Calgary Public Transit II

[milomilo]

How many cars actually use Centre St to go downtown? It's a horrible road to drive on (or walk on, to be frank), and it's not very useful - the roads downtown direct you towards Edmonton Trail. I think I've only ever driven on it once.

I say reduce the traffic lanes and build the LRT underground. That would make it much nicer.

[sitchensis]

HA!

As a recent Calgary transplant in Toronto, you guys have no right to complain about the pace of transit projects in YYC. Compared to Hogtown, Calgary is practically moving at the speed of light when it comes to funding and building new transit improvements.

[sim]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

My world, for the purposes of my work in Alberta and a couple US states. I have remarkably little interest, indeed absolutely no interest in the transit systems and modal share of the developing world and post-Soviet Eastern Europe.

Well at least you've finally admitted your wanton ignorance. We'll go with it.

I found the recent Metro article pretty interesting though. Journalist must be ex-KGB transpo zealot. I can only image.

Anyway, to be less of an ass, no street is what it is. It is what 'we' (insert who/whatever you want there) want it to be. No street, road, parcel of land or anything really has ever remained static, especially given enough time.

[lineman]

Originally Posted by milomilo

How many cars actually use Centre St to go downtown? It's a horrible road to drive on (or walk on, to be frank), and it's not very useful - the roads downtown direct you towards Edmonton Trail. I think I've only ever driven on it once.

I say reduce the traffic lanes and build the LRT underground. That would make it much nicer.

Last I read about 25,000 weekday vehicle trips.

[lineman]

Originally Posted by sitchensis

HA!

As a recent Calgary transplant in Toronto, you guys have no right to complain about the pace of transit projects in YYC. Compared to Hogtown, Calgary is practically moving at the speed of light when it comes to funding and building new transit improvements.

Soon you realize that complaining is a pastime around these parts.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by lineman

Last I read about 25,000 weekday vehicle trips.

And IIRC >30k transit riders

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by lineman

Soon you realize that complaining is a pastime around these parts.

Yup, what else is there to do during the long cold winters?!

[speedog]

Originally Posted by milomilo

How many cars actually use Centre St to go downtown? It's a horrible road to drive on (or walk on, to be frank), and it's not very useful - the roads downtown direct you towards Edmonton Trail. I think I've only ever driven on it once.

I say reduce the traffic lanes and build the LRT underground. That would make it much nicer.

What's so bad about Centre Street - it seems to get me in and out of downtown quite well and it's in fairly good shape. Even walking it isn't bad - guess it's all in one's perspective.

[Cage]

Originally Posted by speedog

What's so bad about Centre Street - it seems to get me in and out of downtown quite well and it's in fairly good shape. Even walking it isn't bad - guess it's all in one's perspective.

The problem with Centre Street lies in the name, its a street, just a street, and will always be a street. What it is not and never will be is Centre Boulevard, Centre Drive, or Centre Trail. Some of the North Central population however wants Centre Street to become more (capacity, density, transit oriented).

[speedog]

Originally Posted by Cage

The problem with Centre Street lies in the name, its a street, just a street, and will always be a street. What it is not and never will be is Centre Boulevard, Centre Drive, or Centre Trail. Some of the North Central population however wants Centre Street to become more (capacity, density, transit oriented).

It's a street, just a street and will always be a street.

One can think that way or hope it evolves - there are famous streets in Canada. Main Street in Winnipeg, Robson Street in Vancouver, Yonge Street, Bay Street or College Street in Toronto - or are these just streets as well?

[Cage]

Originally Posted by speedog

It's a street, just a street and will always be a street.

One can think that way or hope it evolves - there are famous streets in Canada. Main Street in Winnipeg, Robson Street in Vancouver, Yonge Street, Bay Street or College Street in Toronto - or are these just streets as well?

To answer your question,. yes the above mentioned streets are just streets as well. Separate the community from the pavement and they are all the same pavement purposes.

For greater clarity, Bay Street in TO will never become Bay Expressway or Bay transit corridor, or Bay pedestrian corridor. Its a permanent fixture of the Toronto transportation system and the nature of the activities surrounding the street are unlikely to accept radical change in use or purpose.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by sim

Well at least you've finally admitted your wanton ignorance. We'll go with it.

