Calgary Public Transit II

[fusili]

Originally Posted by dazzlingdave88

I went....You did a good job of summarizing....I hate open houses like this with Q and A's after....people get on there soap boxes and end up commenting, not really asking questions.

One other interesting thing Druh did share is there is a proposal for a development that spans the whole block on 16 ave. She didn't give details as it was a response to a question.

Oh god yes. I hate that. Whenever I do ask a question, I really stop to think to myself, "is this a question that others will benefit from, and is it a question that will provide more info, or is this just me trying to make a point."

I was going to ask if Councillor Farrell and the others had any experience with and lessons from how transfer stations should be designed, which I think is especially important for the downtown station.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by *Stardust*

That guy at the end about his Condominium and being compensated was the biggest facepalm moment of the night

I'm wanting to go to another open house for the downtown station alignment when it comes up. I'm going to try and push for the 10th avenue line to stay underground until the Inglewood station.

Someone should inform him that compensation for loss of property value does not exist in Canada. It is a tough bullet to bite, but better know sooner than later that there will be no money coming their way.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by fusili

Someone should inform him that compensation for loss of property value does not exist in Canada. It is a tough bullet to bite, but better know sooner than later that there will be no money coming their way.

What was his complaint? Did he think his condo would lose value by being much closer to an LRT line in a city with improved transit?

[artvandelay]

Originally Posted by fusili

Someone should inform him that compensation for loss of property value does not exist in Canada. It is a tough bullet to bite, but better know sooner than later that there will be no money coming their way.

This is not entirely true. Under the expropriation act, owners may be entitled to compensation if they can prove injurious affection, even if their lands are not taken in the expropriation. Having said that, the test to prove this is fairly stringent.

[Riise]

Originally Posted by fusili

Someone should inform him that compensation for loss of property value does not exist in Canada. It is a tough bullet to bite, but better know sooner than later that there will be no money coming their way.

Druh should have pulled a cheeky and informed him that a Planning Gain levy would be added to his tax roll if his property value increased due to the improved transport links.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by artvandelay

This is not entirely true. Under the expropriation act, owners may be entitled to compensation if they can prove injurious affection, even if their lands are not taken in the expropriation. Having said that, the test to prove this is fairly stringent.

Very stringent. Only really in the case of damages or loss due to construction, and construction that is severe and unreasonable but not due to the operation or change in the nature of the adjacent land. Supreme Court was very clear on this. Having an LRT close to your property is not grounds for compensation.

[dazzlingdave88]

Originally Posted by fusili

Oh god yes. I hate that. Whenever I do ask a question, I really stop to think to myself, "is this a question that others will benefit from, and is it a question that will provide more info, or is this just me trying to make a point."

I was going to ask if Councillor Farrell and the others had any experience with and lessons from how transfer stations should be designed, which I think is especially important for the downtown station.

Transfer station access would be a great question. I'm sure, when they figure out the option they are going to use downtown, that would be the next big question, especially if these downtown stations are underground and the current lines remain at street level on 7 ave.

I found some of what they learned and talked about to be quite interesting.

The man that asked the first question about self-driving cars was another facepalm question. He really had ambitious goals for it to be commonplace in five years, but then also didn't think about all the other problems that would arise from that. Eg. Parking, affordability, etc.

Druh's response was great.....there is a reason trains are still a technology in use 150 years after the first subway.....it works. I can't see being replaced in any of the major cities of the world in the next 100 years.

[*Stardust*]

Originally Posted by milomilo

What was his complaint? Did he think his condo would lose value by being much closer to an LRT line in a city with improved transit?

I should be clear. He was concerned that the alignment of the LRT would go right through his condo. Which is a valid concern, but the way he asked it was very harsh and it was as if he was expecting the money tonight to be compensated?

