Should the Calgary Region create a Metropolitan Regional Transit System?

[Wooster]

Originally Posted by Doug

All of which are bureaucratic disasters. Calgary should annex Cochrane, Airdrie and Chestermere. The carrot would be a significant property tax reduction delivered by reducing staffing levels through economies of scale. The stick would be water.

That and the fact that they don't have a commercial tax base to subsidize residential tax rates like Calgary. Calgary's downtown for instance contributes 25% of the entire tax base of the city.

[Doug]

Originally Posted by para transit fellow

Most people don't realize that housing affordability is really housing plus transportation costs. Realtors and developers focus only on the housing costs...

An extra $25- $50 a week for gas in a longer commute somehow does enter entry-homeowner calculations.

It doesn't justify $200K in extra mortgage debt.

[Doug]

Originally Posted by Wooster

That and the fact that they don't have a commercial tax base to subsidize residential tax rates like Calgary. Calgary's downtown for instance contributes 25% of the entire tax base of the city.

For now. As the satellite municipalities grow, they will draw more commercial development. This has happened in pretty much every North American metro. Calgary's unicity municipal structure was unique and is now breaking down.

I am permanently soured on regional agencies as well as municipal charters after living in Seattle. The Seattle metro blew 2 decades and billions of dollars through municipal infighting and constant attempts to poach each other's tax bases (aka retail). The Toronto region is an even bigger cluster.

[Doug]

There are easy ways to avoid traffic congestion, especially in Calgary as most employers are flexible on work hours. I left in 2001 when traffic was no where near as bad, but easily commuted from the SE by leaving at 5:30 AM. I'd leave work around 3. Seattle was even better as most west coasters don't roll into work until 9. When I drove, I would leave shortly before 7 and even the bridges were wide open.

[RWin]

Originally Posted by Doug

Us vs. them never works and sadly Calgary is headed down that path.

I'm not sure the average person in Calgary thinks in terms of us vs them. I think most people just want a place to live and a place to work.

This formum on the other hand is very good at us vs them. Whether it's Calgary vs the east or the suburbs vs the inner city.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by Doug

For now. As the satellite municipalities grow, they will draw more commercial development. This has happened in pretty much every North American metro. Calgary's unicity municipal structure was unique and is now breaking down.

People wonder why some of us get a bit freaked at IOL's moving into the middle of nowhere with Quarry Park. Well, from a distance perspective Balzac is closer to a lot of Calgarians. And Airdrie isn't that out of the question. From a commute time perspective, I'd say Airdrie is closer for probably half of the city than QP is.

It's only a matter of time, which is why we need to annex these localities NOW, so that we can manage our exurban sprawl. 10 years ago, Calgary basically didn't have exurbs. Only the really desperate/poor planning types were moving 20km outside of the city. Today, people are doing it by the 10s of thousands every year. Airdrie feels like it could surpass Red Deer in the near future. Absolutely insane.

[Chadillaccc]

Airdrie really needs to start thinking about its own economic future, rather than hijacking Calgary's. Inner density is what they really need to start planning for. They are probably the largest city in North America without a building over 10 storeys tall, at around 55 000 (as of this year [est.]).

[ue]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

Airdrie really needs to start thinking about its own economic future, rather than hijacking Calgary's. Inner density is what they really need to start planning for. They are probably the largest city in North America without a building over 10 storeys tall, at around 55 000 (as of this year [est.]).

Doubtful. Sherwood Park has ~65,000 and no tall buildings to speak of. I don't recall Milton, Ontario building any high-rises. That's without mentioning the endless, nameless suburbs of American cities.

There's also the obvious example of Washington, which proves height isn't everything. It's more about walkability and sustainability which can be achieved in part through high-rises, but not wholly.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by freeweed

People wonder why some of us get a bit freaked at IOL's moving into the middle of nowhere with Quarry Park. Well, from a distance perspective Balzac is closer to a lot of Calgarians. And Airdrie isn't that out of the question. From a commute time perspective, I'd say Airdrie is closer for probably half of the city than QP is.

It's only a matter of time, which is why we need to annex these localities NOW, so that we can manage our exurban sprawl. 10 years ago, Calgary basically didn't have exurbs. Only the really desperate/poor planning types were moving 20km outside of the city. Today, people are doing it by the 10s of thousands every year. Airdrie feels like it could surpass Red Deer in the near future. Absolutely insane.

We are, through the use of water licenses (Calgary has the only non-used ones in the basin), something that will be come extremely valuable in the semi-arid environment we live in and most of the municipalities surrounding us are approaching the limits of their existing licenses. At some point these municipalities will have to make a decision stop growing or sign up with Calgary and follow the leader.