For the sake of argument lets say you, sim, have never exhaustively studied the role of rickshaw taxis. Would that make you wantonly ignorant or merely reflect that you find much greater relevance in studying other situations?

Places where private vehicle ownership was some combination of illegal, impossible or impractical for much of the 20th Century just aren't relevant to our situation. Technically, spatially, culturally or politically.

I found the recent Metro article pretty interesting though. Journalist must be ex-KGB transpo zealot. I can only image.

I don't know what Metro is, but Google gave me articles about a grocery store.

Anyway, to be less of an ass, no street is what it is. It is what 'we' (insert who/whatever you want there) want it to be. No street, road, parcel of land or anything really has ever remained static, especially given enough time.

Given enough time Calgary will be scraped bare by glaciers sometime in the next million years. But I anticipate I will probably have died sometime before 2050. Again, outside my frame of reference. But I'm pretty sure whoever "we" is, it isn't going to be the most militant fringe of eccentric academic urban planners.

[VIce]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

For the sake of argument lets say you, sim, have never exhaustively studied the role of rickshaw taxis. Would that make you wantonly ignorant or merely reflect that you find much greater relevance in studying other situations?

Places where private vehicle ownership was some combination of illegal, impossible or impractical for much of the 20th Century just aren't relevant to our situation. Technically, spatially, culturally or politically.



I don't know what Metro is, but Google gave me articles about a grocery store.



Given enough time Calgary will be scraped bare by glaciers sometime in the next million years. But I anticipate I will probably have died sometime before 2050. Again, outside my frame of reference. But I'm pretty sure whoever "we" is, it isn't going to be the most militant fringe of eccentric academic urban planners.

Metro is a giveaway, commuter-oriented tabloid-format newspaper owned by the Toronto Star. Their news content is mostly taken verbatim from newswires, with some local content.

[Aegis]

Thank you for one of the most epic transit forum debates since I joined this site in 2006. I now feel fully informed on the North-Central LRT and where it may go in the future.

[sim]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

For the sake of argument lets say you, sim, have never exhaustively studied the role of rickshaw taxis. Would that make you wantonly ignorant or merely reflect that you find much greater relevance in studying other situations?

Places where private vehicle ownership was some combination of illegal, impossible or impractical for much of the 20th Century just aren't relevant to our situation. Technically, spatially, culturally or politically.



I don't know what Metro is, but Google gave me articles about a grocery store.



Given enough time Calgary will be scraped bare by glaciers sometime in the next million years. But I anticipate I will probably have died sometime before 2050. Again, outside my frame of reference. But I'm pretty sure whoever "we" is, it isn't going to be the most militant fringe of eccentric academic urban planners.

No, but I'd be open to understanding things outside my knowledge base and I wouldn't pick and choose my facts and or statistics to suite my need/agenda. Why don't we address the mode share of Western/Northern Europe then? Or let's qualify things to the point where the only comparative is Calgary itself, or on a good day, whatever is knowingly at the bottom of the barometer.

Streets have always only changed because of militant, eccentric, academic urban planners... Give it a rest.

[Policy Wonk]

What is productive about these comparisons other than giving you and your peers an opportunity to render smug judgement on those decadent Albertans?

Calgary sort of figured this out on it's own and built a wildly successful light-rail system and a transit culture that sees affluent white professionals not only cram themselves onto trains, but buses too. If you see a middle aged white guy in a suit at a bus stop in Calgary... the first thought to cross your mind probably isn't "DUI". That is a success that is anything but "bottom of the barometer" and it is a success not easily replicated.

As I recall your goalposts were basically transit in a form and level that one is not disadvantaged on any sort of trip by not owning a car at any hour. That doesn't seem like a reasonable threshold for success. That sounds like a test where the pass/fail is 90%.

[sim]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

What is productive about these comparisons other than giving you and your peers an opportunity to render smug judgement on those decadent Albertans?

Calgary sort of figured this out on it's own and built a wildly successful light-rail system and a transit culture that sees affluent white professionals not only cram themselves onto trains, but buses too. If you see a middle aged white guy in a suit at a bus stop in Calgary... the first thought to cross your mind probably isn't "DUI". That is a success that is anything but "bottom of the barometer" and it is a success not easily replicated.

