Calgary Public Transit II

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

Primarily money



The Calgary that actually has to plan, budget for and build the SELRT, NCLRT and fix the surface bottleneck downtown isn't going to be any more interested in what Nenshi et al planned thirty-five years ago than we are interested in what Alger planned thirty-five years ago.

But it seems to be perceived here that the decisions of this mayor and council are uniquely sacrosanct and actionable in a way those of no previous mayor and council were.

Didn't we just build a West LRT that was planned 30+ years ago?

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Sorry, when did this happen? The impression I have got is pretty much the opposite of what you are stating here. We are one the wealthiest cities on the continent, finding money for a still relatively cheap LRT line shouldn't be too difficult.

I have been asking you guys to explain for some time what is fundamentally unsound about these conclusions found in the 2006 North Central Corridor Review and so far nobody has done so beyond stating that because the current mayor and council is more "urban minded" they would just forge ahead anyway without regard for other users of the right-of-way.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

Primarily money

The Calgary that actually has to plan, budget for and build the SELRT, NCLRT and fix the surface bottleneck downtown isn't going to be any more interested in what Nenshi et al planned thirty-five years ago than we are interested in what Alger planned thirty-five years ago.

But it seems to be perceived here that the decisions of this mayor and council are uniquely sacrosanct and actionable in a way those of no previous mayor and council were.

While I don't disagree that what is agreed to now may never come to pass, this assumes that the societal pressures over the next 30+ years will be identical to those over the last 30+ years, which misses a fundamental shift in both planning and demographics that has happened much more rapidly than anticipated 30+ years ago. This shift being one to more urban lifestyles, and alternative transportation than over the models of the last 60 years since WWII. This shift has happened primarily within the last 5-8 years (in Calgary) but was something most didn't anticipate to happen or if they did, expected it to take at least another generation to occur to the extent that it has.

Originally Posted by fusili

Didn't we just build a West LRT that was planned 30+ years ago?

This is true and hopefully they will have the political will and ability to keep moving forward with the RouteAhead plan over the next 2 election cycles.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

I have been asking you guys to explain for some time what is fundamentally unsound about these conclusions found in the 2006 North Central Corridor Review and so far nobody has done so beyond stating that because the current mayor and council is more "urban minded" they would just forge ahead anyway without regard for other users of the right-of-way.

So the alternative is dedicated bus lanes on Centre and a Nose Creek LRT for a SDDS?

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

I have been asking you guys to explain for some time what is fundamentally unsound about these conclusions found in the 2006 North Central Corridor Review and so far nobody has done so beyond stating that because the current mayor and council is more "urban minded" they would just forge ahead anyway without regard for other users of the right-of-way.

[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/Hk07u9x.jpg[IMG]

Why do you treat that document as gospel, yet there are more recent studies (in the last few months) which have looked in depth at the various options and found either surface or buried line down Centre Street (or perhaps Edmonton Trail) as the most viable?

Besides, none of the highlighted text discounts NCLRT in any way. It says it will be difficult - which no one is denying.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by fusili

Didn't we just build a West LRT that was planned 30+ years ago?

They didn't just pull the 1983 study out of a filing cabinet and say "build this", there was a corridor review in 2006.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Why do you treat that document as gospel, yet there are more recent studies (in the last few months) which have looked in depth at the various options and found either surface or buried line down Centre Street (or perhaps Edmonton Trail) as the most viable?

Besides, none of the highlighted text discounts NCLRT in any way. It says it will be difficult - which no one is denying.

Something that can't be funded or built isn't viable.

But none-the-less, if the highlighted statements regarding the at-grade alignments are false, I would like you to explain point-by-point why they were either fundamentally flawed conclusions in 2006, or what has changed in the intervening years that substantially mitigates them.

[ByeByeBaby]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

They didn't just pull the 1983 study out of a filing cabinet and say "build this", there was a corridor review in 2006.

Yeah; a couple of stations moved two blocks, a pedestrian bridge was moved about 500m, and 750m were trenched rather than built at grade. It was only 95% what was in the 1983 study. What didn't happen was the entire line was moved to the CPR tracks along the Bow River, or along the 17th Ave alignment that was discarded in the 1983 study.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by ByeByeBaby

It seems to me that you believe that there is some magical date in the past; an idea being "unequivocally rejected" before that magic date is doomed to never happen

Perhaps you would also like to avail yourself of this opportunity to address the issues identified with the proposed NCLRT alignments. Please explain in detail how the "frozen 1980s transit planners" overlooked obvious and viable solutions for the rejected alternatives.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

So the alternative is dedicated bus lanes on Centre and a Nose Creek LRT for a SDDS?

Well, unless someone wants to offer a plausible solutions for how they intend to fund a Centre Street subway and "Green Line".

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

This shift being one to more urban lifestyles, and alternative transportation than over the models of the last 60 years since WWII.

People are being priced out of traditional homes by a real estate bubble.

