Calgary Public Transit II

[craner]

Great news - glad it was so decisive.

[You Need A Thneed]

Originally Posted by joe498

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

11-3.

DCU not in attendance.

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by 5seconds

Build
Absolutely
Nothing
Anywhere
Near
Anything

CAVE dwellers is my personal fave...

Citizens
Against
Virtually
Everything

[Cage]

Originally Posted by 5seconds

Interesting. I'm not sure there is any situation where current Councillors would not be able to vote on a motion, but it does seem that it's not totally clear what is needed to pass this motion. I'll be interested to see what happens.

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.

Originally Posted by 5seconds

Is this really 'Nenshi's reconsideration angle'? I was under the impression that the City Clerk made that determination based on the bylaw, and it was nothing to do with Nenshi. Council did direct Administration to tender and construct this phase, and temporary or not, a halt on the project would directly contradict an earlier order, so it does appear to be a 'reconsideration'.

Any guesses on if the supermajority requirement will be raised or debated in Council? (Is that even allowed?)

We learned a lot about the new Procedure Bylaw at yesterdays Council meeting and especially as it pertains to the SWBRT motion.

The determination of whether the NoM was a reconsideration does come from the Mayor (Chair of the meeting). It was great to hear Nenshi use the words "I made a decision" rather than the City Clerk or City Solicitor making the final determination. The City Clerk and City Solicitor only make advise the Chair.

The reconsideration comes from 2 new and/or renovated sections of the Procedure Bylaw, my notes have sections 116 and 117.

The major renovation to the reconsideration section was to remove the 6 month maximum time between the original decision and the reconsideration motion. In this case, the reconsideration was to look at the decision to split the SWBRT in 2 phases. The decision to split the project occurred outside the 6 month window, approximately 1 year ago.

There is not a 10 vote minimum for reconsideration, rather it is a 2/3 majority of councillors present. The math gets difficult when 2/3 of 14 councillors = 9.3 and you can't round down, only round up. If there were 13 Councillors present then only 9 yes votes would be required.

What we also learned is that Councillors are now required to vote on every motion unless:
(A) The Councillor is not present at council that day,
(B) the Councillor is not present in the chamber for the public hearing where a public hearing is required.
(C) the Councillor declares a pecuniary conflict of interest.

What is becoming apparent is that changes to both the Municipal Government Act and the City's Procedure Bylaw are combining to produce some very unusual decisions that have never been attempted.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by Cage

What we also learned is that Councillors are now required to vote on every motion unless:
(A) The Councillor is not present at council that day,
(B) the Councillor is not present in the chamber for the public hearing where a public hearing is required.
(C) the Councillor declares a pecuniary conflict of interest.

So does this mean that if a councillor wishes to abstain they need to not be present?

[Socguy]

Great news on the SWBRT vote! Next question: what else can these doofuses do to try and stop this thing? How long till we turn on the news and see Eagle ridge residents chaining themselves to the meridian of 14th street?

[CrossedTheTracks]

Originally Posted by Socguy

How long till we turn on the news and see Eagle ridge residents chaining themselves to the meridian of 14th street?

Nah. Don't you know there's a DANGEROUS GAS LINE under there?

[The Chemist]

Hilarious that although DCU cosponsored this bill with Farkas she couldn't even be bothered to show up for the vote. I can't believe people in Ward 13 voted for her again.

[Cage]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

So does this mean that if a councillor wishes to abstain they need to not be present?

100% Correct, if the Councillor or Mayor is in the building and present in the Chamber (i.e. not on other council business with an excused absence). they must vote yes or no to the matter, no abstention allowed unless they can demonstrate pecuniary interest.

[Cage]

Originally Posted by Socguy

Great news on the SWBRT vote! Next question: what else can these doofuses do to try and stop this thing? How long till we turn on the news and see Eagle ridge residents chaining themselves to the meridian of 14th street?

There is little that can be done to stop construction of the SWBRT, however i don't think the fight will be over by any stretch of the imagination.

The biggest negative factor to SWBRT could be lower than expected ridership. This all ready happened on the 306 BRT line when small busses on less frequent basis had to be implemented as MRU didn't support the required ridership.

I expect that once operating the SWBRT will suffer from a 65/35 split between Downtown/hospital destination riders and MRU riders. This could force the deep south SWBRT riders to reduce or eliminate MRU from the BRT stop as it will add 5 minutes to the commute. This would effectively kill off a major reason for the line. This combined with less than expected ridership could materially and permanently harm the operation.

The third way to fight the SWBRT is to starve the line from the necessary TOD density required to make rapid transit work. We heard on Monday that several high density projects have been put on hold due to the economic conditions, so it possible that the SW portion of the city could see an effective moratorium on large high density development projects for tghe next two years. We are about 3-4 years away from the SE portion of the green line bringing massive supply to the TOD area through the establishment of 6-98 greenfield TOD areas. This could swamp out the SW TOD plans from ever seeing the light of day.