As I recall your goalposts were basically transit in a form and level that one is not disadvantaged on any sort of trip by not owning a car at any hour. That doesn't seem like a reasonable threshold for success. That sounds like a test where the pass/fail is 90%.

Do you have the second paragraph stored on your desktop?

Wow, white affluent people riding transit. Insane!! Happens nowhere else. What is productive about it, just for starters, is that it allows to understand how the situation there came to be and how it can be emulated, if, in fact, it should be. To that end, my general goal of a more resourcefully efficient way of life and one that does not simultaneously impose as much burden on others (Bruntland et al) dictates for me what should be.

I'm not going to discuss things like this when you've already admitted your ignorance. What's the point? I can tell you something and you'll find a new way to justify why it isn't relevant (to you). Plus, I'm tired of having to discuss down several levels. It gets really tiring. Take that for what you will. You're allowed to be ignorant, I'm allowed to be pretentious.

To sum up. You contend had we built more freeways, transit on Centre (whatever form, but lets say surface going) would be more viable. I said the opposite is likely true. You went on your usual, quote every line, twist everything and make up new arguments for people to suit your purpose, way of responding. Now here you are using your all-too-familiar and woefully myopic definition of success*. Yet if we examine much of non-ex-soviet Europe, where this was exactly the case (the lack of many freeways, large arterials and generally lower lane-km), we quickly make our supposed success look rather limited indeed.

I don't know if I can dumb it down anymore for you. I really can't. If that simple logical cannot be picked up on then see the end of my second paragraph.

*Remembering our all day, all purpose mode share is trending toward more vehicular trips and that the success of our light rail (and discretely examined this word may just work) comes on the back of cross-subsidization of feeder buses and the (until as of recent) subsidization of parking for said stations - which, although better than the alternative of a car only trip, reminds precisely that the C-train (and PT system as a whole) is still very much limited and nevertheless requires an intermodal trip involving a vehicle for many users.

Which segues nicely to your last paragraph. The goal is to make transit useful for all trips, yes. That does not mean it will ever be fully able to compete with the vehicle in time. But this is especially difficult if all you do is build freeways. It most definitely can be made to compete in utility if that time gap is lowered though.

Now proceed with quoting each paragraph one by one, making up something I'm trying to say, label me an academic zealot urbanist or whatever other catchy combination comes to your cranium, and avoid, yet again, admitting that you might not have said something correct to begin with. But what do all the countless "zealout academics" (and only them obviously) that have studied this know anyway.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by sim

Wow, white affluent people riding transit. Insane!! Happens nowhere else.

Because Calgary is completely interchangeable with those places... just add cowboy hats. There is nothing dissimilar about the life and circumstances of a Calgary white collar commuter and somebody headed to Manhattan or Canary Wharf. Nothing at all.

I'm not going to discuss things like this when you've already admitted your ignorance. What's the point?

I assure you, there is nothing I would like better.

To sum up. You contend had we built more freeways, transit on Centre (whatever form, but lets say surface going) would be more viable. I said the opposite is likely true.

And that is still ridiculous. Scarcity limits the potential acceptable uses of just about anything. Including roads. Your contention that if Centre Street had been relegated to an Old Route 66 like status where it had long since been bypassed by another highway and had been relegated almost entirely to local traffic that it would somehow be less likely to serve as an acceptable LRT ROW is just silly. The issue no matter what form you imagine Calgary might have taken is the lack of an acceptable ROW for a Centre Street LRT. That doesn't change in your hypothetical Calgary, neither does a stingy Provincial and Federal government. Your scenario just creates a Centre Street (and Edmonton Trail) of even greater importance and presumably just assumes some political and cultural shift that would be more amicable to taking away lanes.

Which segues nicely to your last paragraph. The goal is to make transit useful for all trips, yes. That does not mean it will ever be fully able to compete with the vehicle in time. But this is especially difficult if all you do is build freeways. It most definitely can be made to compete in utility if that time gap is lowered though.

If the existence of other alternatives, such as freeways, is highly detrimental to the viability of a given public transit resource. It shouldn't be or shouldn't have been built in the first place because it isn't or wasn't needed in that location or form.

[Full Mountain]

You two must be in academia, you seem to like to take in circles without saying a damn thing

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

You two must be in academia, you seem to like to take in circles without saying a damn thing

I agree. I can't even understand what either is saying anymore.