Yes the self driving car guy was ridiculous. The fact that he didn't like trains and that buses were superior somehow once we get driverless technology

[PPAR]

Originally Posted by dazzlingdave88

Transfer station access would be a great question. I'm sure, when they figure out the option they are going to use downtown, that would be the next big question, especially if these downtown stations are underground and the current lines remain at street level on 7 ave.
.

I wonder if it would be reasonable to fund a grade separation on the 7th avenue line for a couple of blocks in order to build a completely underground transfer station on day one of green line operation. It would likely save money in the long run, and would bring comfort and convenience to those transferring lines.

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by PPAR

I wonder if it would be reasonable to fund a grade separation on the 7th avenue line for a couple of blocks in order to build a completely underground transfer station on day one of green line operation. It would likely save money in the long run, and would bring comfort and convenience to those transferring lines.

I would suspect that the grade required means that a ramp stretch over several intersections with North-south streets. This would mean they couldn't be crossed, therefore it might be difficult to pull off.

Personally, I would prefer to see a NW-S metro on 8th Avenue as part of this greenline build. If it costs $1B, find the money from cutting a few under-utilized stations in the proposed SE corridor. The travel efficiency gains and increased attraction from the NW-S line would make up for the relatively small loss of functionality in the SE.

[You Need A Thneed]

Originally Posted by PPAR

I wonder if it would be reasonable to fund a grade separation on the 7th avenue line for a couple of blocks in order to build a completely underground transfer station on day one of green line operation. It would likely save money in the long run, and would bring comfort and convenience to those transferring lines.

It can't really be a partial project. Shutting down the line to do a couple blocks shuts down the line all the same. Might as well do it all then.

[sim]

Originally Posted by You Need A Thneed

It can't really be a partial project. Shutting down the line to do a couple blocks shuts down the line all the same. Might as well do it all then.

Well..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s__ysTCD1wo

This is not at all to say it is a good idea.

[sim]

From the Construction Thread

Originally Posted by milomilo

It definitely has made our transit statistics look good on paper and we certainly do have a successful downtown, but it means our transit system is basically useless unless you are commuting. I would say the policy has been successful so far, but I see no need to blindly follow it forever. We are very near capacity on the red line, it won't be too long before we literally can't carry any more people on existing transit downtown.

Name one great city that is as concentrated as ours? European cities are all far more multi-centred and no one sees it as a bad thing there, and it doesn't correlate at all with worse walkability/transit.

I don't disagree with the first part of what you said in the least.

But I don't think it's as simple as just saying we need polycentricity and bam, problem solved; which speaks to your next point and which, without a whole lot more context really doesn't mean that much.

What do you mean by concentrated? Jobs? Pop? Over what scale? How central or the sub-centres? Does it matter what the average density is? Articulated density or population-weighted density only? What are the other transportation policies shaping the system? Parking?

In short, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to say that in Europe, polycentricity ensures better transit and walkability, so that's how it would play out here. First of all, to the best of my knowledge and from the literature out there, it seems this isn't conclusive. But I tend to agree that the spatial patterns in most European cities are more conducive to better all-day transit.

But then how polycentric are they? Many tend to just have average densities in most of the city that are supportive of high-capacity transit. And then even if they are noticeably polycentric, in that they truly have much higher land use intensity around transit stations, those sub-centres are still much closer to the main centre.

Look at a Munich, Zurich or Vienna. Quarry Park, relative to our city centre would be on the very periphery of all these cities. They still mostly have radial mass transit networks, but at least they are rapid and extensive to support the land-use that supports them. Let's also not forget to mention that Quarry Park wasn't planned with the knowledge that LRT was imminent (or at least, let's hope as much). Much of Quarry Park is as much a parking lot wasteland as anywhere else, it just happens to have a pseudo-canal and some tree-lined boulevards. Hooray! Quarry Park is largely a lost cause in terms of it being able to induce greater transit use or more reverse all-day trips/better overall transit infra utilization.

