Calgary Public Transit II

[CalgaryAlex]

Originally Posted by fusili

I've been there dozens of times. Been called all kinds of things. This guy isn't nearly as bad as some others out there.

At least the city employees being harassed by SW Mercedes owners won't end up dumped off at a cement factory like those considering redevelopment plans for Osteria de Medici!

[ZeDgE]

Originally Posted by 5seconds

Vit Twitter: Nenshi says that there was a death-threat, an assault, bullying, and dirty tactics at the open house. He said something about the remaining engagement taking place online only, so I assume that the remaining open-houses are not going ahead.

He posted about it on his facebook page.. shameful behavior. Typical loud mouth white conservative types.

https://www.facebook.com/NaheedNenshi/?fref=nf

I've learned that at recent public engagement events for the SW Transitway project, some of our fellow citizens have gone far beyond civil discourse. At an event last night there was yelling and swearing, pushing and shoving, threats of violence, and a death threat. Simply put: this is unCalgarian. No citizen should have to endure that simply to share their ideas or ask their questions about a public project. Not a single one of my City of Calgary colleagues deserves abuse like what they have experienced.
For that reason, I have asked that we move public engagement on this project online. The project website (www.Calgary.ca/SWTransitway) will become a comprehensive and easy-to-use virtual open house where any Calgarian can view project plans and details and ask a City employee questions. We'll also be collecting opinions so that the project can be adjusted wherever possible.
This means that, for the safety of citizens and City of Calgary employees, the in-person open houses will be discontinued (on the SW Transitway project only). In our democracy, everyone deserves the right to share their opinions and ask questions in a safe and welcoming environment. This could not be done at the open house last night and I sincerely hope that this will now happen online.
Here is the full video of my news conference explaining this decision. We've also included comments from Councillor Brian Pincott (near the end of the video). He has committed to continuing to engage with the citizens he represents on this and the many other projects that affect Ward 11.
https://youtu.be/vBar3dtNq4w

[ByeByeBaby]

That press conference... good for Nenshi. He was rafting-during-the-flood pissed off at Ready To Engage's bullying. Getting valid public feedback is hard enough during a complex project like this one without the goon squad showing up.

[Socguy]

Pincott said it best: Belligerence.

[Calgarian]

Is there any validity to the opposition for the SWBRT? it seems like it will have it's own ROW for a good part and should have little effect on traffic.

[ByeByeBaby]

Originally Posted by Calgarian

Is there any validity to the opposition for the SWBRT? it seems like it will have it's own ROW for a good part and should have little effect on traffic.

I've read the points raised on Ready To Engage's website, and as near as I can tell, every single point is incorrect, misleading, irrelevant or some combination of the three. They've routinely been called out for lying about the project, and they just keep on lying. Unfortunately, it's just not possible to tell if there's someone else raising any sort of valid concern since the guys with the megaphones are drowning out everything else.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by ByeByeBaby

I've read the points raised on Ready To Engage's website, and as near as I can tell, every single point is incorrect, misleading, irrelevant or some combination of the three. They've routinely been called out for lying about the project, and they just keep on lying. Unfortunately, it's just not possible to tell if there's someone else raising any sort of valid concern since the guys with the megaphones are drowning out everything else.

I sometimes wonder if this radical resistance, and similar from the SE, is a concerted seemingly arm's length political effort to derail Mayor Nenshi. I've seen a number of different extremist elements pop-up recently, with the common point of attack being the mayor. To be clear, the issues raised on the surface are not the mayor, but at every opportunity, it is a dump on the mayor scenario.

Do others get this feeling, and are there other pieces that need to be added to the list that all seem aligned the same way? Not quite Super PACs, but perhaps worse.

[CrossedTheTracks]

Originally Posted by Calgarian

Is there any validity to the opposition for the SWBRT? it seems like it will have it's own ROW for a good part and should have little effect on traffic.

