Calgary Public Transit II

[MalcolmTucker]

People act like since there isn't money today, before the next round of federal and provincial infrastructure programs are rolled out, that that means there isn't money 5 years, 10 years from now.

Yes, it is going to cost a lot, yes it might be done earlier with an extra special cash injection. But acting like it is a crisis? Come on.

[joe498]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

People act like since there isn't money today, before the next round of federal and provincial infrastructure programs are rolled out, that that means there isn't money 5 years, 10 years from now.

Yes, it is going to cost a lot, yes it might be done earlier with an extra special cash injection. But acting like it is a crisis? Come on.

But it goes both ways, with time projects become more expensive.

It is the same reason that KeystoneXL is now twice the cost by waiting 6 years.

Calgary is projected to be 2m people by 2024.

Even if the line was announced today, it would still be 3-5 years away.

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by joe498

It seems that the primary reason the Green line will be delayed is cost, perhaps we should be thinking of some more methods of funding that do not rely on province/federal, it might never happen if we do.

Here are my ideas:

- City owns many park and rides, many are in very attractive locations with sizable land. Ones within close proximity to downtown would be extremely attractive and profitable to developers. Brentwood, Dalhousie, Chinook & 39 ave come to mind. Full list here with parking stall sizes: http://www.calgarytransit.com/html/park_n_ride_locations.html

Atlanta Transit service has recently decided to sign 100yr leases with developers on the land to develop residential/mixed use space. Not only does this increase ridership but the profit from long term consistent leases to the city is quite impressive. This would work very well in Calgary given our strong real estate market and low vacancy. I do not see a reason for parking stalls that represent a very small portion of the transit ridership to exist on valuable land, the future is not parking stalls.

- Continue this idea of long term leasing along the SELRT corridor, with announcement of an LRT to the SE, land values would certainly increase and the city has the power to invest in the land presently and pursue long term leases later.

- Billboard advertising along the LRT line and continue further LRT traincar advertising.

- Sell Enmax, really no need for a municipality to continue to own an electricity company, profitability from current energy sources has pretty much peaked. This alone could almost build the entire line.

- Hotel tax has been suggested, wouldn't need provincial approval

- City charter, quite a few things could be modified but dependent on Province/Premier approval / leniency.

Or just raise dedicated transportation taxes. Start with raising gas-taxes. Alberta charges the lowest by a significant margin. Devote all funds to transportation infrastructure. Problem solved.

Note Vancouver with the province/city taking over 3x what would be paid for here. And nearly double the entire tax amount charged to gas in Alberta being devoted solely to transit in Vancouver.

http://retail.petro-canada.ca/en/fuelsavings/2139.aspx

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by polishavenger

Im baffled by this idea of low floor train along center street. It was my understanding that the ctrain is supposed to be rapid transit, not tied up in street level traffic delays. I would also think it should also add all net new capacity to mobility in an area, not reduce other modes. Frankly Im feeling that after making one correct decision (the corridor) Calgary Transit is now making up for it with nothing but bad ones.

IMHO, tunnel out of the core from Eau Claire with a station south of 16th Ave, then come out of the ground and into an elevated track between 16th ave n and 64th ave N, at which point it goes back to grade in the median of Centre Street. It will cost $2billion, but its an asset that will ensure capacity to a growing city for 100 years to come.

The train would have it's own dedicated ROW, it will not be in mixed traffic. Likely have less delays than the train on 36th street.

[fusili]

I am of the opinion that the LRT should be grade separated south of 24th to the river (and through downtown of course). The question is how to do so. I think transit needs to be directed to investigate more than one option for this (subway under river, new bridge connecting to subway, elevated north of the river). Let's not constrain our options yet.

[outoftheice]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Is any option being looked at for a bridge over the Bow tunneling through the side of the hill instead of tunnelling under the Bow?

I cant seem to find anything on the Citys website for any of the Stantec proposals.

