Calgary Public Transit II

[andasen]

Originally Posted by RyLucky

I think you are right that eventually this area will be a great spot, but right now there are a few problems, some of which have easy solutions:
1) the impound lot is taking up a ton of land and is turbo-ugly. Move it.
2) Macleod is one of the most turbo-ugly roads in the city. Spruce it up with trees, slow traffic, encourage a better street environment, and allow more cross traffic. As is, it is a giant pain for a pedestrian to cross.

There was talk last year, i think, of a mission road ARP. It was defeated and dismissed as impractical and naive to the market. (Maybe someone else on here knows the details better). Now, there is new life for development on Mission road again, but we'll see.

Prelimary findings of the Mission road Innovation project had been put in place and conceptual plans had been approved and are now in place informing future development but the further phases of the project were canceled upon discovery of the costs getting out of control.

After that descision the city and the community put their heads together and created a solution which was passed in its entirety updating the Parkhill/Stanley Park ASP paving the way for density increases along Mission Road and changes to the commercial on the west side of Macleod in the Area.

Reference Parkhill/Stanley Park ASP

[RyLucky]

Thanks, Andason.

On a related note, why must we zone around LRT stations? Now, I understand west of Macleod, people do not want their SFH surround on 3 sides by condo towers. Likewise, I understand people not wanting an oil refinery built next door, and I can see why we should prevent people from building houses next to existing heavy industries where there is a potential health risk. I can even see why some developments can deteriorate the quality of a neighbourhood with too much noise, traffic, etc. However, is it really a big deal if Axe Music (east of Macleod) decides to redevelop to a hotel, condo, or office? Why must developers go through the rezoning process for something like this? In the presence of strong capital markets, I can't see why low-density developments near dont redevelop. I believe if we removed some of the regulation, (never thought id say this) the invisible hand of the market would find a more efficient way. Is the land value cost prohibitive to turnover? Perhaps, but as G pointed out, higher density should provide higher return. I think if all the low density industrial stuff around 39th ave was rezoned CC-X, we would see an increase in land value because it would suddenly be more appealing to a wider market of buyers. This may driver some owners out, but so be it. Let them profit by selling the land to buyers who will maximize density (and thus ROI).

[YYCguys]

If 39th Ave SW were to be closed in both directions at the rail tracks, in order to accomodate a 4 car station, a nice station area could be developed west of the tracks. I would love to see a plaza, grass, trees, etc and other hard development such shops, cafes, along the newly created cul de sac ending in the level station. It would be a lovely stroll to and from the Parkhill/Mission Road area.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by RyLucky

Thanks, Andason.

On a related note, why must we zone around LRT stations? Now, I understand west of Macleod, people do not want their SFH surround on 3 sides by condo towers. Likewise, I understand people not wanting an oil refinery built next door, and I can see why we should prevent people from building houses next to existing heavy industries where there is a potential health risk. I can even see why some developments can deteriorate the quality of a neighbourhood with too much noise, traffic, etc. However, is it really a big deal if Axe Music (east of Macleod) decides to redevelop to a hotel, condo, or office? Why must developers go through the rezoning process for something like this? In the presence of strong capital markets, I can't see why low-density developments near dont redevelop. I believe if we removed some of the regulation, (never thought id say this) the invisible hand of the market would find a more efficient way. Is the land value cost prohibitive to turnover? Perhaps, but as G pointed out, higher density should provide higher return. I think if all the low density industrial stuff around 39th ave was rezoned CC-X, we would see an increase in land value because it would suddenly be more appealing to a wider market of buyers. This may driver some owners out, but so be it. Let them profit by selling the land to buyers who will maximize density (and thus ROI).

Great point. The city really needs to take initiative to rezone (redesignate really) properties rather than relying on landowner initiated rezoning to occur. Places like 16th avenue have been rezoned by the city, but there are a lot more places that could use more density, and not on a parcel-by-parcel basis. You are absolutely right regarding the regulation that gets in the way of development, it is pretty constraining, especially for good, dense, mixed use stuff.