Seems like "yes and no". They've complained about lanes narrowing -- they will. They've complained about building on top of a major gas pipeline -- yup, it does. They've complained about changing egress from Eagle Ridge to 14th southbound -- yup, it will change. (Edit: I offer no opinion about whether these are truly downsides. Just stating that their opposition is based on a sliver of truth, however thin.)

Are any of these things worth going to the barricades, especially considering the benefits of the project? In my egotistical opinion as someone who is rarely in the area, I say "no".

[rkarsk]

Originally Posted by suburbia

I sometimes wonder if this radical resistance, and similar from the SE, is a concerted seemingly arm's length political effort to derail Mayor Nenshi. I've seen a number of different extremist elements pop-up recently, with the common point of attack being the mayor. To be clear, the issues raised on the surface are not the mayor, but at every opportunity, it is a dump on the mayor scenario.

Do others get this feeling, and are there other pieces that need to be added to the list that all seem aligned the same way? Not quite Super PACs, but perhaps worse.

I believe that this came up in some discussion on Reddit. People found ties between these organizers as the Manning Centre as well as the Wildrose. It's classic wedge-issue politics. You can bet Pincott at the least will have a right-wing opponent in the next election and I have little doubt that the names and contact information of every person that signed their petitions will be used for those ends.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by 5seconds

I know one of the members of the group, and that person was the reason why I left the volunteer position I use to hold. What we are seeing now I have seen several times. In terms of this particular person, I doubt there is a wider political agenda; this is just the latest City project that has had 'inadequate engagement' and that they believe negatively impacts their community.

In the last few years a bike lane project was targeted by this person (and successfully reversed), as well as a storm sewer replacement (City staff essentially harassed in both cases), and each time local residents were misinformed and riled up, and logic seemed to go out the window. It seems that every few months a new outrage is identified, and if that person can get any buy-in from others, it is pursued. If it fails to catch the imagination of others, it fizzles and the next outrage will be just around the corner.

If it weren't so infuriating, it would actually be interesting to understand.

Any reason to protect the person's name? Would be interesting to list out all of these pieces in a pinch more detail.

[CrossedTheTracks]

Originally Posted by 5seconds

.. this is just the latest City project that has had 'inadequate engagement' and that they believe negatively impacts their community.

The skatepark fiasco in Edgemont was just like this. You could replace "SWBRT" with "skatepark", and the news report would be identical. Accusations of "inadequate engagement" or "nobody knew" (despite demonstrable earlier public announcements and engagement attempts). "This will devalue my property", etc.

It's like somebody turned the "ignorant outrage" dial to 11

[MichaelS]

Originally Posted by 5seconds

....

In the last few years a bike lane project was targeted by this person (and successfully reversed), as well as a storm sewer replacement (City staff essentially harassed in both cases), and each time local residents were misinformed and riled up, and logic seemed to go out the window. It seems that every few months a new outrage is identified, and if that person can get any buy-in from others, it is pursued. If it fails to catch the imagination of others, it fizzles and the next outrage will be just around the corner.

If it weren't so infuriating, it would actually be interesting to understand.

I can maybe understand the opposition to the other projects (not agree with, but understand), but a storm sewer replacement? Is this project more than I imagine it to be, or were they really opposed to routine maintenance/replacement of critical infrastructure that nobody really sees?

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by suburbia

I sometimes wonder if this radical resistance, and similar from the SE, is a concerted seemingly arm's length political effort to derail Mayor Nenshi. I've seen a number of different extremist elements pop-up recently, with the common point of attack being the mayor. To be clear, the issues raised on the surface are not the mayor, but at every opportunity, it is a dump on the mayor scenario.

Do others get this feeling, and are there other pieces that need to be added to the list that all seem aligned the same way? Not quite Super PACs, but perhaps worse.

