Calgary's $8 BILLION Transit Plan - The RouteAhead

[UofC.engineer]

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

Is that the ideal end goal? Should we focus on converting drivers to riders at the expense of the current riders? The whole system starts to look a bit like a pyramid scheme if we continue on that.
The other consideration that needs to be taken into account is are we passively encouraging people to live far from their places of work by the design of our transit system (hub and spoke)?

No, but there should be more choices for commuters that live in the SE. I don't really consider the 302 "BRT"(I use the word loosely) a good option for transit users. I agree with your point about not encouraging more people to live further away. We should plan better suburbs and remove the housing subsidy the city provides to new neighbourhoods, providing a sub-standard transit system will not discourage people moving into new areas in my humble opinion.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

What are you talking about, this has been a subject of almost endless public debate for more than thirty years.

30 years of geeks talking and studying a nose creek alignment, one that clearly seems to be abandoned at this point. The fact is the SE has gone from basically no plan to a full concept in a couple years, yet the only concept we have for the NC is an alignment up nose creek from 30 years ago. No revised station locations, minimal ROW (near the end of the line) and seemingly little if any political will to get one together.

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

Because this isn't Waziristan and we aren't supposed to be particularistic waring factions?

By very definition an elected official represents those that elected them, clearly this needs to be balanced with the greater good. But at the end of the day the representative for the area most impacted by an improvement needs to lead the charge to get the rest of the representatives (at the same or other levels of government) on board. To date I've only really seen this from Keating on the SE. Politics is the art of compromise, each representative needs to attempt to achieve the best for the area/people they represent, to achieve this each side may have to give some items up to allow any measure to pass.

This country seems to have forgotten that each riding/ward elects a single person, I as an elector should not vote for a party. With party system we are encumbered with at the prov/fed levels we end up having groups representing their own best interest (party re-election) rather than those of the people that elected them.

[UofC.engineer]

Originally Posted by fusili

Not sure. I think we can make a better estimation if we took catchment populations, looked at current ridership data, compared to ridership data for communities with LRT and then figured out a range of potential ridership increases.

I.e. if Tuxedo has a population of 6K, has transit ridership of 8%, but can be assumed to rise to 12% because it is comparable to Banff Trail, then we can assume 240 new transit customers from that community (all these numbers are made up BTW).

That is the best way I can think of answering that question with available data. Huge assumptions in this model though. Anybody want to give it a go?

True, we do not have accurate data. But everyone knows the SE has a far lower transit ridership than the rest of the city. I also can't see the residents of Tuxedo driving in mass numbers to downtown, but I could be wrong.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by fusili

Not sure. I think we can make a better estimation if we took catchment populations, looked at current ridership data, compared to ridership data for communities with LRT and then figured out a range of potential ridership increases.

I.e. if Tuxedo has a population of 6K, has transit ridership of 8%, but can be assumed to rise to 12% because it is comparable to Banff Trail, then we can assume 240 new transit customers from that community (all these numbers are made up BTW).

That is the best way I can think of answering that question with available data. Huge assumptions in this model though. Anybody want to give it a go?

This would be an interesting thing to study, there would be many variables that you would need to take into account (demographics, income, etc.)

Originally Posted by UofC.engineer

No, but there should be more choices for commuters that live in the SE. I don't really consider the 302 "BRT"(I use the word loosely) a good option for transit users. I agree with your point about not encouraging more people to live further away. We should plan better suburbs and remove the housing subsidy the city provides to new neighbourhoods, providing a sub-standard transit system will not discourage people moving into new areas in my humble opinion.

I rode the 302 last night for the first time, we need to remove the BRT moniker from thatroute in particular. Not only because they run in traffic, but also because someone failed epicly at stop placement, a number of places the bus stopped turned a corner then stopped again, if you are going to do limited stop make it limited stop and take the most direct route possible. I truly think that the current BRT is going to hurt the public opinion of the SETWAY plan, further delaying transit improvements in that area.

I'm not encouraging substandard transit, but may be we need to focus on fit for purpose solutions, the fit for purpose solution for the SE is proper BRT within 5 years, the fit for purpose solution for the NC is dedicated lanes in the next year and likely LRT within 5 years.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

This would be an interesting thing to study, there would be many variables that you would need to take into account (demographics, income, etc.)

Master's Thesis anyone?

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by UofC.engineer

True, we do not have accurate data. But everyone knows the SE has a far lower transit ridership than the rest of the city. I also can't see the residents of Tuxedo driving in mass numbers to downtown, but I could be wrong.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't some of that done in the Route Ahead plan? IIRC the SE got pushed down the list based on a $/rider metric (maybe not the best metric).