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by RyLucky

Thanks, Andason.

On a related note, why must we zone around LRT stations? Now, I understand west of Macleod, people do not want their SFH surround on 3 sides by condo towers. Likewise, I understand people not wanting an oil refinery built next door, and I can see why we should prevent people from building houses next to existing heavy industries where there is a potential health risk. I can even see why some developments can deteriorate the quality of a neighbourhood with too much noise, traffic, etc. However, is it really a big deal if Axe Music (east of Macleod) decides to redevelop to a hotel, condo, or office? Why must developers go through the rezoning process for something like this? In the presence of strong capital markets, I can't see why low-density developments near dont redevelop. I believe if we removed some of the regulation, (never thought id say this) the invisible hand of the market would find a more efficient way. Is the land value cost prohibitive to turnover? Perhaps, but as G pointed out, higher density should provide higher return. I think if all the low density industrial stuff around 39th ave was rezoned CC-X, we would see an increase in land value because it would suddenly be more appealing to a wider market of buyers. This may driver some owners out, but so be it. Let them profit by selling the land to buyers who will maximize density (and thus ROI).

Zoning represents the most obvious and physical example of over regulation. Started as a good idea (i.e. no oil refineries next to orphanages, playgrounds etc.) but quickly turned into a rampant out of control one. New rules are created, never taken away, adding to the complexity and cost for developers and the city alike. Mandatory or minimum lots sizes, community charters and the countless other roadblocks to redevelop directly add cost and difficultly to redevelopment; allowing only a few politically well-connected developers to navigate the system, resulting in more inferior, pricier developments, and less creative and inclusive ones to all income groups.

Loosening the regulation does not mean remove them; some rules are important. But the problems that zoning was created for to solve has changed and evolved, the zoning process must change with it. I do think we are moving in the right direction (bumps for density in TOD zones etc.) but the process is still cumbersome.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by MasterG

Zoning represents the most obvious and physical example of over regulation. Started as a good idea (i.e. no oil refineries next to orphanages, playgrounds etc.) but quickly turned into a rampant out of control one. New rules are created, never taken away, adding to the complexity and cost for developers and the city alike. Mandatory or minimum lots sizes, community charters and the countless other roadblocks to redevelop directly add cost and difficultly to redevelopment; allowing only a few politically well-connected developers to navigate the system, resulting in more inferior, pricier developments, and less creative and inclusive ones to all income groups.

Loosening the regulation does not mean remove them; some rules are important. But the problems that zoning was created for to solve has changed and evolved, the zoning process must change with it. I do think we are moving in the right direction (bumps for density in TOD zones etc.) but the process is still cumbersome.

Zoning itself isn't necessarily over regulatory. Our land use bylaw sure is though. When it is almost 800 pages long and there are over 20 residential districts alone: R-(C)1(N)(L)(s) (i.e there are 5 one lot residential districts), R-(C)2(M), R-MH, R-CH, M-(C)1, M-(C)G, M-(C)2, M-H1, M-H2, M-H3, M-X1, M-X2), you know it is over burden some (and those don't even include the Beltline, East Village, or Centre City land use districts).

In my opinion, we use zoning way too much to try and control outcomes (creating mixed use communities, etc), when the market can deliver those outcomes much better and more efficiently.

[Riise]

Originally Posted by RyLucky

I can even see why some developments can deteriorate the quality of a neighbourhood with too much noise, traffic, etc. However, is it really a big deal if Axe Music (east of Macleod) decides to redevelop to a hotel, condo, or office? Why must developers go through the rezoning process for something like this? In the presence of strong capital markets, I can't see why low-density developments near dont redevelop. I believe if we removed some of the regulation, (never thought id say this) the invisible hand of the market would find a more efficient way. Is the land value cost prohibitive to turnover?

The planning system in the U.K. is not based upon land use zoning, however, Use Classes were added in the 90's to facilitate minor changes in land uses.