[Chadillaccc]

Why couldn't they get their water licenses expanded? At 100 000 people, Airdrie will be the 3rd - 5th largest municipality in this province, a major city in its own right. If other cities can get big water licenses, why couldn't they?

[freeweed]

This is where I think you both have a point. The Province controls it all, so hopefully the Province plays ball with the bigger city in Calgary - essentially annexing these communities in everything but name.

It sure would be easy for an up-and-coming party to try to pander for votes by promising easing on water rights though... 50-80,000 extra votes could swing an election in this province some day.

[mersar]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

Why couldn't they get their water licenses expanded? At 100 000 people, Airdrie will be the 3rd - 5th largest municipality in this province, a major city in its own right. If other cities can get big water licenses, why couldn't they?

Because the province won't grant any more, and the people/businesses/organizations that have unused/sparsely used ones want huge $$$ for them, and its dependent on the province still okay'ing it.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by mersar

Because the province won't grant any more

That is a very dangerous assumption to make in perpetuity. I hope you're right, I really do, but I don't know that we can base all of our future planning on that.

Water rights issues should have stopped the ridiculous unsustainable growth in the American desert a long time ago, but by chipping away incrementally, they've managed to put millions of people in Phoenix and done untold damage to California. I pray we're smarter than that, I really do.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by freeweed

That is a very dangerous assumption to make in perpetuity. I hope you're right, I really do, but I don't know that we can base all of our future planning on that.

Water rights issues should have stopped the ridiculous unsustainable growth in the American desert a long time ago, but by chipping away incrementally, they've managed to put millions of people in Phoenix and done untold damage to California. I pray we're smarter than that, I really do.

I believe it's law, been the same number for a long time. I also believe most of the drainage basins in the province have reached the max licenses. I believe the licenses were granted once and no more exist or can be granted.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

I believe it's law, been the same number for a long time. I also believe most of the drainage basins in the province have reached the max licenses. I believe the licenses were granted once and no more exist or can be granted.

Laws can be changed with the stroke of a pen. Water licenses aren't some natural force that we can control, they're simply our attempt to manage resources sustainably. All it takes is a loud (and highly motivated to vote) contingent in a few communities to claim that they're being "bullied" by the big cities, and short-sighted politicians will listen.

Like I said, I hope I'm worried over nothing. The real test should be coming shortly with communities like Airdrie, no? Surely they're approaching the limits of their growth (in terms of water)?

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by freeweed

Laws can be changed with the stroke of a pen. Water licenses aren't some natural force that we can control, they're simply our attempt to manage resources sustainably. All it takes is a loud (and highly motivated to vote) contingent in a few communities to claim that they're being "bullied" by the big cities, and short-sighted politicians will listen.

True, but I think the rest of the basin would be in the fight too and would be against the proponent (i.e. Med Hat, Lethbridge, etc. would be opposed to changes to the upstream licenses).

Originally Posted by freeweed

Like I said, I hope I'm worried over nothing. The real test should be coming shortly with communities like Airdrie, no? Surely they're approaching the limits of their growth (in terms of water)?

IIRC High River is closer to theirs than almost anyone else and have had caps on the growth partially due to it.

[Chadillaccc]

I would imagine so. They have doubled in population in less than 10 years. I wouldn't be surprised to see them close to 60 000 as of this municipal census, as the province just recorded a year-over-year growth of around 140 000.

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by freeweed

Laws can be changed with the stroke of a pen. Water licenses aren't some natural force that we can control, they're simply our attempt to manage resources sustainably. All it takes is a loud (and highly motivated to vote) contingent in a few communities to claim that they're being "bullied" by the big cities, and short-sighted politicians will listen.

Like I said, I hope I'm worried over nothing. The real test should be coming shortly with communities like Airdrie, no? Surely they're approaching the limits of their growth (in terms of water)?

New water licenses would go beyond the province and invite litigation from Saskatchewan. It's funny that you brought up the American Southwest because it actually provides a strong counter example to your argument. Growing urban areas are forced to stretch existing water licenses while California's central valley remains an a major agricultural producer in a former desert based on old water rights that are essentially untouchable.

[Doug]

The irrigation districts are sitting on a gold mine. They will cut deals with Airdrie etc. eventually.

[RWin]

Originally Posted by Doug

It doesn't justify $200K in extra mortgage debt.

Yeah, that's over 66000 trips by transit on the principle alone. To and from work every day (including Saturday and Sunday) for 90 years.

Or 160000 litres of gas at todays price. 2.6 million Km in my car. I live 17 Km from downtown so thats about 76000 trips to and from work for $200000.

Never really though about it before but I guess (except for parking) it's actually cheeper to drive to work than take the bus.

I'm pretty sure my math is correct.