Calgary Area Regional Transit - Page 6

slide_rule · #**101** Posted **Nov 21, 2008, 8:40 PM**

^so it's a deal with the devil, or at least the rural legislators who have disproportionate political power? it's difficult to envisage the leaders of airdrie, cochrane, etc. willingly acceding their own control of land usage for the sake of the greater good. apart from tax dodging and big, cheap lots, there is little incentive for a calgarian office worker to live in a far off exurb.

the two albertan cities' big advantage is their metropolitan government. by making it easier for people to commute from other municipalities, calgary itself loses a lot of leverage, compromising its ability to densify and plan cohesively.

i'm just surprised the airport link is contingent on extending rail service to the far off areas. wouldn't it make more sense to just build a spur from the DT core to the airport itself?

MalcolmTucker · #**102** Posted **Nov 21, 2008, 9:10 PM**

Re: airport link - If it is LRT, not at all. A one seat to the airport on a train is competitive with cabs for people going downtown to stay in hotels and conduct business. People will pay $15 dollars for a one seat train to downtown that is designed to accommodate people going to the airport, while less will pay $3 for an LRT ticket that takes the same trip. The captive users you capture with a LRT link are better served by a bus link in almost all cases. You should be able to even have the service (one-seat) be provided on a cost recovery basis.

It is all psychology for an airport link.

As for rural Mayors grappling with land use, I don't think you really know who the leaders of surrounding communities are. Think about the personal legacy of the civic leaders that brought a fixed link into their communities, and their virtual guarantee of their continual reelection. The chief electoral promise of Cochrane's Mayor is a fixed link to Calgary (with a short term goal of bus transit at least to the new Crowfoot Station). If someone came to him and said 'within 400m of the stations you need to develop at a density similar to the Bridges project, and all other new residences cannot be below 10 UPA' would he say no? Never!

All you need is one community to agree to conditions to get the rest to fall in line.

The one dimensional view of suburbs you hold is rather quizzical. Calgary is not Edmonton. Our suburbs do not abut our boundaries (not counting exurb type Springbank development). They do not draw significantly down our tax base (industrial or commercial). It helps that the majority of civic funding in Alberta does not come from the property taxes, our internal infrastructure is paid for by transfers, while our ringroad and major free way is paid for directly by the provincial government. While I wouldn't support giving up our current unicity structure, we are no way near the problems cause by centre city-suburb relations in the average american experience, of even the Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver experience before regionalization.

slide_rule · #**103** Posted **Nov 21, 2008, 9:40 PM**

^considering the political power of developers, what are the odds of these rural mayors sacrificing their cities' selfish economic development for the sake of calgary's greater good? you could legislate a certain density within a radius of the station itself, but there will inevitably be someone else who comes in and proposes higher yield, greenfield development in the adjoining areas. cities need money, and exurban mayors have the least ability to resist the lure of high profit, low density developments that skim off the tax base of the core. multiple governing bodies within a metropolitan area will inevitably result in competing concerns and competition for development and tax dollars.

Quote:

suburbs do not abut our boundaries

this is a great thing. but providing transit for these hamlets doesn't bode well for calgary itself. and it effectively acts as a subsidy for people to commute from further off.

the regional transit plan would make more sense if certain conditions could be met. first, calgary would need an improved, comprehensive transit system. then calgary itself would be at or near build out and had already sufficiently densified around its PT stations.

Riise · #**104** Posted **Nov 23, 2008, 8:02 PM**

While I like your passion and understanding of what type of urban repair and change is needed Slide Rule, I have to agree with Kyle; you don't fully understand the municipal governance situation in the region. Additionally, you seem to suffer from the same problem as Mike_Toronto, you are clinging to one planning paradigm and don't seem to understand that change takes time and compromise. Anyway, to get to my point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by slide_rule

[E]xurban mayors have the least ability to resist the lure of high profit, low density developments that skim off the tax base of the core.

Actually, they are the municipalities that can least afford this type of development. Generally, residential land uses generate the least amount of tax revenue for municipalities and the exurban sprawl that plagues parts of the region are not large profit makers but rather massive coffer drainers. We were discussing this in a meeting on Friday and the M.D. of Rocky View has decided that it can no longer afford to continue exurban sprawl and development changes MUST be made.