Use Class Order
Some uses of land are so similar, in planning land-use terms, that to require planning permission to change between them might be considered as overly burdensome. Therefore the 1990 Act excludes from the definition of development any change of use where both the existing and proposed uses fall within the same class of use as defined by the Order.

Source: Planning-Applications.co.uk

Although this may not help with redevelopment requiring reconstruction, it could be expanded and tailored for different situations.

Personally, I'd like to see the City use Simplified Planning Zones (SPZs) in areas where they would like to induce a certain type of development. Additionally, they could take a page from the British planning book and judge planning applications solely on their adherence and compliance with the local development plan (i.e. abandon land use zoning in these areas). The latter could get very complicated though.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Riise

The planning system in the U.K. is not based upon land use zoning, however, Use Classes were added in the 90's to facilitate minor changes in land uses.



Although this may not help with redevelopment requiring reconstruction, it could be expanded and tailored for different situations.

Personally, I'd like to see the City use Simplified Planning Zones (SPZs) in areas where they would like to induce a certain type of development. Additionally, they could take a page from the British planning book and judge planning applications solely on their adherence and compliance with the local development plan (i.e. abandon land use zoning in these areas). The latter could get very complicated though.

There is a lot to be said for the British system. A former British colleague told me in the UK they basically had five types of uses: residential, office, shops, industrial and miscellaneous. I think we have over 125 in our land use bylaw. That might be a bit much.

[Riise]

Originally Posted by fusili

There is a lot to be said for the British system. A former British colleague told me in the UK they basically had five types of uses: residential, office, shops, industrial and miscellaneous. I think we have over 125 in our land use bylaw. That might be a bit much.

One of the issues with the British system is that it can take some time due to negotiations and the fact that decisions are based on planners' discretion. However, a majority of the delays might be due to Section 106 agreements, which are basically individual development impact fee agreements. If these were not an issue, which is the case in Calgary as the City uses a pre-defined impact fee system, the system could minimize delays by ensuring their development plans are airtight.

As I mentioned earlier, I am a big fan of SPZs as I believe they are absolutely genius. They can be quite flexible and could work within Calgary’s current system. Here’s a brief description:

PPG 5: Simplified Planning Zones

SPZs achieve their effect by granting planning permission for specified types of development. Conforming schemes can go ahead without a separate planning application being made, thus providing speed and certainty for all parties.

Source: Planning Portal

One way in which I can see SPZs being utilized in Calgary is via a process where the City consults the local community on what they would want in a local ARP or Station Area Plan; as they did with Banff Trail. After identifying the type of development desired they would draw up various Direct Control Districts and include those in an SPZ where conforming applications would have priority and automatic approval.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Riise

One of the issues with the British system is that it can take some time due to negotiations and the fact that decisions are based on planners' discretion. However, a majority of the delays might be due to Section 106 agreements, which are basically individual development impact fee agreements. If these were not an issue, which is the case in Calgary as the City uses a pre-defined impact fee system, the system could minimize delays by ensuring their development plans are airtight.

As I mentioned earlier, I am a big fan of SPZs as I believe they are absolutely genius. They can be quite flexible and could work within Calgary’s current system. Here’s a brief description:



One way in which I can see SPZs being utilized in Calgary is via a process where the City consults the local community on what they would want in a local ARP or Station Area Plan; as they did with Banff Trail. After identifying the type of development desired they would draw up various Direct Control Districts and include those in an SPZ where conforming applications would have priority and automatic approval.

Basically what would be a permitted use development here. The incorporation of the contextual rules for single and semi-detached dwellings, which are now a permitted use, was revolutionary for infill development in Calgary. The number of applications for infill has absolutely skyrocketed. Imagine if we did this for townhouses, mixed use mid-rise and even highrises in certain districts. It would be a massive improvement.

EDIT- This really belongs in the Construction Thread.

