy for NC and SE portions uses the greater catchment area in the North to subsidise the Industrial catchment area (bonnybrook, Alyth, etc) in the SE line. Any attempt to go through the special levy will split the city into North and South, like the US civil war the south is really going to lose badly under the present case scenario.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by Cage

The special levy would require approximately $25,000 per home in the NC and SE area (based on TransitCamps numbers of following catchment area assumptions SE = 90K, NC 160k, 2 residents per home, plus an assumed 3B cost for the entire line). Further Calgary transit only recieves 47% of funds from the fare/customers, so it is not realistic that there would be excess funds to pay back the owners over time.

The SE LRT will always have the problem of economics and ridership for Inglewood to Douglasdale portion. NC LRT option does not have this problem.

If they used the existing property tax system (residential and commercial) that $ figure would come down significantly. I wonder what a 10% increase in the property tax rate for the catchment area would raise over a couple of years.

Why would the city want to pay back a levy that built something that increased property values and made your home more desirable? Also as Cage mentioned there isn't money in the system to pay people back.

[CTrainDude]

Originally Posted by mersar

Only the one track west of 9th needs to be realigned, the other is on the right alignment and already connected to the new track west of 10th. The last plan I'd heard was they were going to setup a temporary platform for the operator to be able to switch ends (probably made of scafollding) along the track that doesn't need to be relocated (I believe its the outbound track along the north side of the 7th) and then have the trains unload fully at 7th, go past 9th and use the crossover there, then go back to 8th and head back to the NE.

You're absolutely bang on. They are replacing the north rails this weekend (just a replacment of old rails in the same spot). In September, they will be removing 10th Street Station and building motorman access stairs so the operator can continue to change ends where 10th Street used to be, but customers can not board or disembark there. Also in September, they'll be re-aligning the south rail and catenary to bring it in line with the inbound track from West LRT. This area will continue to be the end terminal for Trains and Operators until West LRT opens, save for a few weekend closures.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by polishavenger

I wonder how palatable it would be to do a special levy for the catchment area for each line in order to raise funds to build the LRT faster. After the line is built, revenues from operations could be used to pay back the home owners over time, or could go against property taxes for a few years.

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

If they used the existing property tax system (residential and commercial) that $ figure would come down significantly. I wonder what a 10% increase in the property tax rate for the catchment area would raise over a couple of years.

Why would the city want to pay back a levy that built something that increased property values and made your home more desirable? Also as Cage mentioned there isn't money in the system to pay people back.

This is possible, but it is patently unfair unless you apply similar levies to areas with existing higher order transit as well.

To make it less burdensome to existing home owners, you could put in land transfer taxes on a sliding scale away from higher order corridors, so the city can capture some of the value the infrastructure created after the fact. Would be immensely controversial however. Could even have it that each property only pays the tax the first time it is sold after construction is done.

Still, not very fair.

[Cage]

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

If they used the existing property tax system (residential and commercial) that $ figure would come down significantly. I wonder what a 10% increase in the property tax rate for the catchment area would raise over a couple of years.

Why would the city want to pay back a levy that built something that increased property values and made your home more desirable? Also as Cage mentioned there isn't money in the system to pay people back.

According to the City/s Annual Report for fiscal 2011, Net taxes available for municpal purpose amounted to 1.467 billion. This line item covers: property taxes, community revitalization levy, business taxes, revenue in lieu of taxes, and local improvement levies and special taxes LESS provincial portion of property taxes.

For arguement sake lets put the catchment area at a generous 40% of total city area. A 10% property tax increase (round up to 150 million) at 40% catchment area would yield additional revenue of $60 million assuming you could get the province to forgo its 1/2 share of revenue increase. Or about 50 years to pay off the debt associated with the SE/NC LRT.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

This is possible, but it is patently unfair unless you apply similar levies to areas with existing higher order transit as well.

To make it less burdensome to existing home owners, you could put in land transfer taxes on a sliding scale away from higher order corridors, so the city can capture some of the value the infrastructure created after the fact. Would be immensely controversial however. Could even have it that each property only pays the tax the first time it is sold after construction is done.

Still, not very fair.

I don't think people would be too worried about fairness if they got it years sooner than they would otherwise.

Don't people closer to higher order transit already pay a premium due to the generally increased property values around these corridors?

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

I don't think people would be too worried about fairness if they got it years sooner than they would otherwise.

Don't people closer to higher order transit already pay a premium due to the generally increased property values around these corridors?

Yes. A zoned property transfer tax would transfer some of that value increase into the public purse. Economics says the owners would bare the burden of the tax, not the purchaser. Not that it is a good idea.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Cage

According to the City/s Annual Report for fiscal 2011, Net taxes available for municpal purpose amounted to 1.467 billion. This line item covers: property taxes, community revitalization levy, business taxes, revenue in lieu of taxes, and local improvement levies and special taxes LESS provincial portion of property taxes.

For arguement sake lets put the catchment area at a generous 40% of total city area. A 10% property tax increase (round up to 150 million) at 40% catchment area would yield additional revenue of $60 million assuming you could get the province to forgo its 1/2 share of revenue increase. Or about 50 years to pay off the debt associated with the SE/NC LRT.

The city increasing the mill rate changes nothing about the rate that is directed to the coffers of the school boards. The rate is set independently.