Calgary's $8 BILLION Transit Plan - The RouteAhead

[youngregina]

I'm actually kind of upset they are going with the low floor trains for this. I was hoping that it would be similar to or the same as what we have currently. I feel as far as capacity goes, the trains we have now are more easily expandable, no?

Then there is also the ease of consolidating maintenance operations and such.

[MalcolmTucker]

The maintenance will likely be by a private company, unless interest rates go totally whacko.

Who knows - one of the proponents could come back with a high floor design that saves money if the city does a technology neutral tender - maybe 100m high floor articulated trains have more capacity with similar suburban station footprints (longer ramps et al) but lower costs for the 5ish elevated or underground stations due to shorter platforms, and a smaller maintenance facility. Heck, the number of road crossings on the SE (and depending on the number of intersections closed in the north) might even make ultra short but high frequency automated grade separated trains viable in a cost benefit analysis.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by suburbia

Inner city areas with 50' and 60' wide lots and back alleys are great examples of sprawl by your definition, but others would say inner city cannot be sprawl by definition.

They probably were sprawl at the time, I don't think many would disagree that Calgary has built predominantly low density housing for most of it's history. Doesn't mean we can or should continue the same way.

Originally Posted by Wooster

Working on a project I believe will be a game changer. Also working on an exceptionally interesting Brownfield site. :-)

Great! I guess that's all the information you can give? Are they based around transit?

Much has been said about how Calgary's intensely focused downtown is a good thing for transit, and I can see it does have benefits. However now the city is starting to grow out a long way I think developing more nodes could be a good thing - for example having employment centres clustered around LRT stations on the SE line would allow all the wasted capacity in the anti-peak direction to be utilised, and relieve stations closer to downtown.

[CorporateWhore]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

That argument would make sense if the city and developers hadn't already approved and planned massive greenfield and brownfield TOD's in the SE. Home builders and developers don't wait for an lrt to build. The development will occur regardless of the green line. Should all those people and businesses be deprived of decent transit because they either can't afford or don't choose to live inner city? If the goal is to reduce people's dependence on cars in this city then this can only be a good thing.

I'm starting to get really sick of people disparaging the SE like it's some exurb not worthy of city services. The new hospital is there for shit sakes! And like it or not so is a massive employment centre.

Nice try, but it has nothing to do with the SE. I'm not a fan of pushing towards the extreme boundaries in ANY direction.

The farther you go out, the smaller and smaller the return on investment, as less people are using your service. At some point you have to draw the line, and put resources towards things that work towards your long term goals of a sustainable city. And I'm sorry, but just because somebody WANTS to live in a new detached-house like their parents did and the only place they can do so is Greater Montana, doesn't mean that the we should necessarily accommodate them with serious public dollars. And yes, development will go on, but by acquiescing to these communities by making them more attractive to live and work in, the boundary to what's acceptable keeps stretching. In the meantime, the larger chunk of the urban core, where more people will use the service, is deprived of funding.

I'm not saying you don't eventually run the train out there. But not right away, and not until higher ROI transit needs have been taken care of.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by youngregina

I'm actually kind of upset they are going with the low floor trains for this. I was hoping that it would be similar to or the same as what we have currently. I feel as far as capacity goes, the trains we have now are more easily expandable, no?

Then there is also the ease of consolidating maintenance operations and such.

I too think the benefits of them presented are often misleading when compared to the decrease in capacity - we shouldn't be running these on streets in the first place anyway but that's another debate. In the end it isn't that big of a deal though, we are already going to be running 4 types of trains next year, and the lines are completely segregated.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by CorporateWhore

Nice try, but it has nothing to do with the SE. I'm not a fan of pushing towards the extreme boundaries in ANY direction.

The farther you go out, the smaller and smaller the return on investment, as less people are using your service. At some point you have to draw the line, and put resources towards things that work towards your long term goals of a sustainable city. And I'm sorry, but just because somebody WANTS to live in a new detached-house like their parents did and the only place they can do so is Greater Montana, doesn't mean that the we should necessarily accommodate them with serious public dollars. And yes, development will go on, but by acquiescing to these communities by making them more attractive to live and work in, the boundary to what's acceptable keeps stretching. In the meantime, the larger chunk of the urban core, where more people will use the service, is deprived of funding.

I'm not saying you don't eventually run the train out there. But not right away, and not until higher ROI transit needs have been taken care of.

Agreed. I support running the green line to the south hospital, but if it wasn't there (I argue it should have been put at Quarry Park or somewhere else more central), the SE line would be a hard justification. It is a considerable distance before any significant population is reached.

After this line, Calgary should really focus on buildings its core transit, including the crosstown BRTs and perhaps even some streetcars (dedicated lanes of course). As Corporate said above, spreading transit out (any infrastructure for that matter) is just not efficient.

