Urban vs Suburban - 2 styles enter, one style leaves!

[DizzyEdge]

article on Bowness sewer pipe capacity.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Sewer+...ans+Calgary+northwest/8501419/story.html

Interesting quote: "“It also speaks to — pardon my French — but the bulls**t argument that established areas are subsidizing the suburbs, because there’s all sorts of infrastructure upgrades that need to occur in the established areas and they’re being paid for by people who live in the suburbs,” said Mike Flynn, executive director of the Urban Development Institute."

Read more: http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Sewer+...rthwest/8501419/story.html#ixzz2VpdLR2Jf

[ByeByeBaby]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

article on Bowness sewer pipe capacity.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Sewer+...ans+Calgary+northwest/8501419/story.html

Interesting quote: "“It also speaks to — pardon my French — but the bulls**t argument that established areas are subsidizing the suburbs, because there’s all sorts of infrastructure upgrades that need to occur in the established areas and they’re being paid for by people who live in the suburbs,” said Mike Flynn, executive director of the Urban Development Institute."

Read more: http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Sewer+...rthwest/8501419/story.html#ixzz2VpdLR2Jf

That's pretty funny. The infrastructure in the established areas was generally (the storm backup issues in Dalhousie aside) doing well for decades. All of a sudden, after a massive development spree, there's more demand than capacity. On one hand, I'm surprised that someone who is capable of tying his own shoes is incapable of following this cause and effect. On the other hand, as Upton Sinclair said, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it".

It's like you're out on a date with your significant other, then when the meals arrive, I pull up a chair, eat half the food on your plate and complain it's clearly your fault for not ordering more food; and I order another steak and eat that. Then I drop five bucks on the table and walk out before the check arrives.

[You Need A Thneed]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

article on Bowness sewer pipe capacity.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Sewer+...ans+Calgary+northwest/8501419/story.html

Interesting quote: "“It also speaks to — pardon my French — but the bulls**t argument that established areas are subsidizing the suburbs, because there’s all sorts of infrastructure upgrades that need to occur in the established areas and they’re being paid for by people who live in the suburbs,” said Mike Flynn, executive director of the Urban Development Institute."

Read more: http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Sewer+...rthwest/8501419/story.html#ixzz2VpdLR2Jf

As much as that quote tries to make this a urban vs suburban debate, there is nothing about this issue that is suburban vs urban. The sewer pipes don't care about whether the poop is coming from a single family home or from a condo tower in the inner city.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

article on Bowness sewer pipe capacity.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Sewer+...ans+Calgary+northwest/8501419/story.html

Interesting quote: "“It also speaks to — pardon my French — but the bulls**t argument that established areas are subsidizing the suburbs, because there’s all sorts of infrastructure upgrades that need to occur in the established areas and they’re being paid for by people who live in the suburbs,” said Mike Flynn, executive director of the Urban Development Institute."

Read more: http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Sewer+...rthwest/8501419/story.html#ixzz2VpdLR2Jf

Originally Posted by ByeByeBaby

That's pretty funny. The infrastructure in the established areas was generally (the storm backup issues in Dalhousie aside) doing well for decades. All of a sudden, after a massive development spree, there's more demand than capacity. On one hand, I'm surprised that someone who is capable of tying his own shoes is incapable of following this cause and effect. On the other hand, as Upton Sinclair said, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it".

It's like you're out on a date with your significant other, then when the meals arrive, I pull up a chair, eat half the food on your plate and complain it's clearly your fault for not ordering more food; and I order another steak and eat that. Then I drop five bucks on the table and walk out before the check arrives.

Exactly, Flynn's comments are ridiculous. The reason the West Memorial Sanitary Trunk is at capacity has everything to do with Crestmont, Tuscany and Valley Ridge and nothing to do with Bowness (the capacity issue only exists west of the Shouldice Bridge crossing of the Bow river, where the pinch point is located). Bowness has had a declining population for the last 5 years. That is not where the capacity crunch is coming from. It is from new suburban development whose levies didn't cover upgrading existing trunk lines.

It is not like only redevelopment requires upgrades to existing infrastructure. Tuscany, Crestmont and Valley Ridge all required new sanitary lines to connect to the trunk (on Bowness Road), but they are also feeding into that trunk, so they require the trunk capacity to be increased. Redevelopment directly adjacent to that line, however, only requires the trunk line to be upgraded. Yet, both developments would pay the same acreage assessments.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by You Need A Thneed

As much as that quote tries to make this a urban vs suburban debate, there is nothing about this issue that is suburban vs urban. The sewer pipes don't care about whether the poop is coming from a single family home or from a condo tower in the inner city.

It has everything to do with urban vs suburban. The problem was created because acreage assessments for new suburban development were not covering the cost of upgrades to the existing sanitary lines. So now redevelopment is stalled because we allowed to much suburban development that didn't pay for itself.