Click on the link for the Stantec Centre City Connection document. Scroll down to North Central Corridor and then click "View Report" at the end of bullet item 2.

http://www.lrtonthegreen.ca/about-the-green-line/

[MasterG]

Why can't the LRT just go down centre? Why does it have to go over to 2nd Street? Assuming it remains at grade on the Centre Street bridge. Any big reasons that would make it worse/more expensive than the awkward turn onto 2nd?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by MasterG

Why can't the LRT just go down centre? Why does it have to go over to 2nd Street? Assuming it remains at grade on the Centre Street bridge. Any big reasons that would make it worse/more expensive than the awkward turn onto 2nd?

Maybe it can't go under the Calgary Tower? Possibly that's the only route it can get through downtown...

[andasen]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Maybe it can't go under the Calgary Tower? Possibly that's the only route it can get through downtown...

Relevant Screen shot from the recent DT greenline alignment study

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Maybe it can't go under the Calgary Tower? Possibly that's the only route it can get through downtown...

Really would depend on the depth of the foundation of the tower. 2nd has the advantage it only has a parkade ramp above it so you could get away with being a lot closer to the surface, possibly even be able to cut and cover.

[joe498]

Calgary's North Central LRT line options mulled by city:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/ca...rt-line-options-mulled-by-city-1.2802237

- Nenshi says he would like to explore the option of elevating the train line, but he cautions that building the next LRT line is at least a decade away.

A decade from now, Calgary will be 2m people. Ugh.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by joe498

Calgary's North Central LRT line options mulled by city:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/ca...rt-line-options-mulled-by-city-1.2802237

- Nenshi says he would like to explore the option of elevating the train line, but he cautions that building the next LRT line is at least a decade away.

A decade from now, Calgary will be 2m people. Ugh.

Not exactly. Even at aggressive 4% growth per year (we grew at 3.3% this year), we would only get to 1.75M in 10 years. But valid point nonetheless, we need transit in a big way in this city.

[joe498]

Originally Posted by fusili

Not exactly. Even at aggressive 4% growth per year (we grew at 3.3% this year), we would only get to 1.75M in 10 years. But valid point nonetheless, we need transit in a big way in this city.

Don't forget about the bedroom communities.

Assuming Calgary is 1.3m people right now at 4% growth rate we would hit 1,924,317 by 2024, 2030 = 2,434,875

- Statcan puts Calgary Metro area at 1.364m for 2013 so that is actually a low estimate.

Interesting article a month ago by Macleans:

'Could Alberta pass Quebec to become the second-largest province?-By population? Possibly. By size of economy, it’s pretty much already there.'

http://www.macleans.ca/economy/economica...c-to-become-the-second-largest-province/

[lubicon]

Originally Posted by joe498

It seems that the primary reason the Green line will be delayed is cost, perhaps we should be thinking of some more methods of funding that do not rely on province/federal, it might never happen if we do.

Here are my ideas:

- City owns many park and rides, many are in very attractive locations with sizable land. Ones within close proximity to downtown would be extremely attractive and profitable to developers. Brentwood, Dalhousie, Chinook & 39 ave come to mind. Full list here with parking stall sizes: http://www.calgarytransit.com/html/park_n_ride_locations.html

Atlanta Transit service has recently decided to sign 100yr leases with developers on the land to develop residential/mixed use space. Not only does this increase ridership but the profit from long term consistent leases to the city is quite impressive. This would work very well in Calgary given our strong real estate market and low vacancy. I do not see a reason for parking stalls that represent a very small portion of the transit ridership to exist on valuable land, the future is not parking stalls.

- Continue this idea of long term leasing along the SELRT corridor, with announcement of an LRT to the SE, land values would certainly increase and the city has the power to invest in the land presently and pursue long term leases later.

- Billboard advertising along the LRT line and continue further LRT traincar advertising.

- Sell Enmax, really no need for a municipality to continue to own an electricity company, profitability from current energy sources has pretty much peaked. This alone could almost build the entire line.

- Hotel tax has been suggested, apparently wouldn't need provincial approval

- City charter, quite a few things could be modified but dependent on Province/Premier approval / leniency

- Introduce the dreaded but academically studied most efficient tax, a sales tax. Some will disagree but I encourage you to read the research that the general public won't read, economists do favor this. Times of low oil only make the reasoning more valid.

