West LRT | 7 Stations | 8.0 KM | In Service

[frinkprof]

Nevermind.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

From the Opinion section of today's Calgary Herald.http://www.calgaryherald.com/BestWes...393/story.html

Sounds like he is trying to pat himself on the back for being a NIMBY and he aspires to be a CAVE Person or BANANA.

[MichaelS]

What does CAVE stand for again? And BANANA is Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything? (Don't hear these terms as often as NIMBY).

[MalcolmTucker]

Citizens Against Virtually Everything

[MichaelS]

Thanks.

[KrisYYC]

Just a though I had today:

Do you think the underground stations will have some small retail (like a magazing/snack shop) in them? That would be awesome

[mersar]

Originally Posted by KrisYYC

Just a though I had today:

Do you think the underground stations will have some small retail (like a magazing/snack shop) in them? That would be awesome

It's possible. The DC for the site for the station head building at Westbrook includes the standard Commercial Corridor 1 stuff in addition to Food Kiosks and some other uses. It will mostly come down to if theres any interest in trying to run them, and exactly what goes in. The biggest issue with food is that you're not supposed to have open food on the Ctrain, so theres not much point in allowing a coffee shop or something like a Jugo Juice (which is the most common retail in the Skytrain and Canada line stations in Vancouver from what I've heard). Any anything at Westbrook will probably be on the main floor I'd imagine. As for the other somewhat underground station at Westbrook, not likely based off the station designs that have been posted.

[MalcolmTucker]

^ Would be up to the project bidder methinks - they can add anything they want to help defray their costs. Given the history of the little kiosks currently I would guess not - especially since there is no concourse level. In the office building at ground level that is the north station head I could see a dry cleaner, convenience store and coffee shop going in (but strictly speaking that isn't a station).

That brings up another question - since the city put the office building there, adding to the costs I wonder if they are planning on moving one of the departments there.

[Ferreth]

Originally Posted by mersar

It's possible. The DC for the site for the station head building at Westbrook includes the standard Commercial Corridor 1 stuff in addition to Food Kiosks and some other uses. It will mostly come down to if theres any interest in trying to run them, and exactly what goes in. The biggest issue with food is that you're not supposed to have open food on the Ctrain, so theres not much point in allowing a coffee shop or something like a Jugo Juice (which is the most common retail in the Skytrain and Canada line stations in Vancouver from what I've heard). Any anything at Westbrook will probably be on the main floor I'd imagine. As for the other somewhat underground station at Westbrook, not likely based off the station designs that have been posted.

You imply that you can have food on the Skytrain. Is this so? Allowing food on the LRT would allow for food merchants, but make for messier trains...

[mersar]

Originally Posted by Ferreth

You imply that you can have food on the Skytrain. Is this so? Allowing food on the LRT would allow for food merchants, but make for messier trains...

I don't believe so (from the translink web site it reads like its against the rules), however I do know there are a number of foot kiosks in the Canada Line stations based off posts over in the vancouver section of the forum.

[Ferreth]

Originally Posted by mersar

I don't believe so (from the translink web site it reads like its against the rules), however I do know there are a number of foot kiosks in the Canada Line stations based off posts over in the vancouver section of the forum.

Interesting. I wonder if Vancouver transit approved them on the assumption that people would get food/drink getting leaving the station, or if they didn't actually clue in at all that it might encourage people to bring food/drink on the skytrain.

As far as having such a thing in Calgary, I can't see it during rush hour(s). I don't feel like having someone's Tim Horton's coffee split down my neck when the train has to make a sudden stop. That would not be an issue in Vancouver, with the lack of level crossings.

[KrisYYC]

^Many of the metro lines I've been on in European cities have food kiosks all over the place yet still don't allow food on the trains themselves.

[frinkprof]

Nevermind.

[Mike Wilhelm]

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

Sounds like he is trying to pat himself on the back for being a NIMBY and he aspires to be a CAVE Person or BANANA.

Just got back from vacation and discovered some interesting "Sir Humphrey" spin here.

The op-ed piece was my take and not that of BestWestLRT or my community, as is this response. Keep in mind various community residents have been monitoring this forum for over a year and a half, to determine the position of city insiders (particularly the one that takes as a alias a self serving character from a very good but cynical British comedy).

My piece was intended to be favorable to city administration, and critical of narrow NIMBY interests. It was intended to encourage communities to apply a little intellectual rigor to their reactions to change. In keeping with that principal, I'd support you, Sir Humphrey, as a self professed "wonk" to apply the same rigor to your opinions about my intentions. Name calling, politically correct or not, doesn’t cut it.

As a direct property owner next to the WestLRT (My sole interest is the house in which I reside), NIMBY is the first natural reaction. As a community, we were successful in converting that energy into some "trust relationships with city decision makers” and have managed to improve the city’s processes in regards to our community. I’m not yet sure whether we have achieved a better LRT plan, but a few details got worked out. Pedestrian bridges were removed from the plan, and added elsewhere. Berms were added to support the bridges. Changes were made to the height of sound walls and the design of interchanges. A substation was moved.

