Calgary's $8 BILLION Transit Plan - The RouteAhead

[H.E.Pennypacker]

It's been stated but TOD's take time to develop - even decades as we've seen with Kensington .. That's not to say we should shy away from them or deem their irrelevance with building a new LRT

An underlying factor with these TOD developments is the amount of land available for redevelopment in Downtown/Beltline and the cost associated ... As the amount of land and cheap redevelopments in the core deminish, the cost to develop in that area will increase substantially - to the point where only the big boys will consider it ... Furthermore the cost to lease/own in these areas will be much higher, so the demand will spread out to other areas

Once this happens it will become more cost effective for developers to look to these TOD areas to maximize profits, and we'll see those areas increase in density - much like we're seeing with Kensington now

Build an SELRT leg would give Inglewood and Ramsay potential to become the next Kensington in 20-25 years ... Same thing with a NCLRT on Centre St

Westbrook could suffer the same fate as North Hill .. But that doesn't mean there will never be development there - both locations offer prime land with astonishing views of downtown .. Eventually the economics will make sense to build there

[MichaelS]

Originally Posted by fusili

Quick answer: Sewage Lagoon, Landfill and Gypsum stack setbacks. Have fun with those.

No land use applications in the area.

Sorry to be going back a few pages to respond to this post, but just wanted to clarify something.

LOC2013-0050, for parcel 12787 40 St SE. Looking to increase the density on an I-B designation. I-B is the same designation that much of the office portion of Quarry Park has.

So I picture this area developing as such. Intense office development (more dense than Quarry Park) happening on the north side of 130th avenue, potentially bringing thousands of jobs to the area all based around the train station.

Most of the south side of 130th avenue (still large parcels that would allow for easy redevelopment on a massive scale) is beyond the environmental setback areas that affect the north. Plus, those parcels border on the community of Prestwick, which has many residents already. The south half of 130th Ave could be the higher intensity residential of the TOD, along with the commercial main floors and uses such as restaurants that wouldn't be allowed in the setback areas. This portion would not only bring in many more residents, but many more of the services/retail that the community of Prestwick is currently lacking.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by MichaelS

Sorry to be going back a few pages to respond to this post, but just wanted to clarify something.

LOC2013-0050, for parcel 12787 40 St SE. Looking to increase the density on an I-B designation. I-B is the same designation that much of the office portion of Quarry Park has.

So I picture this area developing as such. Intense office development (more dense than Quarry Park) happening on the north side of 130th avenue, potentially bringing thousands of jobs to the area all based around the train station.

Most of the south side of 130th avenue (still large parcels that would allow for easy redevelopment on a massive scale) is beyond the environmental setback areas that affect the north. Plus, those parcels border on the community of Prestwick, which has many residents already. The south half of 130th Ave could be the higher intensity residential of the TOD, along with the commercial main floors and uses such as restaurants that wouldn't be allowed in the setback areas. This portion would not only bring in many more residents, but many more of the services/retail that the community of Prestwick is currently lacking.

While true that area does have some potential, it is very long term as there is little incentive (even with LRT) to redevelop a relatively new, profitable shopping center (see westbrook mall) vs. areas in the process of gentrification currently.

I would argue that Ogden has a higher redevelopment potential than the 130th area

[H.E.Pennypacker]

^

http://www.sheparddevelopment.com/regional-centre/documents/Shepard_Office_Campus_2012.pdf

They're not redeveloping the shopping centre, they're planning to build around the vacant land on the NW corner with multiple offices - although this has been sitting for awhile now

LRT along that corridor would be helpful

[fusili]

Originally Posted by MichaelS

Sorry to be going back a few pages to respond to this post, but just wanted to clarify something.

LOC2013-0050, for parcel 12787 40 St SE. Looking to increase the density on an I-B designation. I-B is the same designation that much of the office portion of Quarry Park has.

So, the City's land use application map is horribly out-of-date. I am not surprised.

