Calgary Public Transit II

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

And we're back to the great urban impasse. The type of development that is being championed by most of those on this website is the very thing that inevitably drives people and businesses out of the core.

At the end of the day the role of the corporation is not to build architecturally fantabulous skyscrapers and pay as much rent as is possible. For many businesses it is getting harder and harder to justify the cost of being downtown.

You guys wanted the "luxury city" and congratulations you won don't be sore winners.

I would be one of the few who is ok with ~70% of our downtown buildings being "filler". Same with condos. It's nice to have a Bow or Telus Sky here and there, but I am fine with a big square tower, as long as there is a decent street treatment.

But, I am probably the only person on this forum who likes Sasso, so there's that.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by freeweed

Reminds me a lot of "white flight" of previous decades. Let's all abandon functioning, well-serviced inner cities, to move to areas with nothing - and then demand services.

I don't think the most unwavering kooky urbanist would claim very many locations affected by post-war suburbanization could have seriously been described as "functioning, well-serviced inner cities" after two decades of neglect owing to the Great Depression and Second World War combined with massive influxes of migrant workers drawn to the cities by adhoc wartime industries.

[Wigs]

Originally Posted by ByeByeBaby

Alberta's August retail sales were $6 billion; assuming that's 1/12 of the annual, that's $72 billion per year. The greater Calgary region has 40% of the provincial personal income; the city proper is about 85% of the population in that region. A 0.25% sales tax here would produce roughly $5M per month, or $60M per year.

Speaking from total ignorance about the SLC plan, my assumption would be that they passed a sales tax, then used bonds backed implicitly or explicitly by this new revenue source to get the money to build the transit projects.

I did some basic research. Utah has a base 4.7% sales tax and then all sorts of additional tax options for counties/municipalities to get revenue for transit, culturals, municipal, county use, etc.

Salt Lake County has 0.8% sales tax going towards funding transportation. 0.25% for County Transportation, 0.3% for Mass Transit, and the 0.25% is an Additional Mass Transit Tax (which I believe what was being referred to in the Atlantic Cities post about TRAX in SLC).
So in theory the bulk of 0.8% of the 6.85% sales tax is going to fund LRT/ commuter rail.
and yes the UTA (Utah Transit) used bonds backed by the revenue to get the money to build the transit projects (although I'm unsure of exactly how it works).

Like another forumer said, if a city charter could get passed maybe Calgary could get a temporary mass transit sales tax (say between 0.25-1%) passed and issue bonds on these projected revenues as one avenue to speed up construction of LRT.

Lord knows at the current rate of growth ~30,000 ppl/yr Calgary seriously needs to start the NC and SE LRT lines as soon as humanly possible, unless Calgarians want the Deerfoot to turn into something reminiscent of the Greater Toronto parking lot known as the 401

[RyLucky]

Somebody brought this up to me (not my idea), but I thought it was interesting and want to share it:

When a major employer is considering a suburban location, why not insensitivity them to develop an on a city-owned lot (ie Park&ride) long an existing LRT line? For example (and we can debate specific details later), give them the land for free on the condition that they build FAR of 20 with limited parking.

Thoughts?

[Wigs]

Originally Posted by RyLucky

Somebody brought this up to me (not my idea), but I thought it was interesting and want to share it:

When a major employer is considering a suburban location, why not insensitivity them to develop an on a city-owned lot (ie Park&ride) long an existing LRT line? For example (and we can debate specific details later), give them the land for free on the condition that they build FAR of 20 with limited parking.

Thoughts?

I think you mean incentivize but I understand what you're saying. I wouldn't give property for free per se, but maybe offer a break on property taxes for the first year or two.

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by WIGS

I think you mean incentivize but I understand what you're saying. I wouldn't give property for free per se, but maybe offer a break on property taxes for the first year or two.

Haha, oops. Sorry, yes, "incentivize" (damn autocorrect!).

If there were a way to spur high-density (especially REALLY HIGH density) at transit nodes, I think it would be worth a loss of assets or tax revenue for the city. In the case of IOL, it could mean a thousand cars off the road, a higher quality of life for employees and neighbours, conservative land use, and a psyche of citizenship, not to mention smart-growth cost savings in other areas.

[J-D]

Originally Posted by RyLucky

Somebody brought this up to me (not my idea), but I thought it was interesting and want to share it:

When a major employer is considering a suburban location, why not insensitivity them to develop an on a city-owned lot (ie Park&ride) long an existing LRT line? For example (and we can debate specific details later), give them the land for free on the condition that they build FAR of 20 with limited parking.

Thoughts?

I can tell you that without a doubt if the city turned the park & ride lot that I use into an office building with limited parking, I'd stop using public transit for my commute to downtown. I don't think I'm alone in that.