[Tropics]

Originally Posted by fusili

The point I am making is that there seems to be this idea that TOD works best on sites that are completely isolated from everything or require

Honestly, think about two options.
1. You can buy part of a fourplex, a duplex or the like on an established residential street, adjacent to an existing commercial corridor with services, and close to a park. Or
2. You can buy into a new building with nothing around it except a landfill, light industrial and a power centre.

I have no idea why we think complex, contaminated sites adjacent to industrial land are that much more attractive than existing neighbourhoods for TOD. Existing communities can densify quite significantly using established block patterns and fragmented ownership. Altadore/South Calgary is a terrific example (not talking about the Garrison Woods part). The best part is, it can be done by dozens of different developers and builders over a long period of time so that populations increase gradually. TOD doesn't mean block busting or large scale displacement.

The whole thing becomes completely bonkers when you look at something like the Westbrook situation. We have what is the ideal piece of land for a TOD, we have the city already having built the first underground LRT station, aaaand we are not getting a TOD.

Talking about these non-existent TOD's that will be built on non-existent LRT lines at non-existent LRT stations is kind of a joke. We cannot even get a TOD built on the most prime potential TOD site in the whole city and we already have the bloody station and train there.

We have had LRT stations at North Hill and in Kensington for DECADES and they have done diddly squat to create these hypothetical mystical things called a "TOD".

GO ahead and fight for a LRT route, but using the argument that these half assed stations in the middle of nowhere can be used to create a TOD is a complete joke. You cannot even get a TOD built in the most prime areas imaginable when you already have the freaking LRT right there.

Most of the stops on the SE LRT will be very sparsely used. The areas in the industrial sections are way too spaced out for people working in those areas to actually walk to work from the station, and absolutely no one lives there. Most stops will be akin to Firepark and how many people use that station. The bulk of traffic on the SE LRT will be people using Park and Ride from the deep south into the core, and atm a large number of those people already use Park and Ride, they simply drive to the already existing South LRT. Most of the stops in the morning after everyone has loaded the train in the deep south will be stop, door opens, no one gets on or gets off, door closes, move to next station. Wash, rinse, repeat until you hit the core. The reverse will take place in the evening with everyone loading the train in the core, no one getting on or off on most of the stops until the deep south, then tons of people getting off so they can go to their car and drive the rest of the way home.

It is a way to duck $22/day to park, that is all it will be, that is all "most" of the stations are, either unused for the most part, or a huge park and ride station for people who do not want to pay for parking. It would be sweet if we actually had these huge density hubs at each station, but we don't, and we have had decades to see the things materialize.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by fusili

Master's Thesis anyone?

I would hope the City already had a pretty solid idea of what potential ridership increases would be! Otherwise they're just shooting in the dark if they can't predict ridership of future transit lines.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Tropics

The whole thing becomes completely bonkers when you look at something like the Westbrook situation. We have what is the ideal piece of land for a TOD, we have the city already having built the first underground LRT station, aaaand we are not getting a TOD.

Talking about these non-existent TOD's that will be built on non-existent LRT lines at non-existent LRT stations is kind of a joke. We cannot even get a TOD built on the most prime potential TOD site in the whole city and we already have the bloody station and train there.

We have had LRT stations at North Hill and in Kensington for DECADES and they have done diddly squat to create these hypothetical mystical things called a "TOD".

GO ahead and fight for a LRT route, but using the argument that these half assed stations in the middle of nowhere can be used to create a TOD is a complete joke. You cannot even get a TOD built in the most prime areas imaginable when you already have the freaking LRT right there.

Well there is definitely densification going on around the Sunnyside station and the same at Chinook so I don't see how that isn't TOD? This takes many years and is definitely a long term thing though and I agree can't really help to justify the SELRT.

[ByeByeBaby]

Originally Posted by fusili

Not sure. I think we can make a better estimation if we took catchment populations, looked at current ridership data, compared to ridership data for communities with LRT and then figured out a range of potential ridership increases.

I.e. if Tuxedo has a population of 6K, has transit ridership of 8%, but can be assumed to rise to 12% because it is comparable to Banff Trail, then we can assume 240 new transit customers from that community (all these numbers are made up BTW).

That is the best way I can think of answering that question with available data. Huge assumptions in this model though. Anybody want to give it a go?

I nominate these guys.

And guess what sort of conclusions can be reached? (Hint: With transitways, it's 2 million more riders in the NC versus 1.2 million more in the SE.)

[Tropics]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Well there is definitely densification going on around the Sunnyside station and the same at Chinook so I don't see how that isn't TOD? This takes many years and is definitely a long term thing though and I agree can't really help to justify the SELRT.