[You Need A Thneed]

Originally Posted by fusili

It has everything to do with urban vs suburban. The problem was created because acreage assessments for new suburban development were not covering the cost of upgrades to the existing sanitary lines. So now redevelopment is stalled because we allowed to much suburban development that didn't pay for itself.

I should be more clear. That the pipe has now reached capacity isn't a suburban vs urban issue. The work of replacing the pipe isn't either.

Like you said, the funding is a suburban/urban issue. However, if we created the same number of units in the inner city as have been built in the new suburbs instead, we wouldn't have any new acreage assessment money, and these pipes would still be at the same capacity they are now.

To me, acreage assessments is a separate issue. It really shouldn't be new greenfield development only that pays for upgrades to existing infrastructure, but rather, for stuff like this, there should be some kind of assessment for any new units anywhere. The way development has been happening, they majority of that would come from greenfield, of course.

Perhaps that makes things to complicated though.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by You Need A Thneed

I should be more clear. That the pipe has now reached capacity isn't a suburban vs urban issue. The work of replacing the pipe isn't either.

Like you said, the funding is a suburban/urban issue. However, if we created the same number of units in the inner city as have been built in the new suburbs instead, we wouldn't have any new acreage assessment money, and these pipes would still be at the same capacity they are now.

To me, acreage assessments is a separate issue. It really shouldn't be new greenfield development only that pays for upgrades to existing infrastructure, but rather, for stuff like this, there should be some kind of assessment for any new units anywhere. The way development has been happening, they majority of that would come from greenfield, of course.

Perhaps that makes things to complicated though.

Good point. I do think we need "redevelopment" levies to pay for additional capacity that is needed for water, storm, sanitary, roads etc. I do think the levies should reflect the marginal burden on the infrastructure.

[MichaelS]

Originally Posted by ByeByeBaby

It's like you're out on a date with your significant other, then when the meals arrive, I pull up a chair, eat half the food on your plate and complain it's clearly your fault for not ordering more food; and I order another steak and eat that. Then I drop five bucks on the table and walk out before the check arrives.

This is not a very accurate analogy. And as You Need a Thneed pointed out below, capacity for this infrastructure is being used up by inner-city redevelopment as well. However, they pay ZERO development levies, while new suburban levies do as well. While all the costs may not be covered, it is the suburban ones who are definitely paying more for these upgrades that are required to allow redevelopment to occur as well.

[DizzyEdge]

I'm fine with innercity dev levies since in theory many more tax payers would be paying for one upgrade due to higher density I assume.

[ByeByeBaby]

Originally Posted by MichaelS

This is not a very accurate analogy. And as You Need a Thneed pointed out below, capacity for this infrastructure is being used up by inner-city redevelopment as well. However, they pay ZERO development levies, while new suburban levies do as well. While all the costs may not be covered, it is the suburban ones who are definitely paying more for these upgrades that are required to allow redevelopment to occur as well.

First, I totally agree that both redevelopment and greenfield development should have levies that pay the full cost of their increased demands on the system. So we agree on the policy.

I looked at the communities in the northwest (using the Bow River/16th Ave on the south, and roughly 4th St / Nose Hill on the east), and dug up the oldest populations the Civic Census has on their hands; the 2006 numbers, as well as the most recent 2012 numbers. The City shapefile of communities has a "decade of build out" property in it, and so I used it to categorize where the population was changing in the area. Here are my results:



So the redevelopment in the inner city and 1950s suburbs accounts for 8% of the growth, and the new greenfield development since 2000 accounts for 104%. (These are offset by a loss of population in the 1960s-1990s established areas as kids move away). Since the development levies don't cover the full cost of development, the remaining costs are being picked up out of general property tax. 72% of the population in the NW lives in the pre-2000 area, so they are the ones shouldering most of the burden. Even the inner city communities, which represent 6% of the net growth, have 9% of the population so they are as a whole paying more than their share.

[suburbia]

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't the volume of poop related to net population increases, irrespective of if people are housed in the burbs, the inner city, or a blend? Certainly the absorption is a blend, and I'm wondering how intensification as opposed to green field developments make any difference on volume on the central spine of the poop highway network? If anything, increased density might be a bigger challenge, as at least with expanded networks, load is more distributed and sometimes alternate paths can be created.

Only thing I'm pointing out is that the issue at hand is being leveraged as a strawman to conclude things that are irrespective. I'm not arguing for green field developments, rather, I'm just wondering if some of the commentary is unfair.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by suburbia

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't the volume of poop related to net population increases, irrespective of if people are housed in the burbs, the inner city, or a blend? Certainly the absorption is a blend, and I'm wondering how intensification as opposed to green field developments make any difference on volume on the central spine of the poop highway network?

Only thing I'm pointing out is that the issue at hand is being leveraged as a strawman to conclude things that are irrespective. I'm not arguing for green field developments, rather, I'm just wondering if some of the commentary is unfair.