Business taxes and income taxes could be significantly lowered with a sales tax to fill the current margin. It would still generate more revenue as it capitalizes on Temporary foreign workers, tourists and spending on both the consumer side and business side. Business taxes don't work on large companies as accounting and offshore banking can drastically reduce paid tax. AB has the highest spending in the country, unfortunately we are not capitalizing on this. Lower business taxes draw more companies to relocate to the region, also creating jobs.

On the bright side:

First ‘quick win’ project underway as SE Calgary transit users await Green Line Transitway:
http://metronews.ca/news/calgary/1185440...ansit-users-await-green-line-transitway/

Yes, yes, and yes. But it has to be a dedicated sales tax with all the money going towards transportation projects.

[craner]

I'm with Chad and the others who think we need to start thinking and planning for a city of 2+million. This surface LRT decision is — and very dissapointing.
I for one would welcome a dedicated tax for transportation projects.

[speedog]

Do we not already have some sort of dedicated sales tax already built into retail fuel sales? Something like 9 cents per liter of which 5 cents comes back to Calgary?

Maybe the problem is not another tax as much as it is how the CoC is managing those fuel tax dollars. I crunched those numbers in this thread and even my conservative estimates showed $2,025,000 coming back to the CoC on a weekly basis. Maybe increase that by a couple of cents and in this way, the people using the transportation infrastructure would be somewhat directly funding it's costs - the problem is getting the CoC to correctly direct those fuel tax dollars.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by speedog

Do we not already have some sort of dedicated sales tax already built into retail fuel sales? Something like 9 cents per liter of which 5 cents comes back to Calgary?

Maybe the problem is not another tax as much as it is how the CoC is managing those fuel tax dollars. I crunched those numbers in this thread and even my conservative estimates showed $2,025,000 coming back to the CoC on a weekly basis. Maybe increase that by a couple of cents and in this way, the people using the transportation infrastructure would be somewhat directly funding it's costs - the problem is getting the CoC to correctly direct those fuel tax dollars.

And everyone is going to cry foul because you're only taxing drivers. A general sales tax is by far a more equitable way of getting the money.

1. It taxes everyone
2. It's only applicable to non essential purchases, so it impacts the lower income portions of the population less

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by speedog

Do we not already have some sort of dedicated sales tax already built into retail fuel sales? Something like 9 cents per liter of which 5 cents comes back to Calgary?

Maybe the problem is not another tax as much as it is how the CoC is managing those fuel tax dollars. I crunched those numbers in this thread and even my conservative estimates showed $2,025,000 coming back to the CoC on a weekly basis. Maybe increase that by a couple of cents and in this way, the people using the transportation infrastructure would be somewhat directly funding it's costs - the problem is getting the CoC to correctly direct those fuel tax dollars.

The City Transportation Fund (the provincial gas tax fund for Calgary and Edmonton) was rolled into the Basic Municipal Transportation Grant in 2011, and then consolidated with the Municipal Sustainability Initiative this year. But the dollars still flow from that former carve out proportionally to fuel sales.

If the city wanted to build transit and only transit, there is enough money to do it through MSI. But other things are important too. It would be much easier if Calgary wasn't growing.

Raising the gas tax would be a good thing. I fully support a question to do so and dedicate it towards transportation infrastructure going on the municipal ballot.

[H.E.Pennypacker]

Originally Posted by craner

I'm with Chad and the others who think we need to start thinking and planning for a city of 2+million. This surface LRT decision is — and very dissapointing.
I for one would welcome a dedicated tax for transportation projects.

Me too

Hope to hell they have some foresight in their decision

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by outoftheice

Click on the link for the Stantec Centre City Connection document. Scroll down to North Central Corridor and then click "View Report" at the end of bullet item 2.

http://www.lrtonthegreen.ca/about-the-green-line/

Thanks, I see where its mentioned but then it seems like its dismissed because of Princes Island Park and its never mentioned again or given as an option later on.

I just figured they could Tunnel through the side of the hill and tunnel somewhere under the East side of PI Park. There is a flooding risk with that but you would think it could be mitigated now that the risks are known.