[Wooster]

Originally Posted by fusili

Agreed. I support running the green line to the south hospital, but if it wasn't there (I argue it should have been put at Quarry Park or somewhere else more central), the SE line would be a hard justification. It is a considerable distance before any significant population is reached.

After this line, Calgary should really focus on buildings its core transit, including the crosstown BRTs and perhaps even some streetcars (dedicated lanes of course). As Corporate said above, spreading transit out (any infrastructure for that matter) is just not efficient.

Most of the significant ones in RouteAhead are funded and are going ahead.

[Surrealplaces]

Originally Posted by Wooster

Working on a project I believe will be a game changer. Also working on an exceptionally interesting Brownfield site. :-)

Good to hear. Can't wait to see what it is.

[Surrealplaces]

Originally Posted by fusili

Agreed. I support running the green line to the south hospital, but if it wasn't there (I argue it should have been put at Quarry Park or somewhere else more central), the SE line would be a hard justification. It is a considerable distance before any significant population is reached.

After this line, Calgary should really focus on buildings its core transit, including the crosstown BRTs and perhaps even some streetcars (dedicated lanes of course). As Corporate said above, spreading transit out (any infrastructure for that matter) is just not efficient.

Agree also. I'm not a fan of extending the train lines...like the extension to Tuscany for example. It's the mostly the same people using it that used it before. I'd rather they focus on the extra capacity so that people closer in can get onto a train. I know people that live in Brentwood and nearby North Hill Mall who don't use the LRT because it's too packed in the mornings.

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by fusili

Agreed. I support running the green line to the south hospital, but if it wasn't there (I argue it should have been put at Quarry Park or somewhere else more central), the SE line would be a hard justification. It is a considerable distance before any significant population is reached.

After this line, Calgary should really focus on buildings its core transit, including the crosstown BRTs and perhaps even some streetcars (dedicated lanes of course). As Corporate said above, spreading transit out (any infrastructure for that matter) is just not efficient.

Another thing that would be great going forward, and now seems like a good opportunity to do this, is to set a framework for better cooperation between city/province/fed about where to build major infrastructure. I know some of these are from bygone eras, but had Foothills, YYC, South Health, MRU, Rockyview, etc, been built in better locations, we wouldn't be scrambling to spend billions to connect them now.

That said, with the green line and major xtown BRT, Calgary will be positioned as one of the better-connected (and centralized) Canadian metros, especially when it comes to connecting suburbs.

[DizzyEdge]

I realize the funding is for capital projects, but it would be nice to at least get a night transit pilot.

[Me&You]

Originally Posted by RyLucky

Another thing that would be great going forward, and now seems like a good opportunity to do this, is to set a framework for better cooperation between city/province/fed about where to build major infrastructure. I know some of these are from bygone eras, but had Foothills, YYC, South Health, MRU, Rockyview, etc, been built in better locations, we wouldn't be scrambling to spend billions to connect them now.

I'm not sure what you mean by this?

I believe all but South Health were located and built prior to the construction of the LRT. If anything, shouldn't there have been more consideration given to the LRT routing and connectivity?

[McMurph]

After the green line what I want to see the city focus on is a shift in priority from commuting to all other travel. We're approaching world class when it comes to getting people into the core for work. We're still along way from having a system that's the default when going out to dinner, visiting grandma, seeing a movie and the like. Part of the reason is probably that it's still really easy to make those trips by car and the number of carless folks in Calgary is still low. Both those things are changing though.

I suppose a Car2Go like fleet of self-driving cars may completely serve that market for incidental urban travel. Still, I want a streetcar. Bring back the Marda Loop.

[Riise]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

That argument would make sense if the city and developers hadn't already approved and planned massive greenfield and brownfield TOD's in the SE.

It makes sense if the questions is: does the provision of LRT service reduce commute times therefore making both sustainable and unsustainable forms of development more attractive?

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Sadly, I can hardly think of any development in Calgary that is like this. Around Saddletowne is about the only one that comes close. Amazingly, despite being planned around the LRT lines the suburbs built in the SE all turn their backs on the stations and it looks like it's just going to be huge park and rides at each one. Very disappointing.

I would say Mckenzie Towne is the textbook example (though lrt is not yet there). It has exactly the form that DizzyEdge described. Main Street with shops surrounded by multifamily, slowly giving way to sfh's. It even has secondary suites above garages in some parts.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by milomilo

They probably were sprawl at the time, I don't think many would disagree that Calgary has built predominantly low density housing for most of it's history. Doesn't mean we can or should continue the same way.