Originally Posted by CrossedTheTracks

The skatepark fiasco in Edgemont was just like this. You could replace "SWBRT" with "skatepark", and the news report would be identical. Accusations of "inadequate engagement" or "nobody knew" (despite demonstrable earlier public announcements and engagement attempts). "This will devalue my property", etc.

It's like somebody turned the "ignorant outrage" dial to 11

I think there are a combination of the following people in these groups:

-Reasonable person who truly believes a project will be bad for them, their commute, their parking, their property, their community, or their way of life

-Grumpy person who has low trust for the government, is jaded, and therefore is opposed to almost any big-picture initiative the government takes on to solve social and economic problems. This person calls City Hall "Silly Hall". This person usually hates change with the exception of appreciated value to their property (which this person usually credits to their own wise investment choice rather than decades of public and private investment into their community). Short term, common-sense solutions are the only ones this person cares for: "Too much traffic, build more lanes"; "You're homeless? Get a job?"; "You can't afford a $700 000 house? Buy a $125 000 house in 1982 like I did." This person doesn't have any credible evidence that the skatepark or BRT will devalue their property, but they hold that point of view regardless.

-Philosophically conservative person who has read Ayn Rand, is unknowingly indebted to Bill Buckley, and has learned their whole life that the free market is good, and this means we shouldn't have skate parks. (Ok, I exaggerate, but 90% of people in this category aren't as well-read, immune to corporate persuasion, and politically righteous as they think they are, in my opinion). Regardless of what this person has read or not, this person usually sees value in dialogue and open-mindedness and gives moral credibility to the other characters in the group.

-Random person who is just there to learn, get involved, and thinks their presence is contributing to their community or to their personal development

All of those kinds of people I find totally within their rights, and I'm happy to live in a society that includes them in the dialogue, but for every 4 of the above, you get one of the below:

-Person with shades of the above mentioned attitudes, but all of their opinions are conflated with a distaste for minorities, females as leaders, and others in general. This is the person who emphasizes "Naheed"s race any chance they get. This is the person who is against anything Nenshi does, but has little opinion (or knowledge) one way or the other on actions under Bronconnier. This person also seems to attribute all problems in the city on one man rather than a council. This person likes to comment on Sun articles. I'll put it bluntly and label this person's opinions as veiled racism/xenophobia/misogyny. Unfortunately, I suspect these attitudes are more common among us than I'd like. Maybe there aren't many people like this in my circle of friends, from my socioeconomic background, from my age group, but I've certainly heard attitudes in schools, from coworkers, online, and even from city outside workers. Dealing with these people is tiring and demoralizing, and sometimes it feels like an endless wave of zombies that are beyond a hope of enlightening (see Sun comments). The trouble is that these views discredit the legitimate opinions of the other conservatives. If the movement excludes these people, they'll find another movement to back (see PC vs WRP), and if the movement caters to the views of these people it alienates reasonable people who see racism/xenophobia/misogyny (rightfully) as a dealbreaker. At least the scope of this problem in Canada is nothing compared to the what I heard coming from folks in the States and Europe. I don't think the world will ever completely solve this problem - something to do with human nature maybe - and we are certainly not immune to it in Calgary.

Edit: By the way, I think this last person blends into the grumpy person category pretty well. It must be tiring for the philosophical conservative person to defend the legitimate points in grumpy person's and racist person's views.

[RyLucky]

I wish we could build a #%$ing bus lane without bringing race into it, but apparently we can't.

[Cage]

Originally Posted by Calgarian

Is there any validity to the opposition for the SWBRT? it seems like it will have it's own ROW for a good part and should have little effect on traffic.

Take a look at the SWBRT cross section and ask yourself where the future capacity addition for regular vehicle traffic will come from. The answer, in my opinion, is that once the bus lanes are built there is no opportunity for traffic capacity expansion along the road. Any marginal improvement in grid lock will come from additional residents getting out of cars and into busses.