Again, not disagreeing with the premise that being more polycentric can help, it just needs to be done right and with a good understanding. Our sub-centres to focus on are Kensington, Mission, Inglewood and maybe Marda Loop. These are proximate enough and built up enough that incremental growth and mixed uses will make them places that I think you are thinking of when you mention European sub-centres. Maybe if we stop growing out completely and all these sub-centres become "maxed-out", QP might be next in line to join them as one. Until then, a failure.

[Trans Canada]

If Calgary becomes multi-nodal, won't transit ridership decrease (in % terms)? If there is less congestion in directions opposite to rush hour, people will choose to drive even if transit exists. Only when these routes are congested too will people choose transit.

Becoming multi-nodal will allow us to better utilize existing infrastructure (highways and transit for those who choose to take it) but I reckon the highways will fill up first.

[fusili]

Sim, great points. What many forget when discussing density is that many European cities have a base density far above what North American cities have in their denser neighbourhoods. This is often the fault with plans that call for densifying corridors and expecting tons of retail along those corridors when the surrounding neighbourhood is still very low density. A few mid-rise buildings won't create the critical mass of people to support an entire corridor of retail, you need more people close by.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by sim

From the Construction Thread



I don't disagree with the first part of what you said in the least.

But I don't think it's as simple as just saying we need polycentricity and bam, problem solved; which speaks to your next point and which, without a whole lot more context really doesn't mean that much.

What do you mean by concentrated? Jobs? Pop? Over what scale? How central or the sub-centres? Does it matter what the average density is? Articulated density or population-weighted density only? What are the other transportation policies shaping the system? Parking?

In short, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to say that in Europe, polycentricity ensures better transit and walkability, so that's how it would play out here. First of all, to the best of my knowledge and from the literature out there, it seems this isn't conclusive. But I tend to agree that the spatial patterns in most European cities are more conducive to better all-day transit.

But then how polycentric are they? Many tend to just have average densities in most of the city that are supportive of high-capacity transit. And then even if they are noticeably polycentric, in that they truly have much higher land use intensity around transit stations, those sub-centres are still much closer to the main centre.

Look at a Munich, Zurich or Vienna. Quarry Park, relative to our city centre would be on the very periphery of all these cities. They still mostly have radial mass transit networks, but at least they are rapid and extensive to support the land-use that supports them. Let's also not forget to mention that Quarry Park wasn't planned with the knowledge that LRT was imminent (or at least, let's hope as much). Much of Quarry Park is as much a parking lot wasteland as anywhere else, it just happens to have a pseudo-canal and some tree-lined boulevards. Hooray! Quarry Park is largely a lost cause in terms of it being able to induce greater transit use or more reverse all-day trips/better overall transit infra utilization.

Again, not disagreeing with the premise that being more polycentric can help, it just needs to be done right and with a good understanding. Our sub-centres to focus on are Kensington, Mission, Inglewood and maybe Marda Loop. These are proximate enough and built up enough that incremental growth and mixed uses will make them places that I think you are thinking of when you mention European sub-centres. Maybe if we stop growing out completely and all these sub-centres become "maxed-out", QP might be next in line to join them as one. Until then, a failure.

This (my) post is pretty incoherent, apologies for that...

I would say Calgary is concentrated in that it has high population and employment densities (and built form) in the beltline and downtown, but this very rapidly drops off to suburbia, with few dense centres outside. And, as said before, all of our transit is designed primarily to convey people from the (often far) suburbs in the morning and back out again in the evening, often from a park and ride. This does make our transit stats look great, but I sure everyone can agree that there is much more to a great city than how many people ride a train to work.

My main experience is of British cities, where unfortunately public transit almost always is terrible, with the huge exception of London. However, they do tend to be much more poly-nodal and also much more walkable, largely because they are made of many towns that have merged into each other. Calgary of course formed much differently. AFAIK, land use policies are also completely different, without zoning like there is here, so there was a greater mix of residential and commercial also. But there are probably disadvantages to the system used there too, I don't really have enough knowledge to say.