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by J-D

I can tell you that without a doubt if the city turned the park & ride lot that I use into an office building with limited parking, I'd stop using public transit for my commute to downtown. I don't think I'm alone in that.

You and 50 other park&riders, in exchange for 100 (conservative estimate) IOL employees? Not to mention other benefits.

[MichaelS]

Originally Posted by RyLucky

Haha, oops. Sorry, yes, "incentivize" (damn autocorrect!).

If there were a way to spur high-density (especially REALLY HIGH density) at transit nodes, I think it would be worth a loss of assets or tax revenue for the city. In the case of IOL, it could mean a thousand cars off the road, a higher quality of life for employees and neighbours, conservative land use, and a psyche of citizenship, not to mention smart-growth cost savings in other areas.

Isn't the city basically doing everything they can (besides giving away land) to incentivise this type of development? Every policy is pushing for this. There are ever increasing levies on suburban development (and no levies on TOD development). If it still isn't happening, should we be trying to force it even more? At what point does it need to be acknowledged that people just may not want to live/work that lifestyle yet, no matter how much they are "encouraged" to.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by mersar

Not quite... Calgary SE LRT Functional Plan (2010)

Of course it will be updated before anything is built, but its been planned at a quite detailed level already.

Well... I suppose we can quibble on the meaning of the word "planned". Most of our LRT network has been "planned" for decades. I mean real, actual concrete plans, that are going to be implemented.

Not "well if we ever get around to it, this is roughly what it's gonna look like". I may be doing the SELRT a disservice, and it's far further along than I realize. But I get the impression that there's still serious discussion over going BRT first, then worrying about LRT later. To me, that means we really haven't "planned" for squat. Because if it takes 20 years to build it, there's just no way the current plan will be used in anything but its roughest form. Too much shit will change between now and then.

Can you tell I'm getting impatient for the next round of LRT expansion?

[Wigs]

Originally Posted by freeweed

Well... I suppose we can quibble on the meaning of the word "planned". Most of our LRT network has been "planned" for decades. I mean real, actual concrete plans, that are going to be implemented.

Not "well if we ever get around to it, this is roughly what it's gonna look like". I may be doing the SELRT a disservice, and it's far further along than I realize. But I get the impression that there's still serious discussion over going BRT first, then worrying about LRT later. To me, that means we really haven't "planned" for squat. Because if it takes 20 years to build it, there's just no way the current plan will be used in anything but its roughest form. Too much shit will change between now and then.

Can you tell I'm getting impatient for the next round of LRT expansion?

freeweed, I think all or at least most of us Calgary forumers are too

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by RyLucky

You and 50 other park&riders, in exchange for 100 (conservative estimate) IOL employees? Not to mention other benefits.

Well let's look at the bigger picture.

1. IOL stays downtown, employee use existing transit infrastructure, and everyone's happy.

2. IOL leaves downtown, the city gives up a PnR lot, IOL employees predominantly drive to work because of free parking, and suddenly a bunch more people are driving to work downtown because they can no longer park at the LRT station.

I don't see #2 as a net gain for the city, in the slightest. Why on earth would we want to encourage more driving??

I know I'm a more than a bit against the common opinion on this, but I think the city should be expanding capacity at PnR lots (parkades - I'm not looking for acres of asphalt). ANYTHING to get more cars off the Deerfoot, Crowchild, Glenmore, etc. I'd much rather live in a city where 200,000 people drive 3-5km every day than half of them driving 20-30. And there are still a ton of people who avoid public transit because of the bus factor. Encouraging them to drive less, I'm all for.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by freeweed

Well let's look at the bigger picture.

1. IOL stays downtown, employee use existing transit infrastructure, and everyone's happy.

2. IOL leaves downtown, the city gives up a PnR lot, IOL employees predominantly drive to work because of free parking, and suddenly a bunch more people are driving to work downtown because they can no longer park at the LRT station.

I don't see #2 as a net gain for the city, in the slightest. Why on earth would we want to encourage more driving??

I know I'm a more than a bit against the common opinion on this, but I think the city should be expanding capacity at PnR lots (parkades - I'm not looking for acres of asphalt). ANYTHING to get more cars off the Deerfoot, Crowchild, Glenmore, etc. I'd much rather live in a city where 200,000 people drive 3-5km every day than half of them driving 20-30.

Time of day tolls on Deerfoot, Stoney, Crowchild and Glenmore can solve that. 6-9am and 4-7pm. Or a downtown cordon might achieve the same result.

[Wigs]

Originally Posted by J-D

I can tell you that without a doubt if the city turned the park & ride lot that I use into an office building with limited parking, I'd stop using public transit for my commute to downtown. I don't think I'm alone in that.

