West LRT | 7 Stations | 8.0 KM | In Service

[Mike Wilhelm]

Originally Posted by freeweed

Aren't there already a few people living on the west side of the city?

TOD is nice but it's certainly never been the driving factor pushing our LRT lines forward. There's really no TOD in the NW yet the trains seem to get used every day.

Then why are we building the West line ahead of the SE line, if the objective is not TOD? The comparative passenger volumes don't compute, and the current demographics of the West side are such that a high proportion of people don't take transit.

I'm confused - does the market study for West LRT require TOD, or does it not?

[You Need A Thneed]

Originally Posted by Mike Wilhelm

Then why are we building the West line ahead of the SE line, if the objective is not TOD?

Because the West line costs $700M, and the SE line to McKenzie Towne would cost nearly $2B, and cause lots of disruption downtown, where the West line produces virtually no disruption downtown.

The city didn't have enough money to get started on the SE line, the amount of money they had was around enough for the west line.

The west line is using the same LRVs, the same maintenance facilities, etc. The SE line is likely going to use different LRVs, which means new maintenance facilities, etc. All those costs add up.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Mike Wilhelm

I agree that this would be a good outcome. However, why would a developer pay up for land zoned for a 30 story tower, and then build a townhome on it? How do the numbers add up for him when he can pay up for land zoned for a 30 story tower in London or New York, and build a 30 story tower on it?

The developer can build whatever they want. Saying they can build a dense townhouse walkup complex (usually 3 or 4 stories) or a dense Paris inner city style block does not preclude point towers.

If the economics work out, he can build the 30 story tower. Your argument that there is no demand would cause the price on the land zoned for said towers to fall to a point where other development might pay off.

Supply and Demand my friend.

[Wooster]

Originally Posted by Mike Wilhelm

Sorry, I thought the reason to build West LRT was to promote TOD on the West side, which I think is a good reason to build a transit line. If we don't have a growth plan, then how does the project work?

Maybe I'm missing something here - maybe "if we build it they will come". I'm just asking - where are they coming from?

Well, at the early planning stages, the City has been focusing on TOD efforts in on the two stations it is most likely to occur in the long term - Westbrook and Sunalta. Both now have new SARPs. Of course, there needs to be public investment that follows to helping make these plans a reality and to make them more attractive places for large scale private investment and growth.

Like I said, I think the market for TOD will be huge as Calgary grows from 1 million to 2 million residents. Calgary's at the stage in its development where the combination of changing demographics, lifestyle changes, housing costs and commuting times are adding up to making well-appointed urban neighbourhoods tied to LRT very attractive. Developers are starting to recognize this potential (Brentwood being a good example with Co-op/Medican and Rio-Can Knightsbridge - as well as the Bridges).

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Mike Wilhelm

Wooster,

It's over folks, it's 1981 all over again.

What is the plan to create and sustain the non oil and gas driven growth on the graph in a in light of a mature sedimentary basin and a $2.00 natural gas market?

It's a recession, and oil is $75 a barrel. It is not 1981. Not by a long shot. I could elaborate if you wish. But that may take some time.

[Mike Wilhelm]

Originally Posted by fusili

It's a recession, and oil is $75 a barrel. It is not 1981. Not by a long shot. I could elaborate if you wish. But that may take some time.

I'm being a devil's advocate - you are probably right. It's a question of when. The recession may be longer than people expect, and I'm not sure that the nature of the basin going forward will translate into higher commodity prices = more jobs. It's not 1981, but is it a one, two or ten year down cycle? I expect most industry jobs result from natural gas, not oil (as do government revenues, which fund infrastructure projects).

Wooster's right in saying that we should have a plan to go from 1 million to 2 million people. Let's say it happens in 30 years. I'm saying that in a commodity based economy, we should also be open to the idea of going from 1 million to 1.2 million in 30 years. The world is full of single industry towns that got smaller in that period. A 30 year plan with high expectations is going result in a lot of vacant lots. The plan needs to be flexible, or be combined with a plan to diversify out of oil and gas.

[Mike Wilhelm]

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

The developer can build whatever they want. Saying they can build a dense townhouse walkup complex (usually 3 or 4 stories) or a dense Paris inner city style block does not preclude point towers.

If the economics work out, he can build the 30 story tower. Your argument that there is no demand would cause the price on the land zoned for said towers to fall to a point where other development might pay off.

I agree, particularly for Sunalta, and the public lands on the South side of Westbrook. I think the recession is particularly good news for Sunalta, as developers may be interested in committing less capital on smaller scale projects on smaller land blocks.

Hopefully the forces at City hall that pushed for the towers added to the Westbrook ARP are flexible enough to live with townhouses. I'd be surprised if the tower idea came from the architect.

On the North side of Westbrook, the land values need to be sufficiently high to incent a the owner to tear down a viable mall for redevelopment - I can't see that happening soon.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Mike Wilhelm

I'm being a devil's advocate - you are probably right. It's a question of when. The recession may be longer than people expect, and I'm not sure that the nature of the basin going forward will translate into higher commodity prices = more jobs. It's not 1981, but is it a one, two or ten year down cycle? I expect most industry jobs result from natural gas, not oil (as do government revenues, which fund infrastructure projects).

Wooster's right in saying that we should have a plan to go from 1 million to 2 million people. Let's say it happens in 30 years. I'm saying that in a commodity based economy, we should also be open to the idea of going from 1 million to 1.2 million in 30 years. The world is full of single industry towns that got smaller in that period. A 30 year plan with high expectations is going result in a lot of vacant lots. The plan needs to be flexible, or be combined with a plan to diversify out of oil and gas.