I'm sure some of those city decision makers were appreciative of our positive written comments regarding both the Westbrook ARP and the LRT consultation process made by myself and other community members. These decision makers would likey be disappointed to hear that a city insider continues to insult our intentions in a public forum.

Hopefully, Sir Humphrey, I will have the opportunity to meet you some day, and know your real name and interest in this matter. Drop me a line - my email is on the BestWestLRT website.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by Mike Wilhelm

As a direct property owner next to the WestLRT

I'd kill for this blessing, personally. When looking to buy property next to the NW LRT (ie: walking distance to a station), it was prohibitively expensive - and this was 2005, before the boom really pumped up property values. I can't imagine what a good house in a nice neighbourhood that's a 10-minute LRT ride from downtown (WLRT is going to be a short, fast route) would fetch. Probably start at $6-700,000 and go up from there.

Do you drive to work, or take transit?

Not sure why you think this forum is full of city employees/council (whatever an "insider" is). Just about all of us are just your typical Internet geeks in one form or another. I think a couple work or have worked for the city's planning department.

[Mike Wilhelm]

I never thought West LRT was a problem - I came to the inner city by choice, and based on 8 years in Vancouver was very happy to buy next to a future LRT line. The issue is not "for or against"; it is treating property owners with appropriate consideration and respect.

Planners don't know how kids need to walk to school, how the seniors integrate with the community (or not), why inappropraite placement of a pedestrian bridge might result in under utilization, that we would be willing to sacrifice part of our park so that a substation wouldn't be behind somebody's house. Planners certainly didn't know the local history, and how the community was named - this might have important implications for, say historical recognition within the station itself. Communities and their residents can help the city, and buy into the plan.

I drive to work and take transit downtown in the evenings - the bus stop is where the station well be. The LRT station will be a few houses away, and the downtown station is immediately in front of my building, so it would be impossible to justify driving. It would be probably also quicker to take the train. Currently, bike is fastest (weather permitting).

I don't think this forum is full of insiders. I think there are a lot of young enthusiastic people on this forum and a few "authoritative" posters, who seem to "guide" the discussion towards the city party line. Take a look at the city's communication budget and you might get the picture.

This is "spin"; I see it in the Calgary Herald comments section and I see it here. I don't thing any reasonable thinking individual independant of the city would be anti-community. Keep in mind we are volunteers who are actually using our real names. We are putting our business and professional reputations on the line.

Most of these individuals hide behind aliases; I can't specify their interest because they won't either. So I generically refer to them as "insiders".

[srperrycgy]

Originally Posted by Mike Wilhelm

I never thought West LRT was a problem - I came to the inner city by choice, and based on 8 years in Vancouver was very happy to buy next to a future LRT line. The issue is not "for or against"; it is treating property owners with appropriate consideration and respect.

It’s good that you did your research about living close to a future transportation corridor. Most folks seem to be surprised when a transportation project starts up. Ignorance is bliss. The City screwed up initially and you guys called them on it. However, the picture on your website of a graffiti-infested stretch of guideway didn’t win many friends here. Your group was perceived as classic NIMBYs by most of us.

Originally Posted by Mike Wilhelm

Planners don't know how kids need to walk to school, how the seniors integrate with the community (or not), why inappropraite placement of a pedestrian bridge might result in under utilization, that we would be willing to sacrifice part of our park so that a substation wouldn't be behind somebody's house. Planners certainly didn't know the local history, and how the community was named - this might have important implications for, say historical recognition within the station itself. Communities and their residents can help the city, and buy into the plan.

Planners cannot know every situation and shouldn’t try. But some basic community information should have been researched. I think you’re referring to the 26th Street Station when you are talking about the pedestrian bridge in the original proposal. For the reason of safety, I have to respectfully disagree.

Originally Posted by Mike Wilhelm

I drive to work and take transit downtown in the evenings - the bus stop is where the station well be. The LRT station will be a few houses away, and the downtown station is immediately in front of my building, so it would be impossible to justify driving. It would be probably also quicker to take the train. Currently, bike is fastest (weather permitting).

I’m assuming that you are close to 26th Street and Bow Trail. If you have a paid parking spot in the core, could you give it up after WLRT starts?

Originally Posted by Mike Wilhelm

I don't think this forum is full of insiders. I think there are a lot of young enthusiastic people on this forum and a few "authoritative" posters, who seem to "guide" the discussion towards the city party line. Take a look at the city's communication budget and you might get the picture.

We have insiders for many diverse industries and communities throughout the city. The only “city party line” here would be a desire to create a better city. Isn’t that what we all want? Some of us hate the mayor and Aldermen with a passion. I have issues with a couple, but they were elected to do a job. One that is difficult and stressful. But, no one will ever be happy. The City’s PR budget is higher than it really needs to be, in my opinion.