Point taken. There is TOD potential there.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by H.E.Pennypacker

^

http://www.sheparddevelopment.com/regional-centre/documents/Shepard_Office_Campus_2012.pdf

They're not redeveloping the shopping centre, they're planning to build around the vacant land on the NW corner with multiple offices - although this has been sitting for awhile now

LRT along that corridor would be helpful

850k sqft is decent size, my issue is that we call those buildings TOD, for any other reason than that they are near transit, to get to any of those buildings from transit will require a hike through a massive parking lot. A better description of those buildings would be TAD, transit adjacent development.

[H.E.Pennypacker]

You can't expect every development to be right beside a train station though, that's a bit picky .. Eventually people will have to walk to their nearby destination - it's no different than those people parking in said lots and having to walk to that building

It's still TOD - but an important aspect of TOD is missing in this specific case: a pedestrian-friendly realm .. One of the goals of TOD is to create an area that is walkable and enjoyable for pedestrians to stroll through, moving away from that 'concrete jungle' feeling .. Between this development and the sprawled out shopping centre, the concept of a true TOD is shot to shit because it doesn't look pleasant to walk through

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by H.E.Pennypacker

You can't expect every development to be right beside a train station though, that's a bit picky .. Eventually people will have to walk to their nearby destination - it's no different than those people parking in said lots and having to walk to that building

It's still TOD - but an important aspect of TOD is missing in this specific case: a pedestrian-friendly realm .. One of the goals of TOD is to create an area that is walkable and enjoyable for pedestrians to stroll through, moving away from that 'concrete jungle' feeling .. Between this development and the sprawled out shopping centre, the concept of a true TOD is shot to shit because it doesn't look pleasant to walk through

Charles Montgomery's book, Happy City details this well. His study showed that the average walking distance of people to their destination varies significantly based on the pleasantness of the walking environment. A big-box power centre would be under 5 minutes before the average person would drive or take another means. For pedestrian zones and other more friendly environments, the average walk is multiples on that, up to 15 minutes.

I wish developments like this did a bit of thought on trying to accomidate pedestrians. It can't be that hard to orientate the buildings fronting onto a pedestrian friendly streetscape that leads to the proposed LRT /BRT area. Keep the rest of the parking for all I care, at least pretend that they understand how to build a transit friendly development.

[MichaelS]

Originally Posted by H.E.Pennypacker

^

http://www.sheparddevelopment.com/regional-centre/documents/Shepard_Office_Campus_2012.pdf

They're not redeveloping the shopping centre, they're planning to build around the vacant land on the NW corner with multiple offices - although this has been sitting for awhile now

LRT along that corridor would be helpful

Thanks for finding that.

Originally Posted by fusili

So, the City's land use application map is horribly out-of-date. I am not surprised.

Point taken. There is TOD potential there.

No problem, and not meant to be a "battle" of who is right. And understandable mistake when relying on City IT

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

850k sqft is decent size, my issue is that we call those buildings TOD, for any other reason than that they are near transit, to get to any of those buildings from transit will require a hike through a massive parking lot. A better description of those buildings would be TAD, transit adjacent development.

Agreed with this. Not sure how open to change their plan would be if they knew there was a capital funded LRT within 10 years, and I also suspect it will be a while before the big box stores change over too (as seen at every other train station).

I also acknowledge that while this station has potential, there are a lot of other ones with much less.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by H.E.Pennypacker

^

http://www.sheparddevelopment.com/regional-centre/documents/Shepard_Office_Campus_2012.pdf

They're not redeveloping the shopping centre, they're planning to build around the vacant land on the NW corner with multiple offices - although this has been sitting for awhile now

LRT along that corridor would be helpful

Sweet piece of TOD right there. What is the ratio of surface parking lot to building? 6:1?

[rajuncaucasian]

RouteAhead @RouteAhead
Here's the map showing the seven rapid transit projects that #YYCCC approved today: ow.ly/taatT #YYCTransit #YYCPlan
16 minutes ago

[MalcolmTucker]

Not bad. And trying to do Centre Street lanes will hasten LRT support hopefully.

[Wooster]

Huge day at Council today. Go ahead on 7 RouteAhead corridors.