In regards to regional growth management, I believe commuter rail can be the spine of a sustainable Greater Calgary Growth Plan. The Calgary Region should model its growth after the Finger Plan adopted by Copenhagen. Development should be focused in rail corridors and take the form of new towns (urban villages) along the rail lines like pearls on a necklace. This type of growth strategies allows both Calgary and other municipalities in the region to develop their tax bases but in a sustainable fashion. In order for this type of Smart Growth to occur, you need to follow the Dutch development model and ensure that public transport is there before the first residents, business, shop owners, etc. move in.

slide_rule · #**105** Posted **Nov 23, 2008, 9:56 PM**

^i'm ok with disagreements, now my arguments are in the miketoronto mold? his arguments are easily dismissed because he makes an arbitrary distinction between the city of toronto and sauga or markham, etc. but calgary is both a much smaller city, and doesn't have large suburbs immediately adjacent.

here's the thing; most 'progressive' political types, and all the academics despise the sprawling developments. yet sprawl is still built, simply because it allows for fat profits and quick tax revenues. airdrie and cochrane, etc. may proclaim the benefits of smart growth and density. but in the end, who's more susceptible to developer greed; calgary with its established tax base, or the outlying hamlets with lots of lower cost, empty land? again, these patterns have already been established in the three older, larger canadian cities. with some small exceptions, development flows toward the areas with the cheapest costs.

you could argue that commuter rail between the core and these outlying areas will be legislated to include only higher density developments. you'd be right. but then the various malls, lifestyle centers, big box stores, etc. would be attracted to the area. once a critical mass of population is reached, the pressures to add amenities will increase. normally this would not be a bad thing, but calgary proper has a very low density and suffers from the corresponding problems with transit, car dependency, etc. thus i dismiss the comparisons to stockholm, copenhagen, etc. those cities already possess comprehensive PT and urban vibrancy in their cores.

MalcolmTucker · #**106** Posted **Nov 24, 2008, 6:21 AM**

Doing TOD in outlying communities has the capacity to allow middle class families to live a mostly car free lifestyle. Tradeoffs are always made with these sort of things, but cheaper development costs as long as development is well planned, dense, and well serviced is great.

The easiest way to do it without massive public subsidy is outlying cities.

slide_rule · #**107** Posted **Dec 6, 2008, 8:26 PM**

^you guys are going to hate me for dredging up this topic. i don't have a vendetta against the hamlets involved, nor do i have anything against rail transit.

but from my own experience with developers, and from acquaintances and former classmates in both land development and government, i can almost guarantee that the initial promises of good development will be sacrificed for more of the status quo, big boxed, low density stuff seen everywhere else in the car-dependent world. the development community wields a lot of financial and political clout, and stands to gain a lot (at the detriment of the greater good) from available greenfield land.

calgary's unified municipal government gives it a major advantage over the larger north american cities. you don't want to give that up. as weak, ineffectual, and incompetent as the government may seem right now, it would only get worse if its taxbase has an option to go elsewhere.

Policy Wonk · #**108** Posted **Dec 6, 2008, 10:27 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by slide_rule

i can almost guarantee that the initial promises of good development will be sacrificed for more of the status quo, big boxed, low density stuff seen everywhere else in the car-dependent world.

That isn't entirely for a lack of sincerity on the part of the developer, it is pretty difficult to see that through when transit authorities such as Calgary Transit just don't care and won't even come to the table and the only transit service a new community is likely to receive without that type of cooperation is a couple of rush hour express buses.

Transit authorities do not greenwash themselves, they do not see themselves as some sort of benevolent environmental agent, they just see themselves as bus drivers and don't really concern themselves with such issues or what their role in them might be.

Aegis · #**109** Posted **Dec 31, 2008, 6:11 PM**

Are there any living proposals for regional rail service in the Calgary area? I can't see the population of our "bedroom communities" being large enough to justify the cost..several hundred million dollars do build a line from Okotoks to Calgary, and buy rolling stock...

mersar · #**110** Posted **Dec 31, 2008, 6:35 PM**

The Calgary Regional Partnership is developing a commuter rail proposal currently, from what I've heard we should see it some time in the spring when the province starts handing out the money they allocated for transit. The Premier and Transportation minister are both said to be in favour of the regional rail idea for the long term, the proposal had at one point included some short-term bus system but from what I'd heard its been put aside from the bigger plan.

Theres also been discussion between Calgary Transit and the 4 surrounding communities at some level in the past few months that has been mentioned in brief, not much detail but I'd suspect probably related to some form of potential bus service.

mersar · #**111** Posted **Jan 1, 2009, 2:30 AM**

And just as a followup, there was mention in one of the Cochrane papers that the CRP plan will be unveiled in January, with public hearings on it in February and at least Cochrane will be aiming to institute policies to support it by June.