Despite everything that has gone on, I remember seeing a growth chart for Calgary that was rather constant for the past 50 or 60 years. Even the 80s only caused a temporary pull back, with later years making up for the stagnation. I forget whether the chart was in Calgary Project or PlanIt - what I do remember is that it surprised me!

Not to say that past performance dictates future dictates future results, just that there is no past evidence to predict what you forsee. When oil and gas are low, you diversify. Turn all the empty office space into an asset and start recruiting head office relocations (like CP and Shaw in the 90s).

As for specific planning documents, it is rather unusual for the city to reject a project because it is too small. I think the ARP might have a minimum Floor Area Ratio of 1, possibly 2 for some areas. Once zoning is in place a developer that fits below the max guidelines, and above the min are pretty much scot free, besides small changes that might be required by the Planning Commission. Only controversy happens when a developer wants to go over the limit, or if the project violates a policy that the developer doesn't want to pay to comply with (and wants an exemption).

[jeffwhit]

Originally Posted by Wooster

Like I said, I think the market for TOD will be huge as Calgary grows from 1 million to 2 million residents. Calgary's at the stage in its development where the combination of changing demographics, lifestyle changes, housing costs and commuting times are adding up to making well-appointed urban neighbourhoods tied to LRT very attractive. Developers are starting to recognize this potential (Brentwood being a good example with Co-op/Medican and Rio-Can Knightsbridge - as well as the Bridges).

It other words Calgary is in an uncannily familiar position to anyone who folowed Vancouver's growth coming out of Expo '86. The advantage we have is a culture of transit use that is already well established, and some provisions already in place for future LRT-based/related growth.

[Tarsus]

Originally Posted by jeffwhit

It other words Calgary is in an uncannily familiar position to anyone who folowed Vancouver's growth coming out of Expo '86. The advantage we have is a culture of transit use that is already well established, and some provisions already in place for future LRT-based/related growth.

Exactly. With a well established LRT system already in place TODs should evolve quite well in this city. Another advantage we have going for us in the TOD thing is the heavy downtown centric work force. It makes it much easier to develop TODs compared to cities where the work force is spread out.

[Me&You]

Originally Posted by Tarsus

Exactly. With a well established LRT system already in place TODs should evolve quite well in this city. Another advantage we have going for us in the TOD thing is the heavy downtown centric work force. It makes it much easier to develop TODs compared to cities where the work force is spread out.

NM

[Ferreth]

I've lived her all my life and I can say for myself if I was buying a property now, a TOD development would look a lot more attractive now than when I bought in '97. Now, new houses are being built even further out than where I want to be, with worse traffic where I need to go to work. A TOD in Westbrook or Brentwood is better, although still not ideal for me. My chosen option in '97 - used house closer in is becoming less of an option with increasing prices close in. I'd say there are a lot of people in the same boat as me who will take a close look at some nice development near an LRT - I'm just hoping they build some stuff that comes in at a reasonable price.

[greg_a]

Does the elevated section over Sarcee involve a traffic interchange as well?

[frinkprof]

Nevermind.

[srperrycgy]

This is the chosen design for the Sarcee/17th Avenue Interchange:



Image from here: http://www.westlrt.ca/files/Sarcee%2...t-Sept%204.pdf Page 13.

[Mike Wilhelm]

Sounds familiar:

http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2...ed-acceptable/

[Mike Wilhelm]

Contrarian view see the links:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/SmartGrowth/wm745.cfm

"...whether in the United States or Western Europe, transit principally serves core urban areas and is not an affordable way to serve the non-core and suburban markets that represent the bulk of travel demand. This fact is well understood, if not readily admitted, by transit and urban planners, who blather on about transit and its ability to reduce traffic congestion. However, their actions speak louder than their words: no regional transportation plan anticipates transit improvements that would materially reduce automobile use."

Also:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/SmartGrowth/em838.cfm

Are his numbers real? I live in the core, so I can this supporting the TOD concept. His thinking is too narrow - the offset could be the ability for cities to save money elsewhere by preventing urban sprawl.

Simply put - the trade off could be for cities to stop inflating values in the suburbs through development subsidies, and start inflating values in the innner city by transit subsidies.

[srperrycgy]

Wendell Cox?

[jeffwhit]

Yeah Mike,

Wendell Cox can smudge any research and statistic to support his anti-public-transit anti-planning obsession. I mean, the conclusions are drawn before the research is done, and the research is presented in a way to support those. It's progaganda and lacks entirely in intellectual honesty or integrity. I mean he talks about the personal cost of cars but never mentions the cost of building and maintaining roads.

The fact that the Herritage Foundation is unappoligetically a right wing organization ("The Left is On the March. Heritage Has the Answers") should discredit them as a reliable source of reasearch based policy writing.

I don't expect everybody to be so familiar with Cox and his ilk, that's why I mention it to you. You're very generous to describe his thinking as "narrow," since in reality his thinking is absolutist.

[Mike Wilhelm]

I know, I know, ...three terms on the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission - not an urban planning mecca.

I don't agree with his conclusions, but his arguments are worth thinking about. The problem with fiscal conservatives is they argue a single point at a time, willfully ignoring the bigger picture. How much does it cost per rider per year on LRT? Maybe the extra cost is worth it?

I'm a finance guy, and a conservative, and I find guys like this are easy to argue with if you can boil it down to the real cost of urban sprawl. LA has some of the worst infratructure and property tax problems anywhere, and it might just be because of the layout of that town.

I can think of a alderman or two who might buy into this stuff - its important to know where it comes from.