[Tropics]

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

little incentive (even with LRT) to redevelop a relatively new, profitable shopping center (see westbrook mall)

Westbrook mall is by no means new and certainly most of the sqf of that mall is not terribly profitable past the Safeway and the Walmart. The mall often has vacant stores and is full of dollar stores, cheap cookwear, and other not terribly profitable store types. It is the very type of mall that usually screams that it is reaching it's shelf life.

[joe498]

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/calgar...ven+rapid+routes+2021/9454443/story.html

'Stars have aligned:' City approves plan to build rapid bus routes to suburbs

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by joe498

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/calgar...ven+rapid+routes+2021/9454443/story.html

'Stars have aligned:' City approves plan to build rapid bus routes to suburbs

Isn't that what the "Blue Arrow" was supposed to be?

I guess the name means nothing, now that the blue colour scheme on the buses is history.

[Cruzer]

Happy to see this go ahead! Though I'd like it a little bit more if there was a BRT link between Westbrook and U of C making it more of a direct trip for anyone in the Northeast heading to MRU or RGH without needing to transfer! I don't suppose it would add TOO much more to the already estimated halfish-billion $$$?

[Spring2008]

I like this:

Council agrees to study dozens of new ways to raise tax money for CTrain expansion


BY JASON MARKUSOFF, CALGARY HERALD JANUARY 31, 2014

Council approved a proposal to study a list of 27 possible tax tools to raise money for future LRT expansions
Photograph by: Gavin Young , Calgary Herald
Council has taken a cautious step toward some sort of new taxation power in the future to pay for LRT expansions — the sort of study they’ve launched several times before, but have never been able to act on.

They approved a proposal to study an exhaustive list of 27 possible tax tools, everything from a greater personal income tax or utility surcharges, to a carbon tax and car rental levy. They’ll hear back next January on which among what the mayor called a “laundry list” makes sense, and then will likely have to seek approval from the province to actually raise or introduce those taxes.

AECOM, the same consultant group pushing Calgary along this road, also worked with the Toronto-area transit agency Metrolinx on similar options for tax tools. The Ontario government is considering a proposal to fund transit with a five- or 10-cent surtax on fuel, and AECOM sees the most promise in that here as well.

Council approved a bid to study that array of tax options in a 10-4 vote Friday. Mayor Naheed Nenshi said for a $5-billion LRT project from the northern tip of Harvest Hills Boulevard to the south hospital, finding budget efficiencies isn’t enough, but the city shouldn’t have to wait for grants from the province or Ottawa, either.

“We have to take control of our own destiny on this,” Nenshi said. The province has suggested it may give major cities new tax generation tools in new charters.

Coun. Sean Chu supported the study, but derisively compared fellow councillors to his own children, who once naively asked him to go to the bank when he stated has no money.

“You can talk about 27 ways to (raise) money. How are we going to save money?” Chu said. “But we never talk about that. Always spend, spend and then get more.”

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/calgar...ays+raise+cash+CTrain/9456168/story.html

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Cruzer

Happy to see this go ahead! Though I'd like it a little bit more if there was a BRT link between Westbrook and U of C making it more of a direct trip for anyone in the Northeast heading to MRU or RGH without needing to transfer! I don't suppose it would add TOO much more to the already estimated halfish-billion $$$?

A river link is the hard part. The 72/73 does reasonable job connecting the two for now. The rest of the project will have to wait for technology definition.

[RyLucky]

A new north-south crossing is the only way to adequately connect foothills and UofC to the SW, but I can understand how that may be beyond the scope of this project, seeing as the other projects only require converting existing lanes and other modest infrastructure improvement. I am doubtful of the value of any kind of undefined technology unless it crosses the river and connects some/most of these: Westbrook, Foothills, University, Brentwood, Market Mall, ACH, lions park/banff trail. Hopefully the South Crosstown line will eventually be extended/merged with routes in the NW.

Anyway you look at it, I think this is a step in the right direction. I'm very happy and looking forward to learn more.