[RyLucky]

Interesting, I'll have to read up on SPZs. In a brownfield low density industrial or commercial development (such as around 39th), IMO the only considerations should be tenant health&safety and neighbourhood design/building codes. The type of tenant is irrelevant unless they are a nightclub, a heavy polluter, or the like. These kinds of tenants should only be permitted in certain districts, but everyone else can build where they like. Of course, if you want to open a grocery store, you'll need a loading, and if you want to open a manufacturing plant, you may need special considerations for worker safety and should not be allowed if you produce a lot of smells and noise that will invade the neighbourhood. It totally depends on the kind and scale of manufacturer though, and if you meet certain standards you should absolutely be allowed to open up between condos, hotels, and offices (if you can afford it - you may need to retail from your plant!). Macleod Trail itself is probably the worst source of noise and pollution in the area.

Why am I now talking about allowing manufacturers into residential and commercial districts? Because I am trying to illustrate that zoning causes us to paint a variety of developments with the same brush. The economy has changed a lot since zoning came in 70 years ago. What we should really care about are the metrics (noise, pollution, etc), rather than the 'type' of occupant.

[Northski]

Originally Posted by fusili

Basically what would be a permitted use development here. The incorporation of the contextual rules for single and semi-detached dwellings, which are now a permitted use, was revolutionary for infill development in Calgary. The number of applications for infill has absolutely skyrocketed. Imagine if we did this for townhouses, mixed use mid-rise and even highrises in certain districts. It would be a massive improvement.

EDIT- This really belongs in the Construction Thread.

Edmonton is proposing to make some types of multifamily permited use...not sure what the status the changes are.

http://www.edmonton.ca/city_government/documents/Small_Scale_Zones_Open_House_Display_Boards.pdf

http://www.edmonton.ca/city_government/urban_planning_and_design/low-density-residential-zones.aspx

[Northski]

Originally Posted by fusili

There is a lot to be said for the British system. A former British colleague told me in the UK they basically had five types of uses: residential, office, shops, industrial and miscellaneous. I think we have over 125 in our land use bylaw. That might be a bit much.

The German model may something to strive for:

http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2011/06/how-germany-achieved-stable-affordable-housing/

[Northski]

I found an 2 year old analysis of the Calgary lrt system its some what critical of our system but makes some insightful comments.

www.fcpp.org/files/1/PS104_30CTrain_MR10_F1.pdf

Things I disagree with:
1. Mandatory students passes for transit are subsidies where as students who drive benefit from less competition for parking stalls and road space. Staff and profs benefit the most since they don't have to pay the fee but get less congestion of parking lots and roads. Through I've been told profs pay higher parking costs at university but I'm not sure its true.

2. The report says Calgary doesn't have enough park spaces downtown. But doesn't analyse the cost of adding the road space to service those stalls.

3. Doesn't mention that for BRT to be effective it has to displace car drivers by attracting them and/or through congestion charges or bus only lanes on roads.

4. Prefers simple BRT to LRT for the SE but fails to reconcile the cost of providing the additional road capacity for cars given the much the lower transit ridership.

5. Interprets high parking fees downtown as a result of lack of parking spaces rather then a lack of transit, walking, and biking alternatives or inner city housing density and TOD.


Things I agree with:

1. LRT network has focused on downtown commuting versus crosstown BRT connections (which is now being fixed through RouteAhead).

2. LRT has failed to shape development of the suburbs or around the stations. Through the report doesn't mention it has shaped development downtown.

3. Park and Rides lots are large subsidy costing 19$ a day per driver. There may be a better use of the park and ride lots by allowing better walking and transit access and using the land for TOD.

4. Calgary has one of the most costly road and transit systems in Canada.

[Dado]

I've seen that report before and wasn't terribly impressed.

The author clearly hasn't had the misfortune of living in a city in which BRT was implemented on a large scale, e.g. Ottawa.

