Calgary Public Transit II

[Cage]

Originally Posted by 5seconds

Thanks.

If it was a simple majority, then I could see it passing, because most of the motion revolves around getting more information (and who doesn't like more info?). Needing 10 votes feels like too big of a barrier, and I don't see it passing.

Late last night on twitter I asked a herald reporter for follow up regarding the reconsideration concept. However subsequently I learned this notion comes from the Mayor.

I don't think this will come down to a reconsideration. Typically new councils are not encumbered by decisions of the previous legislative body. Otherwise the budget deliberations in 3weeks would also have to require 2/3 reconsideration.

Even if you buy the reconsideration notion, only the 11 incumbents who got re-elected would be eligible to vote. This would push the required number of yes votes down to 7.

The yes votes to reconsideration will likely come from Sutherland, Magliocca, Chu, Demong, Colly-Urquhart, and Jones. Only need 1 more vote if the noob Cllrs are disqualified.

The yes votes to the NoM (assume all can vote) will be the previous 6 plus Farkas, and either Chahal or Davison.

The could be an interesting vote split for the new Council.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by Cage

Late last night on twitter I asked a herald reporter for follow up regarding the reconsideration concept. However subsequently I learned this notion comes from the Mayor.

I don't think this will come down to a reconsideration. Typically new councils are not encumbered by decisions of the previous legislative body. Otherwise the budget deliberations in 3weeks would also have to require 2/3 reconsideration.

Even if you buy the reconsideration notion, only the 11 incumbents who got re-elected would be eligible to vote. This would push the required number of yes votes down to 7.

The yes votes to reconsideration will likely come from Sutherland, Magliocca, Chu, Demong, Colly-Urquhart, and Jones. Only need 1 more vote if the noob Cllrs are disqualified.

The yes votes to the NoM (assume all can vote) will be the previous 6 plus Farkas, and either Chahal or Davison.

The could be an interesting vote split for the new Council.

I believe the budget is considered a new issue. The number of votes for the BRT motion to pass is 10. There's no doubt about that unless they've changed the rules in the last three weeks.

Is this motion coming from the mayor? That doesn't sound right. I believe what Nenshi said is that he supports their right to bring the motion forward but is going to fight it.

[CTrainDude]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

I believe the budget is considered a new issue. The number of votes for the BRT motion to pass is 10. There's no doubt about that unless they've changed the rules in the last three weeks.

Is this motion coming from the mayor? That doesn't sound right. I believe what Nenshi said is that he supports their right to bring the motion forward but is going to fight it.

It’s not from the mayor, it’s from Farkas and Colley-Urquhart.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by CTrainDude

It’s not from the mayor, it’s from Farkas and Colley-Urquhart.

I know it is.

[ClaytonA]

Re North Crosstown; they also may need to procure buses. Things take time.

TTC wants Toronto Council to vote on using PTIF to buy 30 long range battery electric buses Nov 13:

http://www.ttc.ca/About_the_TTC/Commissi...Reports/4_Green_Bus_Technology__Plan.pdf

... The Board delegate authority to the TTC CEO to negotiate and enter into up to
three
contracts for the supply
of a total of 30 long
range battery electric buses not to exceed
the total project cost of $50M based on the following:
a)
The award of contract(s) will be based on negotiating an acceptable
agreement, satisfactory to the TTC General Council with the only three
qualified long range battery electric bus suppliers, New Flyer, Proterra and
BYD that are compliant with Transport Ca
nada Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards; and
b)
All 30 battery electric buses are to be delivered no later than March 31, 2019
in order to ensure that the buses are eligible for PTIF funding
. ...

[ClaytonA]

What are people's general feel about the new politicians?

Seems Farkas is against specific projects. Chu, Demong, Magliocca, and Sutherland (IIRC) generally seemed to vote against transit (Chu twisted himself in knots to vote for the Green Line). My feeling is they're already over half way there. If that's 6 votes (Colley-Urqhart), then what are the other new councillor's beliefs and values?

https://globalnews.ca/news/3849876/2-calgary-councillors-want-to-halt-2nd-phase-of-southwest-brt/

What's the back up plan? Pay for more buses+operators (to maintain headways) and run them in traffic on 14 St SW? Maybe shift money back to North Crosstown for queue jumps? Add queue jumps on South Crosstown somewhere else to mitigate 14 St SW dumbing down?

[ClaytonA]

Dp

[mytwocents]

Originally Posted by ClaytonA

Re North Crosstown; they also may need to procure buses. Things take time.

TTC wants Toronto Council to vote on using PTIF to buy 30 long range battery electric buses Nov 13:

http://www.ttc.ca/About_the_TTC/Commissi...Reports/4_Green_Bus_Technology__Plan.pdf

Ummm.....what?

[Cage]

Originally Posted by 5seconds

Any predictions on the outcome of the BRT meeting? If history holds, it should be a long one. I suspect that the anti-BRT folks will come out in droves, as it might be the last chance they get to oppose the project.

Okay I'll bite in predictions Q.

- Nenshi's reconsideration angle could backfire if there are a substantional amount of yes votes.
- the reconsideration angle could work into nenshi favour if there is a good explanation. But this will have to be along the lines of; the main motion was voted on here, the procedure bylaw says this, the result is a reconsideration.
- I have a sneaking suspicion the main motion was the March 2017 route ahead update. This update was the last time that the SWBRT was mentioned, however nothing substantive regarding the SWBRT was debated, afaik.
- the main motion will probably get 5 votes minimum. I suspect DCU, Farkas, Mags, Chu, Sutherland, Demong, will vote against. Will be interesting what Chahal (conservative supporter in the past) votes, as will Davison.no votes will likely be Nenshi, Farrell, Carra, Gondek, Keating, and Woolley.