Originally Posted by RyLucky

You and 50 other park&riders, in exchange for 100 (conservative estimate) IOL employees? Not to mention other benefits.

instead of one or the other: why not a park and ride parkade with floors of office space on top? Win-Win

[sim]

Originally Posted by RyLucky

Somebody brought this up to me (not my idea), but I thought it was interesting and want to share it:

When a major employer is considering a suburban location, why not insensitivity them to develop an on a city-owned lot (ie Park&ride) long an existing LRT line? For example (and we can debate specific details later), give them the land for free on the condition that they build FAR of 20 with limited parking.

Thoughts?

While I agree about reducing P&R in principle, I think this imposes too much of a market distortion and sets a slippery precedent as opposed to setting a more overarching macro-policy that then everyone has to abide by and the market can work within. Without too much thought, and as pertains more specifically to this particular issue/Quarry Park:

Stipulate a zero surface lot policy as I'm guessing future employees don't have to pay anyway. I don't know the details and parking requirements, but I'd guess that the current footprint of the parking lots (essentially non-scientifically required for that land-use) is greater than that of the building's. Thus, either parking becomes multi-story under the building footprint, therefore more expensive and a larger disincentive or they have to go with a shorter more expansive building that will play out strangely with employees/area (as in poor space utilization) and a concurrent greater land area acquisition.

Or stipulate in tandem, as in parts of Europe, that all employees must have continual access to natural light = smaller building footprints.

I'm assuming above that the FAR is non-restrictive.

Originally Posted by freeweed

Well let's look at the bigger picture.

1. IOL stays downtown, employee use existing transit infrastructure, and everyone's happy.

2. IOL leaves downtown, the city gives up a PnR lot, IOL employees predominantly drive to work because of free parking, and suddenly a bunch more people are driving to work downtown because they can no longer park at the LRT station.

I don't see #2 as a net gain for the city, in the slightest. Why on earth would we want to encourage more driving??

I know I'm a more than a bit against the common opinion on this, but I think the city should be expanding capacity at PnR lots (parkades - I'm not looking for acres of asphalt). ANYTHING to get more cars off the Deerfoot, Crowchild, Glenmore, etc. I'd much rather live in a city where 200,000 people drive 3-5km every day than half of them driving 20-30. And there are still a ton of people who avoid public transit because of the bus factor. Encouraging them to drive less, I'm all for.

I agree with points 1 and 2, but in the same vein yet looking at an even larger bigger picture, I'd like to simply show this graph to address the bolded:

Source of graph

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by freeweed

Well let's look at the bigger picture.

1. IOL stays downtown, employee use existing transit infrastructure, and everyone's happy.

2. IOL leaves downtown, the city gives up a PnR lot, IOL employees predominantly drive to work because of free parking, and suddenly a bunch more people are driving to work downtown because they can no longer park at the LRT station.

I don't see #2 as a net gain for the city, in the slightest. Why on earth would we want to encourage more driving??

I know I'm a more than a bit against the common opinion on this, but I think the city should be expanding capacity at PnR lots (parkades - I'm not looking for acres of asphalt). ANYTHING to get more cars off the Deerfoot, Crowchild, Glenmore, etc. I'd much rather live in a city where 200,000 people drive 3-5km every day than half of them driving 20-30. And there are still a ton of people who avoid public transit because of the bus factor. Encouraging them to drive less, I'm all for.

If you read what I originally wrote, the two conditions of developing at a TOD would be (1) limited parking, and (2) really high FAR. Granted, I haven't really thought it out beyond that, I see it as a definite net gain for the city.

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by WIGS

instead of one or the other: why not a park and ride parkade with floors of office space on top? Win-Win

a good idea.

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by sim

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/51414939@N05/10479817005/" title="Schiller, Walk 21 graph by muelsi, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7338/10479817005_398593f137.jpg" width="389" height="500" alt="Schiller, Walk 21 graph"></a>Doesn't seem to work

Source of graph

Graph didn't work, but the link does. Thank you for showing real data to illustrate my point. Fewer park and ride = more ridership.

[sim]

Originally Posted by RyLucky

Graph didn't work, but the link does. Thank you for showing real data to illustrate my point. Fewer park and ride = more ridership.

Yup, my bad. I fixed it up finally though.

[J-D]

Originally Posted by WIGS

instead of one or the other: why not a park and ride parkade with floors of office space on top? Win-Win

I'd support this idea - or even just actual parkades like Canyon Meadows station currently is. I know parkades are quite expensive to build and maintain, but ground level parking lots are such a terrible use of space. With that said - I wish the parking lot at Canyon Meadows had been built a bit higher... It's the closest station to my neighborhood but I get stuck driving about twice as far to Anderson instead.