Many of the supposed "advantages" of BRT turn out to be disadvantages. For instance, the ability to run express routes just means a proliferation of routes and buses operating in the downtown, leading to platform congestion, bus congestion and bus jams. The ability of buses to reroute around problems in practice means that buses have more problems to reroute around - most notably including other stranded buses. The idea that LRT is preferred due to a "creative class" appeal is exactly the kind of philosophy that is behind the suburban express route except the preferred demographic was a bit different; in Ottawa 'regular' transit usage (such as found on main streets) actually declined with the introduction of the Transitway and the reorientation of routes towards it - in fact it declined so much that ridership as a whole declined in Ottawa, swamping any gains from the new express services.

As to the specific SE proposal, I really don't see the point of it. The constraint is how to get out of downtown Calgary and across the Elbow and Bow Rivers. If you build a busway in the outlying parts of the corridor and just dump the buses onto already congested roads in the Inglewood area, you're not doing anyone any favours. If you build a busway and bridges through Ogden, you're not saving much against light rail.

[frinkprof]

This report was discussed (thrashed is probably a more accurate term) almost 2 years ago on this thread. Started here:

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?p=5221740#post5221740

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by Northski

I found an 2 year old analysis of the Calgary lrt system its some what critical of our system but makes some insightful comments.

www.fcpp.org/files/1/PS104_30CTrain_MR10_F1.pdf

Things I disagree with:
1. Mandatory students passes for transit are subsidies where as students who drive benefit from less competition for parking stalls and road space. Staff and profs benefit the most since they don't have to pay the fee but get less congestion of parking lots and roads. Through I've been told profs pay higher parking costs at university but I'm not sure its true.

2. The report says Calgary doesn't have enough park spaces downtown. But doesn't analyse the cost of adding the road space to service those stalls.

3. Doesn't mention that for BRT to be effective it has to displace car drivers by attracting them and/or through congestion charges or bus only lanes on roads.

4. Prefers simple BRT to LRT for the SE but fails to reconcile the cost of providing the additional road capacity for cars given the much the lower transit ridership.

5. Interprets high parking fees downtown as a result of lack of parking spaces rather then a lack of transit, walking, and biking alternatives or inner city housing density and TOD.


Things I agree with:

1. LRT network has focused on downtown commuting versus crosstown BRT connections (which is now being fixed through RouteAhead).

2. LRT has failed to shape development of the suburbs or around the stations. Through the report doesn't mention it has shaped development downtown.

3. Park and Rides lots are large subsidy costing 19$ a day per driver. There may be a better use of the park and ride lots by allowing better walking and transit access and using the land for TOD.

4. Calgary has one of the most costly road and transit systems in Canada.

His methodology was deeply flawed in pretty much every respect. As I recall, the Park and Ride subsidy calculation was particularly egregious. He arrived at $19.00 by looking at downtown parking rates and then simply used that figure as the value of a PnR stall. That is simply insane. Land at Anderson isn't worth anything close to land downtown for development and no one would pay anything close to the same rate to park at the two locations.

He then added his epically flawed valuation of the opportunity cost of providing Park and Ride lots to the actual cost of LRT to try to prove that LRT was more expensive than commonly perceived. Which just can't be done.

It wasn't a study or analysis of any kind. It was poorly executed agit-prop.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

This report was discussed (thrashed is probably a more accurate term) almost 2 years ago on this thread. Started here:

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?p=5221740#post5221740

Yup, I remember that report. The first clue of the absolute garbage quality of the research should have been the absolute garbage quality of the graphic design.

[ByeByeBaby]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

This report was discussed (thrashed is probably a more accurate term) almost 2 years ago on this thread. Started here:

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?p=5221740#post5221740

I like how he cites a speed of 56 MPH for BRT in Dallas, a city that does not have any BRT. Why not say 156 or 256 MPH while you're at it? 256 MPH, the exhaust is laughing gas and gold bricks, there's free pizza and beer and a rainbow follows the bus?

[You Need A Thneed]

I found some stuff on CT's website, that I don't think has been posted before:

Station Concepts for the future NE stations
Track Schematic

More on this page.

I'm excited for the TOD potential for the County Hills station and the 128th Ave Station. Hopefully, the city makes sure that the developers build what is imagined.