The Geographer · #**112** Posted **Jan 3, 2009, 10:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aegis

Are there any living proposals for regional rail service in the Calgary area? I can't see the population of our "bedroom communities" being large enough to justify the cost..several hundred million dollars do build a line from Okotoks to Calgary, and buy rolling stock...

People need to stop looking at what the communities are now, and thinking about what they will be. Most of these communities will double or more within the next twenty years. By creating a unified transportation/land use initiative now, we can shape the type of development that will be there 20 years from now, while creating a symbiotic relationship between Calgary and the region. In fact, this is how all transit should be built - before development occurs, not after. A compact town based around a rail station is actually a more traditional Canadian small town anyway.

In general, I think kyle_olsen is dead on with this issue. The advantages are not only in terms of connecting existing communities, but also allowing efficient, compact, "new town" developments to direct growth and pay for the system by internalizing the benefit. This was how the CPR was built in the first place (as well as American railroads). Calgary was itself a train-oriented-development.

My only reservation is about using up prime farmland in the east, north, and south of the city. In that sense, intensifying within Calgary is a better idea. However, rural politics are a reality, and this is a great way to assure future commuter town development is compact and sensible.

MalcolmTucker · #**113** Posted **Jan 3, 2009, 11:28 PM**

If it is one thing we have around here it is farm land! And it isn't like even if we had to get all our food from a certain distance around the city we wouldn't have enough wheat, barley, canola, beef and hogs. 100 mile diet for Calgary is pretty sparse, we have never even had to really try anything else, as the railway has always been here.

Not wanting to develop farmland because it is farmland is cultural imperialism, it isn't like we force people to stop farming, unless you call big cash payouts for their land being 'forced'.

The Geographer · #**114** Posted **Jan 3, 2009, 11:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by kyle_olsen

If it is one thing we have around here it is farm land! And it isn't like even if we had to get all our food from a certain distance around the city we wouldn't have enough wheat, barley, canola, beef and hogs. 100 mile diet for Calgary is pretty sparse, we have never even had to really try anything else, as the railway has always been here.

Not wanting to develop farmland because it is farmland is cultural imperialism, it isn't like we force people to stop farming, unless you call big cash payouts for their land being 'forced'.

Not just because it is farmland, because it is some of the best in the world. It is actually strange that Calgary didn't develop more west and north west, as that is far more scenic land that is far less productive. I am not concerned about the way of life of the farm, just the shortsightedness of using up extremely productive farmland, permanently.

That being said, if compact new towns redirect growth away from acreages and sprawl that would occur anyway, it should be a positive.

mersar · #**115** Posted **Jan 3, 2009, 11:58 PM**

Problems with developing west and northwest is the economics of the terrain. Its much cheaper to build on flat land then on hilly land (both in terms of actual cost, and how many UPA you can build across the site), and there aren't too many developers who will commit to the more expensive type of development. A lot of the area to the north west has also the two extremes in terms of who owns the land: huge swaths owned by a single family who don't want to develop it (for instance, the family who sold/donated the land for the Glenbow Ranch provincial park to the province, which runs virtually from Cochrane's limits to Calgary's limits), and other swaths that have been subdivided into little 4 acre parcels where consolidation for a larger development gets messy with that many people involved.

Theres going to be a lot of redevelopment of some of the acreage areas in Springbank over time, the Harmony development is a good start as its a relatively high density project compared to what surrounds it. A lot of the growth being pushed by the CRP does address the west side of the city, some of the longer range plans call for upwards of 100,000 new residents and employment nodes from the current city limit west to Highway 22

lubicon · #**116** Posted **Jan 5, 2009, 6:28 PM**

One of the biggest barriers to westward growth in Calgary is the TsuTina reserve on the west/southwest border of Calgary. It effectively limits any westward growth from north of Hwy 22 to pretty much Glenmore Trail.

Vascilli · #**117** Posted **Jan 6, 2009, 5:05 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by lubicon

One of the biggest barriers to westward growth in Calgary is the TsuTina reserve on the west/southwest border of Calgary. It effectively limits any westward growth from north of Hwy 22 to pretty much Glenmore Trail.

Frankly I don't mind it, save for getting from Westhills to the Glenmore Reservoir. Some sort of massive tunnel would be nice though.