Further, the functional planning study is actually very negative toward regular vehicle traffic. The functional planning study mentions that regular vehicle traffic must be grid locked in order for SWBRT to enjoy an advantage for its users. The transit way is needed to reduce travel time on the south of glenmore portion in order to fund (in time as money terms) the additional time spent sending busses through MRU and Currie Barracks.

To take a look at good compromise for SWBRT, look at NW portion of Crowchild and implement something similar. Interchanges at major intersections, 6 lanes of free flow traffic for car users and BRT ROW for transit.

[andasen]

Originally Posted by Cage

Take a look at the SWBRT cross section and ask yourself where the future capacity addition for regular vehicle traffic will come from. The answer, in my opinion, is that once the bus lanes are built there is no opportunity for traffic capacity expansion along the road. Any marginal improvement in grid lock will come from additional residents getting out of cars and into busses.

Further, the functional planning study is actually very negative toward regular vehicle traffic. The functional planning study mentions that regular vehicle traffic must be grid locked in order for SWBRT to enjoy an advantage for its users. The transit way is needed to reduce travel time on the south of glenmore portion in order to fund (in time as money terms) the additional time spent sending busses through MRU and Currie Barracks.

To take a look at good compromise for SWBRT, look at NW portion of Crowchild and implement something similar. Interchanges at major intersections, 6 lanes of free flow traffic for car users and BRT ROW for transit.

Why shouldn't this be negative towards vehicle traffic? Its not like this is restraining the long term capacity of for vehicles out of the SW with the massive over design capacity available with the SW Ring Road. Drastically reducing travel time and travel distance from these communities to MRU and then Downtown seems completely reasonable in this context.

[Ferreth]

Originally Posted by Calgarian

Is there any validity to the opposition for the SWBRT? it seems like it will have it's own ROW for a good part and should have little effect on traffic.

Comes down to "mass transit is evil" as a POV. Their view is that in an ideal world, there would be freeways everywhere with no traffic lights taking you to islands of shopping and entertainment with massive parking lots around them. Think Cross Iron Mills. As I know a few people like this, I have observed that they tend to be of an older crowd for whom owning a house and car(s) was easily attainable. As well they tend not to like any other form of transport (walking, cycling, or anything that might involve traveling in the same space with the unwashed masses). They are in love with car based transportation and will come out against anything that hurts that mode, be it taking away parking or adding a bus lane. That bus lane could have been another car lane. Oh, and they almost all hate Nenshi, Notley, and Trudeau, so for them the sky is falling right now as far as government is concerned. These are not exactly uncommon folk - I know too many people who think like this to discount them as a fringe minority.

The SW BRT also has opinionated SOBs who think everything government does is wrong (excellent example with the sewer line posted above) and a group of rich folk along 14th St. that will oppose anything that brings the roadway (bus or additional car lanes) closer to their property.

You can't have a rational conversation with these people. The city's tactic needs to be to convince enough of those people who *can* be convinced that BRT is a good idea, and try and drown out the Trump game that this vocal minority is playing.

[Govertical]

Good to see that the city is finally making changes to route in the NW. Changes look good for the most part.

[MichaelS]

Thanks for providing the background on the storm sewer project.

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by RyLucky

I think there are a combination of the following people in these groups:

-Reasonable person who truly believes a project will be bad for them, their commute, their parking, their property, their community, or their way of life

-Grumpy person who has low trust for the government, is jaded, and therefore is opposed to almost any big-picture initiative the government takes on to solve social and economic problems. This person calls City Hall "Silly Hall". This person usually hates change with the exception of appreciated value to their property (which this person usually credits to their own wise investment choice rather than decades of public and private investment into their community). Short term, common-sense solutions are the only ones this person cares for: "Too much traffic, build more lanes"; "You're homeless? Get a job?"; "You can't afford a $700 000 house? Buy a $125 000 house in 1982 like I did." This person doesn't have any credible evidence that the skatepark or BRT will devalue their property, but they hold that point of view regardless.