No one is disagreeing with you there, but the "in between the lines" message was that the inner city is far worse than subdivisions that have come up in the last two decades. There are not really too many 50' or 60' lots available in new areas - far from that. I'm happy that the raping of our land that occurred in today's inner city is not and will not repeat in any of the new areas.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by CorporateWhore

Nice try, but it has nothing to do with the SE. I'm not a fan of pushing towards the extreme boundaries in ANY direction.

The farther you go out, the smaller and smaller the return on investment, as less people are using your service. At some point you have to draw the line, and put resources towards things that work towards your long term goals of a sustainable city. And I'm sorry, but just because somebody WANTS to live in a new detached-house like their parents did and the only place they can do so is Greater Montana, doesn't mean that the we should necessarily accommodate them with serious public dollars. And yes, development will go on, but by acquiescing to these communities by making them more attractive to live and work in, the boundary to what's acceptable keeps stretching. In the meantime, the larger chunk of the urban core, where more people will use the service, is deprived of funding.

I'm not saying you don't eventually run the train out there. But not right away, and not until higher ROI transit needs have been taken care of.

Again, your argument in general terms sounds nice, but long ago the city decided to green light Quarry Park and the SE Health campus contingent on there being an lrt line eventually. So no, they are not acquiescing to these communities demands, they are fulfilling the framework required for these mega projects to properly function. In addition whether you want to see it or not the SE employs more people than DT does. As for transit stats, they are always based on the brt running to the CBD. I haven't seen stats for the amount of transit users going into the employment areas of the office and industrial parks from other parts of the city. I see many people waiting for the bus every day by my office. This incidentally will be within very close proximity to the green line.

As for feeling entitled to a sfh in 'Montana' I can tell you that I do not live in one. I looked in Bridgeland but couldn't afford anything but a 400 ft. bachelor suite. So my wife and I got a townhouse instead which offered us twice the space for the same price and is located 10 mins from my office. As for your black and white portrayal of everyone living out here wanting a giant sfh in the suburbs, that ignores the massive amount of multifamily being built to support the south hospital. Seriously, come down here to the edge of the earth sometime and you might be surprised at how dense it is. I would say that more than a third of Auburn Bay's population lives in some form of multi family whether it be semi-detached, condo or townhome. Seton is in its early stages but already is on its way to offering an awesome, mixed use community as well.

[UofC.engineer]

Originally Posted by suburbia

No one is disagreeing with you there, but the "in between the lines" message was that the inner city is far worse than subdivisions that have come up in the last two decades. There are not really too many 50' or 60' lots available in new areas - far from that. I'm happy that the raping of our land that occurred in today's inner city is not and will not repeat in any of the new areas.

Instead of saying 'inner city' I think you mean the 'inner ring'. The inner ring are the neighborhoods built in the 50's and 60's. They have a warped grid street layout and and usually have 50ft lots. Acadia, Fairview, Marlborough and Glamorgan fall into this category. I wouldn't consider these neighborhoods inner city.

I agree with you that suburbs are being built more methodically today but in my opinion there is still a ways to go. A grid layout should be implemented in new developments along with a "main street" type area. I think these features are going to come to fruition with new greenfield developments like Rangeview. It will be serviced by the SE LRT as well.

http://www.calgary.ca/PDA/pd/Pages/Current-studies-and-ongoing-activities/Rangeview.aspx

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by fusili

Agreed. I support running the green line to the south hospital, but if it wasn't there (I argue it should have been put at Quarry Park or somewhere else more central), the SE line would be a hard justification. It is a considerable distance before any significant population is reached.

After this line, Calgary should really focus on buildings its core transit, including the crosstown BRTs and perhaps even some streetcars (dedicated lanes of course). As Corporate said above, spreading transit out (any infrastructure for that matter) is just not efficient.

There are now probably 30,000 people living south of the Ring Road within city limits (Auburn Bay, Cranston and Mahoganny). Mahoganny alone at full build out will have 20,000 residents. This says nothing of future communities like Seton, which I believe will be getting their first multi family town homes sometime this year. Again, I know it's not as sexy as the Beltline but there is a lot happening on the fringes down here that I don't think many on this forum pay attention to.

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by Me&You

I'm not sure what you mean by this?

I believe all but South Health were located and built prior to the construction of the LRT. If anything, shouldn't there have been more consideration given to the LRT routing and connectivity?

What I mean is we could have probably saved billions of dollars and millions of hours of congestion if we had built some of the centres on that list along existing transit corridors. For example, there could have been a way to build South Health at Somerset, for instance, thereby delaying the need to build the SELRT in the first place.

Of course, that ship has sailed, but moving forward, let's ensure more input from the city (and especially transit) when it comes to building future provincial and federal projects with high employment density.