Even if individual SWBRT connected TOD projects come to council, the same people will likely oppose the projects through lengthy public hearings and other advocacy work.

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by The Chemist

Hilarious that although DCU cosponsored this bill with Farkas she couldn't even be bothered to show up for the vote. I can't believe people in Ward 13 voted for her again.

Most of us voted for others. She kinda stuck up the middle.

[Socguy]

Originally Posted by Cage

There is little that can be done to stop construction of the SWBRT, however i don't think the fight will be over by any stretch of the imagination.

The biggest negative factor to SWBRT could be lower than expected ridership. This all ready happened on the 306 BRT line when small busses on less frequent basis had to be implemented as MRU didn't support the required ridership.

I expect that once operating the SWBRT will suffer from a 65/35 split between Downtown/hospital destination riders and MRU riders. This could force the deep south SWBRT riders to reduce or eliminate MRU from the BRT stop as it will add 5 minutes to the commute. This would effectively kill off a major reason for the line. This combined with less than expected ridership could materially and permanently harm the operation.

The third way to fight the SWBRT is to starve the line from the necessary TOD density required to make rapid transit work. We heard on Monday that several high density projects have been put on hold due to the economic conditions, so it possible that the SW portion of the city could see an effective moratorium on large high density development projects for tghe next two years. We are about 3-4 years away from the SE portion of the green line bringing massive supply to the TOD area through the establishment of 6-98 greenfield TOD areas. This could swamp out the SW TOD plans from ever seeing the light of day.

Even if individual SWBRT connected TOD projects come to council, the same people will likely oppose the projects through lengthy public hearings and other advocacy work.

Sounds like this was the last gasp of opposition to the project? One can hope...

I'm not overly worried about ridership. Currently the train is overstuffed and the park-n-ride lots are full. Taking a feeder bus adds an hour to your day. One people figure out that a direct connection to downtown exists I think that it will be a significant draw from the c-train if nothing else.

As you point out ridership to the MRU is going to be one to watch. Parking at MRU is both expensive and somewhat limited, but a significant portion of their student body is from upper middle class families who have their way entirely paid for by parents and that generally includes the use of the 3rd family car. Will better transit access translate to significantly higher ridership?

[Cage]

Originally Posted by The Chemist

Hilarious that although DCU cosponsored this bill with Farkas she couldn't even be bothered to show up for the vote. I can't believe people in Ward 13 voted for her again.

I'm willing to give DCU the benefit of the doubt that she is not just skipping school for the sake of missing an inconvenient vote. Also at Monday's meeting Council was to have voted on the council calendar for 2018. This item requires all councillors to be present. Nenshi stated that he didn't know when there would be a full council present in the near future. The motion remained tabled for a future meeting AFAIK.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by Cage

100% Correct, if the Councillor or Mayor is in the building and present in the Chamber (i.e. not on other council business with an excused absence). they must vote yes or no to the matter, no abstention allowed unless they can demonstrate pecuniary interest.

Is this new rule written down somewhere?

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by Cage

I'm willing to give DCU the benefit of the doubt that she is not just skipping school for the sake of missing an inconvenient vote. Also at Monday's meeting Council was to have voted on the council calendar for 2018. This item requires all councillors to be present. Nenshi stated that he didn't know when there would be a full council present in the near future. The motion remained tabled for a future meeting AFAIK.

I thought it was known beforehand that she would not be around for this vote? If that is indeed the case then why was the vote scheduled for that time? And who schedules these votes?

[Cage]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

Is this new rule written down somewhere?

Yes in the Municipal Government Act changes that received royal assent October 26th.

Originally Posted by Corndogger

I thought it was known beforehand that she would not be around for this vote? If that is indeed the case then why was the vote scheduled for that time? And who schedules these votes?

it was known after the NoM was released but before the vote thaty DCU would be no show during the meeting. That said the other councillors were not aware of her extended absence until Monday morning. Also it appears the Mayor knows whats going on but is not releasing information. (ie it was the mayor who said he doesnt know when Council will have a full house).

[DizzyEdge]

I may have asked this before but I can't remember.
Is there a good reason why Route 301 and 302 aren't a single route, just like the Green line will be?

[CrossedTheTracks]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

I may have asked this before but I can't remember.
Is there a good reason why Route 301 and 302 aren't a single route, just like the Green line will be?

Before West LRT was opened, 301 was a continous route of what-would-become-west-LRT to Centre St North.

So... why wasn't 301 and 302 combined when West LRT opened? I don't know. I've heard on this forum that supply would badly imbalanced between the two portions.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

I may have asked this before but I can't remember.
Is there a good reason why Route 301 and 302 aren't a single route, just like the Green line will be?

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=7115736&postcount=436

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by accord1999

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=7115736&postcount=436

Haha, thanks.