This whole song and dance played out in Toronto in the 80's during their first condo bubble. When the market crashed Downtown Toronto was hit disproportionately hard and condos sat empty for years unsaleable at half their bubble price.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

Something that can't be funded or built isn't viable.

But none-the-less, if the highlighted statements regarding the at-grade alignments are false, I would like you to explain point-by-point why they were either fundamentally flawed conclusions in 2006, or what has changed in the intervening years that substantially mitigates them.

The highlighted text says that running the line at street level wouldn't fully realise the benefits of LRT. I, and more than a few on this board, happen to agree with that assessment - and want it tunneled. That said, these are all only studies by consultancy firms. They are likely to rank certain cons/benefits differently and will come to different conclusions as to what is viable.

The city has very clearly stated it intends to build the Green Line. It has made zero indication that it wants to bury the 202. The Green Line isn't extravagant, I would say $5B is a realistic estimate - the same amount which the province easily found for a quarter of a ring road.

[ByeByeBaby]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

Perhaps you would also like to avail yourself of this opportunity to address the issues identified with the proposed NCLRT alignments. Please explain in detail how the "frozen 1980s transit planners" overlooked obvious and viable solutions for the rejected alternatives.

Sure; how about it gets built using a reduction in road capacity, combined with barriers along the right-of-way, grade separated roadway and pedestrian crossings, traffic signal preemption, east/west road closures or restrictions and property acquisition?

Those highlighted passages doesn't say it can't be built; it says it can't be built without modifying the road structure in the Centre Street corridor. Which is exactly what is being proposed by CT, and supported by technical experts. This doesn't seem that complicated to me.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by milomilo

The highlighted text says that running the line at street level wouldn't fully realise the benefits of LRT. I, and more than a few on this board, happen to agree with that assessment - and want it tunneled. That said, these are all only studies by consultancy firms. They are likely to rank certain cons/benefits differently and will come to different conclusions as to what is viable.

The city has very clearly stated it intends to build the Green Line. It has made zero indication that it wants to bury the 202. The Green Line isn't extravagant, I would say $5B is a realistic estimate - the same amount which the province easily found for a quarter of a ring road.

Holding our breath till Edmonton showers us in money is not traditionally a strategy that has worked very well. So no, tunneling Centre Street is not a viable alternative. And as we look towards a provincial government of right-wing extremists and a US oil glut that is going to thwack the oil sands... I don't think it is going to be a significantly improved strategy in future.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

Holding our breath till Edmonton showers us in money is not traditionally a strategy that has worked very well. So no, tunneling Centre Street is not a viable alternative. And as we look towards a provincial government of right-wing extremists and a US oil glut that is going to thwack the oil sands... I don't think it is going to be a significantly improved strategy in future.

The Wildrose Party gaining power could be bad, I'll give you that. I wouldn't be too worried about the US oil glut. They are fracking like crazy now but I wouldn't be surprised if their production peaks within the next decade or two and tails off rapidly. Oil prices are only going one way (especially with the BS going on in Russia etc) and we can already profit selling discounted oil from the oil sands with no ability to export it to the world market. Cost of production will go down in the future and once the country gets its act together and builds a pipeline or two, the price we can sell for will go up. We'll be fine.

What would be a mistake would be being overly pessimistic and not building value adding infrastructure province wide.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by ByeByeBaby

Sure; how about it gets built using a reduction in road capacity, combined with barriers along the right-of-way, grade separated roadway and pedestrian crossings, traffic signal preemption, east/west road closures or restrictions and property acquisition?

Those are not solutions, you just don't consider them problems. In any event that is creating our own mini Transit City debacle complete with some buffoon who will be promising a subway.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

Well, unless someone wants to offer a plausible solutions for how they intend to fund a Centre Street subway and "Green Line".

Oh, we can find billions for some road to nowhere, but we won't be able to do the same for LRT to serve approximately 20% of the people in the city?

Bet your tune changes when those 20% vote in MLA's that promise them LRT and they aren't part of the majority.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

People are being priced out of traditional homes by a real estate bubble.

This whole song and dance played out in Toronto in the 80's during their first condo bubble. When the market crashed Downtown Toronto was hit disproportionately hard and condos sat empty for years unsaleable at half their bubble price.

Right, can you see any light from that deep in the sand?

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

Oh, we can find billions for some road to nowhere, but we won't be able to do the same for LRT to serve approximately 20% of the people in the city?

This will seem like a cop-out, but I can not discuss anything even peripherally related to Stoney Trail.

Bet your tune changes when those 20% vote in MLA's that promise them LRT and they aren't part of the majority.

I would be delighted to change my tune, if I actually saw something that gave me cause for optimism. But I seriously doubt I will live long enough to see anything other than a bare-bones SELRT.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

Those are not solutions, you just don't consider them problems. In any event that is creating our own mini Transit City debacle complete with some buffoon who will be promising a subway.

So this would be so horrible?

• Video Link