-Philosophically conservative person who has read Ayn Rand, is unknowingly indebted to Bill Buckley, and has learned their whole life that the free market is good, and this means we shouldn't have skate parks. (Ok, I exaggerate, but 90% of people in this category aren't as well-read, immune to corporate persuasion, and politically righteous as they think they are, in my opinion). Regardless of what this person has read or not, this person usually sees value in dialogue and open-mindedness and gives moral credibility to the other characters in the group.

-Random person who is just there to learn, get involved, and thinks their presence is contributing to their community or to their personal development

All of those kinds of people I find totally within their rights, and I'm happy to live in a society that includes them in the dialogue, but for every 4 of the above, you get one of the below:

-Person with shades of the above mentioned attitudes, but all of their opinions are conflated with a distaste for minorities, females as leaders, and others in general. This is the person who emphasizes "Naheed"s race any chance they get. This is the person who is against anything Nenshi does, but has little opinion (or knowledge) one way or the other on actions under Bronconnier. This person also seems to attribute all problems in the city on one man rather than a council. This person likes to comment on Sun articles. I'll put it bluntly and label this person's opinions as veiled racism/xenophobia/misogyny. Unfortunately, I suspect these attitudes are more common among us than I'd like. Maybe there aren't many people like this in my circle of friends, from my socioeconomic background, from my age group, but I've certainly heard attitudes in schools, from coworkers, online, and even from city outside workers. Dealing with these people is tiring and demoralizing, and sometimes it feels like an endless wave of zombies that are beyond a hope of enlightening (see Sun comments). The trouble is that these views discredit the legitimate opinions of the other conservatives. If the movement excludes these people, they'll find another movement to back (see PC vs WRP), and if the movement caters to the views of these people it alienates reasonable people who see racism/xenophobia/misogyny (rightfully) as a dealbreaker. At least the scope of this problem in Canada is nothing compared to the what I heard coming from folks in the States and Europe. I don't think the world will ever completely solve this problem - something to do with human nature maybe - and we are certainly not immune to it in Calgary.

Edit: By the way, I think this last person blends into the grumpy person category pretty well. It must be tiring for the philosophical conservative person to defend the legitimate points in grumpy person's and racist person's views.

This is fantastic post. The one that hits home is this classic comment : "You can't afford a $700 000 house? Buy a $125 000 house in 1982 like I did."

The amount of times I have been told - either directly, back-handedly or through the media - that my generation of Calgarians are being irresponsible for renting and are not mature because I don't own property is amazing. This way of thinking always seems to forget that homes are 2 - 3x more expensive than 1982 as a measure of average income. So even if I wanted to live like my parent's generation, all evidence points to it being much more costly and difficult.

The most unfortunate thing about these kinds of "I already got mine so everyone else can go F*ck themselves." is that they don't understand what will happen to their cohort. Many of these 60+ year-olds only have 5-15 years left of driving before they will not be able to do it physically. The decline of mobility happens much quicker than people expect in old age. One day you can drive, the next you cannot.

It's one of the greatest challenges of ageing, car-dependent suburbs everywhere in Canada, including SW Calgary. Many people don't want to leave their homes when they get the older and have attached so much of their identity to mobility by car, they have no plans of what happens after they lose their ability. Sometimes they actively undermine attempts to give them options (i.e. SW BRT).

Sure the richest ones like the infamous "Mercedes Gentleman" can buy their way out of their loss of mobility by moving to a retirement community. But that isn't everyone's story. Nor is it the story of health-care workers, service workers or others that need to commute to these communities to take care of an ageing, stay-at-home population.

On another note, this is one of the strongest arguments pushing for autonomous vehicles and why companies are talking about them so much. You have an enormous car-identifying and car-dependent population of baby-boomers that are ageing combined with an inability to adapt their neighbourhoods and lifestyles to a driving-reduced existence they are facing in the near future.