Sorry, this is a bit ramble-ey but I don't really disagree with anything you have said! But I would say our policies of focusing efforts downtown have been successful, but it is worth looking to a future where it's not just downtown we focus on, or we will continue to have the second best skyline in Canada while also being one of the sprawliest.

Unfortunately, the Green Line pretty much continues the negative aspects of our current public transit system - it goes all the way to the far reaches of the suburbs with park and rides at most of the outer stations. Essentially commuter rail, but slower. I'm not sure what I think the best solution is going forward, but part of it would be more cross-town lines, and actually building some decent TOD. Don't make people take a bus to the LRT, that 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵. Let people be able to walk to shops nearby, and a train station. Even in the beltline, however, that isn't always possible. I'd say Sunnyside is the best example of how we should build around LRT stations.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Trans Canada

If Calgary becomes multi-nodal, won't transit ridership decrease (in % terms)? If there is less congestion in directions opposite to rush hour, people will choose to drive even if transit exists. Only when these routes are congested too will people choose transit.

Becoming multi-nodal will allow us to better utilize existing infrastructure (highways and transit for those who choose to take it) but I reckon the highways will fill up first.

But why should this automatically be a bad thing? There is no need to pursue a goal of mode share percentage just for the sake of it. If we are transporting more people than before with the same infrastructure, who cares?

[fusili]

Originally Posted by milomilo

But why should this automatically be a bad thing? There is no need to pursue a goal of mode share percentage just for the sake of it. If we are transporting more people than before with the same infrastructure, who cares?

It isn't only that multi-nodal cities decrease transit use, they also increase average trip distances and trip times. While it is nice to think that everyone will walk to work in a multi-nodal city, the truth is more people just end up making cross-town commutes. Quarry Park is a great example. What percentage of workers there actually live nearby. How many live in the NE or NW with now horrendous commutes?

[simster3]

I think your reference of European cities is really difficult to compare. As you stated these cities were built differently, many come from a time before cars when everyone walked except the wealiest with horse and buggy. People had to live closer to the commercial districts out of necessity. The car has allowed us to have a lot more choice on where we live, though I mostly don't agree with suburbs. I think the best the city can do is put a moratorium on further CTrain expansion outside of the current plans. If people choose to live in the outer burbs, they should do so knowing full well they will not get a train line. Then set aside areas in the city that can work as office centres, but with real mixed density. No Quarry Parks with 5-6 storey office parks, these centres should be 10-20 storeys. This way it is ready when the market can bear it. When downtown becomes so expensive that it makes sense to build office towers in Brentwood, Chinook or 36th St., then the time will come.

[Riise]

Originally Posted by milomilo

My main experience is of British cities, where unfortunately public transit almost always is terrible, with the huge exception of London. However, they do tend to be much more poly-nodal and also much more walkable, largely because they are made of many towns that have merged into each other. Calgary of course formed much differently. AFAIK, land use policies are also completely different, without zoning like there is here, so there was a greater mix of residential and commercial also. But there are probably disadvantages to the system used there too, I don't really have enough knowledge to say.

One of the reasons why London is able to function as multi-nodal transit city is due to London being above the design and density thresholds. The various towns that make up London are both dense and mixed-use nodes located in a dense urban area. The would-be nodes in Calgary are barely mixed-use and mostly as low-density as the rest of the City. Public transport relies heavily on density and until our nodes and supporting neighbourhoods pass a threshold it won’t matter how mixed-use our nodes become. This reality doesn’t mean we shouldn’t look to the Old World for examples and, much to the contrary, I think we will need to look to them for solutions. For instance, the adaptability one witnesses in British cities will be key in any success Calgary will have in becoming a multi-nodal transit city.

Once Calgary establishes an orbital BRT network and the general density approaches the ‘threshold’, our would-be nodes will need to adapt to their new roles. If space was left open or was easily able to change to accommodate new and denser uses, multi-modal polycentricism becomes possible.