Is that density because of the LRT though? Sunnyside sat there with virtually no density increases for decades since the LRT was built. Yes we are getting some density in there now, finally, but is it because of the LRT? If the LRT station just went in there and suddenly a whole bunch of new developments popped up then yeah, you could correlate them, but TBH Kensington is getting the density increases it is getting because it is Kensington and people want to live there. The beltline is shooting up in density huge atm as well, it has diddly squat to do with the LRT.

Chinook? Again, a station that has been there forever. The development that might happen there now to increase density likely has very little to do with the station and more to do with the mall renovations and increased amenities in the area, and those in turn have little to nothing to do with the LRT.

A TOD is a "transit orientated development", it is a development based around the transit structure and it exists because of the transit structure in the area. Development that takes place close to a LRT because of other factors that have little to do with the transit are not "Transit Orientated Developments". Chinook mall is not a "TOD", Lido is not a "TOD", they do not exist and are not being developed because of the transit in the area.

So yes, maybe our definition of "TOD" varies. The places you mention, Chinook and Kensington were doing great before the LRT ever came in there and they were going to continue to develop despite the LRT coming through or not. True TOD to me is development that takes place around a transit hub primarily because of that transit hub and to make use of that transit hub. Vancouver has some true TOD developments, other then the arguable University City and "maybe" London I am pretty sure we have none.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

30 years of geeks talking and studying a nose creek alignment, one that clearly seems to be abandoned at this point. The fact is the SE has gone from basically no plan to a full concept in a couple years, yet the only concept we have for the NC is an alignment up nose creek from 30 years ago. No revised station locations, minimal ROW (near the end of the line) and seemingly little if any political will to get one together.

That isn't even remotely true. The Nose Creek alignment came only after the decisive rejection of a Centre Street one. There are few issues that have been beaten to death more than this one. My parents actually bought a house back in the 70's based on the promise that the Centre Street LRT was just a few years away.

In any event this mayor and council aren't Moses and the Levites and they aren't authoring the Ten Commandments. They have about as much influence on the form the SELRT and NCLRT will ultimately take as my dogs and are about as likely to be around to see it.

What grand purpose for his ward or anyone else is served by Chu playing along with this farce?

[fusili]

Originally Posted by ByeByeBaby

I nominate these guys.

And guess what sort of conclusions can be reached? (Hint: With transitways, it's 2 million more riders in the NC versus 1.2 million more in the SE.)

Thanks for the link.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Tropics

The whole thing becomes completely bonkers when you look at something like the Westbrook situation. We have what is the ideal piece of land for a TOD, we have the city already having built the first underground LRT station, aaaand we are not getting a TOD.

Talking about these non-existent TOD's that will be built on non-existent LRT lines at non-existent LRT stations is kind of a joke. We cannot even get a TOD built on the most prime potential TOD site in the whole city and we already have the bloody station and train there.

We have had LRT stations at North Hill and in Kensington for DECADES and they have done diddly squat to create these hypothetical mystical things called a "TOD".

GO ahead and fight for a LRT route, but using the argument that these half assed stations in the middle of nowhere can be used to create a TOD is a complete joke. You cannot even get a TOD built in the most prime areas imaginable when you already have the freaking LRT right there.

Most of the stops on the SE LRT will be very sparsely used. The areas in the industrial sections are way too spaced out for people working in those areas to actually walk to work from the station, and absolutely no one lives there. Most stops will be akin to Firepark and how many people use that station. The bulk of traffic on the SE LRT will be people using Park and Ride from the deep south into the core, and atm a large number of those people already use Park and Ride, they simply drive to the already existing South LRT. Most of the stops in the morning after everyone has loaded the train in the deep south will be stop, door opens, no one gets on or gets off, door closes, move to next station. Wash, rinse, repeat until you hit the core. The reverse will take place in the evening with everyone loading the train in the core, no one getting on or off on most of the stops until the deep south, then tons of people getting off so they can go to their car and drive the rest of the way home.

It is a way to duck $22/day to park, that is all it will be, that is all "most" of the stations are, either unused for the most part, or a huge park and ride station for people who do not want to pay for parking. It would be sweet if we actually had these huge density hubs at each station, but we don't, and we have had decades to see the things materialize.

Short answer- no stations had any land use plans or appropriate zoning for higher density until the last few years. And with Westbrook.....patience.

[WaitWhat?]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

That isn't even remotely true. The Nose Creek alignment came only after the decisive rejection of a Centre Street one. There are few issues that have been beaten to death more than this one. My parents actually bought a house back in the 70's based on the promise from the Centre Street LRT was just a few years away.

In any event this mayor and council aren't Moses and the Levites and they aren't authoring the Ten Commandments. They have about as much influence on the form the SELRT and NCLRT will ultimately take as my dogs and are about as likely to be around to see it.