[milomilo]

I'm still at a loss as to why this project is in any way controversial. It's not a huge amount of money (not that that matters to those opposed) and it doesn't reduce any car capacity. It's win - win, if you take transit, it makes your trip better, and if you don't it should take cars off the road which makes anyone who is driving's trip better too.

What is wrong with people?

[You Need A Thneed]

I looked at the previous votes on the BRT, and I can’t see how the “reconsider” side gets more than 6 votes. That’s if none of the councillors who previously voted against don’t recognize this as a waste of time, which it is. If they do, it only becomes more hopeless to overturn.

Again, they need 10 votes for this motion to pass, meaning that 6 votes the other way kills it. Nenshi, Farrell, Carra, Woolley, Gondek, and Keating are never going to vote for that, that’s 6, and the reconsideration is lost right there.

[YYCguys]

Originally Posted by milomilo

I'm still at a loss as to why this project is in any way controversial. It's not a huge amount of money (not that that matters to those opposed) and it doesn't reduce any car capacity. It's win - win, if you take transit, it makes your trip better, and if you don't it should take cars off the road which makes anyone who is driving's trip better too.

What is wrong with people?

I’m totally all for better, for more direct transit and this project fits the bill well! However I read that one of concerns that the opposition group had was that the terminus of the route was smack dab in the middle of a residential area of Woodside, which would increase traffic in the neighbourhood, specifically from out of neighbourhood commuters. If the terminus could be moved to another location, would it perhaps be more satisfactory to those individuals?

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by YYCguys

I’m totally all for better, for more direct transit and this project fits the bill well! However I read that one of concerns that the opposition group had was that the terminus of the route was smack dab in the middle of a residential area of Woodside, which would increase traffic in the neighbourhood, specifically from out of neighbourhood commuters. If the terminus could be moved to another location, would it perhaps be more satisfactory to those individuals?

AFAIK, the terminus isn't a park and ride though so that argument doesn't hold up. And even if it did, so what? It'll still reduce city wide congestion. These are just classic NIMBY/BANANAs (more the second really).

It always annoys me when people are against transit because they don't use it (perhaps they drive a Mercedes Benz). Getting other people out of cars and onto transit should be exactly what they want!

[AgentGibb]

Originally Posted by milomilo

AFAIK, the terminus isn't a park and ride though so that argument doesn't hold up. And even if it did, so what? It'll still reduce city wide congestion.

Further, people's feelings about the terminus location should have very little bearing on whether the transitway section (which ends at Southland Drive) should be delayed or not. Very little permanent infrastructure appears to be part of the project beyond that. Maybe nothing more than some fancy bus stops?

If being able to walk to a high-quality transit route somehow ends up turning the community into some sort of dystopian hellscape, it seems like it would be pretty straightforward and inexpensive to simply change the location of the terminus to anywhere south of Southland drive.

Building the transitway section on 14th street has very little impact on the terminus location.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by AgentGibb

If being able to walk to a high-quality transit route somehow ends up turning the community into some sort of dystopian hellscape

Haha!

What you have written sounds completely absurd, yet that is actually what the type of people opposed to these projects seem to believe.

[You Need A Thneed]

Originally Posted by 5seconds

Also, sometimes the criticism is that there will be no riders, so the route will be a waste. Other times, the route will be so popular that people will drive from all over Calgary, and park in local neighbourhoods in order to use it. I don't think it can be both.

Usually you see both of these criticisms at the same time from the NIMBYs.

1. No one us going to use this.
2. Traffic is going to be terrible from all the people trying to use this.

[YYCguys]

Originally Posted by milomilo

AFAIK, the terminus isn't a park and ride though so that argument doesn't hold up. And even if it did, so what? It'll still reduce city wide congestion. These are just classic NIMBY/BANANAs (more the second really).

It always annoys me when people are against transit because they don't use it (perhaps they drive a Mercedes Benz). Getting other people out of cars and onto transit should be exactly what they want!

Haha @ BANANA! What is that?

I didn’t know there wasn’t a park n ride in the plans. That’s good to know. But I really hope the line will survive all the debate because it will definitely be beneficial to those who need/want to use it.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by 5seconds

Build
Absolutely
Nothing
Anywhere
Near
Anything

Sounds perfect for environmentalists.

[CrossedTheTracks]

Originally Posted by YYCguys

I didn’t know there wasn’t a park n ride in the plans. That’s good to know. But I really hope the line will survive all the debate because it will definitely be beneficial to those who need/want to use it.

Project pages have an FAQ section with this specifically addressed:

There are no plans to include Park and Rides with any of the four new BRT projects. The projects are intended to serve local communities and will primarily be accessed from within the community via feeder buses, walking and cycling.

Project teams will work with communities to implement residential parking restrictions if that is of interest to residents. There are different options for permitted parking in communities, including two-hour restrictions, residential parking permits, and others. Learn more about The City’s Residential Parking Permit Program.

(From http://www.calgary.ca/Transportation/TI/Pages/Transit-projects/Southwest-BRT.aspx?redirect=/swtransitway)

[joe498]

Well great news, the notice of motion to reconsider the SW BRT failed. Councillors voted 10-3 against reconsidering.