Pipes are longer and require more expensive lift stations the lower the density.
Although minor, there is rainfall infiltration into the sewer pipes as well, so the longer the pipe, the more storm water will get in, and therefore the pipe needs to be bigger.

[ByeByeBaby]

Originally Posted by suburbia

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't the volume of poop related to net population increases, irrespective of if people are housed in the burbs, the inner city, or a blend? Certainly the absorption is a blend, and I'm wondering how intensification as opposed to green field developments make any difference on volume on the central spine of the poop highway network? If anything, increased density might be a bigger challenge, as at least with expanded networks, load is more distributed and sometimes alternate paths can be created.

Only thing I'm pointing out is that the issue at hand is being leveraged as a strawman to conclude things that are irrespective. I'm not arguing for green field developments, rather, I'm just wondering if some of the commentary is unfair.

I don't think anybody is disagreeing with the idea that the population is a pretty good benchmark. The population growth is almost entirely in the greenfield areas.

Also, there aren't really alternate paths in a sewer system; since liquids flow based on fluid dynamics, we can predict where they will go and plan for that, while people are a little less predictable. If you think about the first link in the system, a small house or a large house will still have the same arrangements of pipes leading to the sewer, just more and longer ones in the larger house. It's not like in a big house, the master bathroom is connected to both the kitchen and the powder room. The layout looks like a tree (hence "trunk") and a bigger tree just has more branches and bigger limbs; it doesn't suddenly have limbs that connect to each other.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by fusili

Pipes are longer and require more expensive lift stations the lower the density.
Although minor, there is rainfall infiltration into the sewer pipes as well, so the longer the pipe, the more storm water will get in, and therefore the pipe needs to be bigger.

Originally Posted by ByeByeBaby

I don't think anybody is disagreeing with the idea that the population is a pretty good benchmark. The population growth is almost entirely in the greenfield areas.

Also, there aren't really alternate paths in a sewer system; since liquids flow based on fluid dynamics, we can predict where they will go and plan for that, while people are a little less predictable. If you think about the first link in the system, a small house or a large house will still have the same arrangements of pipes leading to the sewer, just more and longer ones in the larger house. It's not like in a big house, the master bathroom is connected to both the kitchen and the powder room. The layout looks like a tree (hence "trunk") and a bigger tree just has more branches and bigger limbs; it doesn't suddenly have limbs that connect to each other.

Thanks - both thoughtful responses for the most part.

Seems to me that at this breaking point, which is not part of the longer pipes near the ends, but rather, at a major collection point impacted equally by upstream intensification or further sprawl, all be held till a proper fix can be made. Given this, I think the topic is not really an "urban vs. suburban" one.

[DizzyEdge]

You're right it's not really, I simply posted it in here due to the quote in the article about the suburbs financing innercity growth.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by suburbia

Thanks - both thoughtful responses for the most part.

Seems to me that at this breaking point, which is not part of the longer pipes near the ends, but rather, at a major collection point impacted equally by upstream intensification or further sprawl, all be held till a proper fix can be made. Given this, I think the topic is not really an "urban vs. suburban" one.

You are correct. The pinch point is where the sanitary line crosses the Bow river at Shouldice bridge. From what I have been told, much of the problem is actually storm water infiltration, so "lining" the pipe can be a temporary solution. A civil engineer who does lots of work for the city told me this, but I am not sure how feasible it would be to line an existing line under operation. The city is going to build a relief line along the CPR ROW in Bowness that will cross the river closer to the 16th avenue bridge, IIRC.

I do however, think that both greenfield development and inner city redevelopment should pay their marginal cost of the infrastructure. One way to do this would be to establish "catchment areas" for each sanitary trunk line (we can use lift stations and connection points as divisions between areas) and then charge development for their burden not only on their catchment area, but on all downstream impacts on trunk lines.

[simster3]

There is a new article about find smart solutions to this problem, one is what has been termed a "poo battery". I understand how it works, in theory, but is this is something that can be implemented. As I understand it, it would just dam up waste until the system is at a low and then release it as there is room to take the supply. In the end it would even out the supply/demand of the wastewater system. Is this practical? Has it been done elsewhere? I think it is a great idea but as I am not an engineer, I don't know what is possible in this realm.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by simster3

There is a new article about find smart solutions to this problem, one is what has been termed a "poo battery". I understand how it works, in theory, but is this is something that can be implemented. As I understand it, it would just dam up waste until the system is at a low and then release it as there is room to take the supply. In the end it would even out the supply/demand of the wastewater system. Is this practical? Has it been done elsewhere? I think it is a great idea but as I am not an engineer, I don't know what is possible in this realm.

It doesn't matter if it works. If it is called a "Poo Battery" we need to use it now!

[simster3]

That is really what caught my attention. But I like the idea.

[93JC]

.