What grand purpose for his ward or anyone else is served by Chu playing along with this farce?

You're seriously suggesting that the mayor and council have no influence on LRT plans? Or that it won't be this council that sees it through due to timelines? Or any council because it will never happen?

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Tropics

Is that density because of the LRT though? Sunnyside sat there with virtually no density increases for decades since the LRT was built. Yes we are getting some density in there now, finally, but is it because of the LRT? If the LRT station just went in there and suddenly a whole bunch of new developments popped up then yeah, you could correlate them, but TBH Kensington is getting the density increases it is getting because it is Kensington and people want to live there. The beltline is shooting up in density huge atm as well, it has diddly squat to do with the LRT.

Chinook? Again, a station that has been there forever. The development that might happen there now to increase density likely has very little to do with the station and more to do with the mall renovations and increased amenities in the area, and those in turn have little to nothing to do with the LRT.

A TOD is a "transit orientated development", it is a development based around the transit structure and it exists because of the transit structure in the area. Development that takes place close to a LRT because of other factors that have little to do with the transit are not "Transit Orientated Developments". Chinook mall is not a "TOD", Lido is not a "TOD", they do not exist and are not being developed because of the transit in the area.

So yes, maybe our definition of "TOD" varies. The places you mention, Chinook and Kensington were doing great before the LRT ever came in there and they were going to continue to develop despite the LRT coming through or not. True TOD to me is development that takes place around a transit hub primarily because of that transit hub and to make use of that transit hub. Vancouver has some true TOD developments, other then the arguable University City and "maybe" London I am pretty sure we have none.

You make some good points there and I can't disagree that the area around Sunnyside would have developed anyway. Also the highrises I was thinking of are a lot further away than I thought (around 57th Ave). So actually, I agree with you . Perhaps University City fits the TOD criteria - I think the LRT must have been a big contributing factor to that being built.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by WaitWhat?

You're seriously suggesting that the mayor and council have no influence on LRT plans? Or that it won't be this council that sees it through due to timelines? Or any council because it will never happen?

It won't be this council and it won't look anything like what is being suggested.

[Tropics]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Perhaps University City fits the TOD criteria - I think the LRT must have been a big contributing factor to that being built.

I think the LRT was slightly secondary to the university itself, but the LRT I am willing to admit added a lot of value to it as a development and likely helped it get built so I can agree that it could be seen as a TOD. For students at the UofC it is "almost" better off just to walk to UC after a day of classes then to walk to the University Station and take the train one stop. I can only see people doing that on the absolute coldest of winter days, even with their mandatory transit passes as students.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Tropics

I think the LRT was slightly secondary to the university itself, but the LRT I am willing to admit added a lot of value to it as a development and likely helped it get built so I can agree that it could be seen as a TOD. For students at the UofC it is "almost" better off just to walk to UC after a day of classes then to walk to the University Station and take the train one stop. I can only see people doing that on the absolute coldest of winter days, even with their mandatory transit passes as students.

Is it just going to be occupied by students (I thought I read some controversy about how it was mostly going to occupied by non students)?. Anyway, I'd have thought the value would be from getting the LRT to places other than the University rather than the University itself.

Regardless, I still agree that talking about TOD in the SE is disingenuous. The NCLRT, however, would surely be much more effective at encouraging TOD.

[Tropics]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Is it just going to be occupied by students (I thought I read some controversy about how it was mostly going to occupied by non students)?. Anyway, I'd have thought the value would be from getting the LRT to places other than the University rather than the University itself.

Regardless, I still agree that talking about TOD in the SE is disingenuous. The NCLRT, however, would surely be much more effective at encouraging TOD.

If I had to guess University City was likely bought up mostly by investors looking to lease the units. If I had been in a different financial situation when they sold I might have bought a few of them and leased them out, they would be simply to rent and the things sold so cheap it would be easy to recoup the mortgage payments and condo fees, even if you used a management company.

As far as the NC LRT, there are some areas I can agree that would likely have strong TOD potential. Especially the area where the old golf course is just south of McKnight.

I am one of those in the major minority that sees a lot of value in the Nose Creek alignment largely because I think center street is almost too developed now to economically put in a LRT line sufficient to handle the traffic it would need to handle (including at least some park and go). The SW LRT line had a far easier route and nowhere near as much needed expropriation to get built but it was still extremely expensive and they did a ton to minimize it's above ground disturbance including the massive raised section and numerous underground sections. Almost the only way I can see a true NC line working truly well is burying almost all of it and it would be staggeringly expensive. I have a feeling they will instead go cheaper, marginalize it with small stations and no parking, and it will not be anywhere near as effective as it should be.