Originally Posted by Mike Wilhelm

This is "spin"; I see it in the Calgary Herald comments section and I see it here. I don't thing any reasonable thinking individual independant of the city would be anti-community. Keep in mind we are volunteers who are actually using our real names. We are putting our business and professional reputations on the line.

Please don’t read anything to the Herald (or CBC especially) news story comments. These are reactionary and ill-informed on the topic.

Originally Posted by Mike Wilhelm

Most of these individuals hide behind aliases; I can't specify their interest because they won't either. So I generically refer to them as "insiders".

Well, I’m not hiding anything. I’m Steve Perry. I’ve lived in Killarney for the least 10 years. I have a BA from the U of L in Urban and Regional Studies, but have never been employed as a planner. I started my LRT in Calgary website in September 2001 as a railfan providing more information that Calgary Transit wasn’t providing. I don’t own a car, so my transit knowledge is above average, but I defer to others on here for the more technical details. I started posting on SSP from an e-mail from another forumer. I am an enthusiastic supporter of the WestLRT project.

Insider, not necessarily. Concerned Calgarian, yes.

[Mike Wilhelm]

I see now that Sir.Humphrey.Appleby was once Kyle Olsen.

I'll leave it to the thread as to why somebody with the exact same name as the President of the Alberta Young Liberals might want to put a negative spin on a community volunteer's op-ed piece under an alias in a forum.

I'm probably wrong about this; can't be him. A public figure would of course express written rebuttals under his own name in the print media.

[Mike Wilhelm]

Steve,

Thanks. Keep in mind, NIMBYism is normal – you’d feel it too. It naturally generates a high level of interest, and the key is to use that interest to organize volunteers to a productive result. We were absolutely NIMBY about the sudden introduction of an elevated line in Shaganappi, and could not understand how the city could justify the additional cost and community impacts of such a structure. Keep in mind the removal of the elevated line was "spun" as a (I'm working from memory - so my numbers are off) $30 million additional expenditure, but really it was the introduction of a $45 million Bow Trail expansion and re-alignment, net of a $14 million dollar saving for removal of the structure.

The graffiti thing was my call. Having lived in Burnaby, I hated looking at those elevated Skytrain structures. A structure with no apparent purpose other than to hold something up, much like a vacant piece of land, will invite a purpose. I'm a runner and noticed that, without exception, all the cities support structures along the Bow have graffiti or repaired graffiti. I think the pictures got that message across. I was surprised at the negative reaction, as my experience in Vancouver/Burnaby was that it was widely acknowledged in the public discourse that support structures were a bad idea.

As to the pedestrian bridge, removal of the station was actually mandated by safety considerations. The 14 community representatives on the 26 Street station committee almost unanimously asked for removal of a pedestrian bridge from the station design. The thinking was that an elevated station head at a low volume station would be an uncomfortable place to enter at night. I understand the city has had significant problems with vagrants loitering at the Bridgeland station. The seniors home North of Bow Trail has facilities at Bridgeland and has subsequently told us they are happy with this result.

City Transportation independently came to the same position for a different safey reason. They've had bad experiences with pedestrian crossings next to intersections, particularly those that serve transit. They get bypassed by jaywalking commuters at the intersection. At least with a pedestrian gate system, they can keep people off the tracks. From my point of view crossing Bow Trail is no less safe than it is now, and I cross it every day (the light will hopefully be a lot longer).

We asked for and got an improved pedestrian crossing where it is right now, and with its supporting berm, should incent people from your neighborhood to use it without facing the hill in the park. This, hopefully will remove bicycle pressure from the intersection.

As for the NIMBY thing - I can live with it. But it's always discouraging when somebody cynics want to blow off the work of resident interests to support a pet theory. I'll support a neigbour's property interest ahead of an intellectual interest in these situations every time.

[MalcolmTucker]

NIMBY groups like to think they made things better, but that is very much not the case. Case in point is a tidy example from the West Campus of the U of C. A few years back there was a proposal to build a level 4 bio hazard lab on the west campus. The community of university heights was agast over someone taking away there piece of wilderness in their backyard, plus some traffic concerns. In the end they scared the university off from building the thing by using language about safety and 'thinking about the children'.The community got their comeuppance however, and got a huge traffic generator in the form of the Childrens' Hospital, and some to be large residential population (which wouldn't of been the case with the lab due to exclusion zones). An ew cancer centre might even back onto their houses soon just south of the Children's. It is very hard to oppose a Childrens' Hospital on NIMBY grounds, since the pro side has the 'won't someone think of the children argument'. In the end a self interested community group could not see the forest through the trees of the bio lab and missed out on an opprotunity to maintain the west campus mostly as they liked it.

The only benefit the city has garnered from increased public control has been creating a situation of quiet amongst the community groups. Normal consultations on other LRT extensions were extensive enough to solve all the problems without removing useful things from original designs. Normal consultations include things like the pedestrian paths, sound walls, etc. It is not that consultation is bad, it is that the city needs to have a mandate to not listen to bad ideas.

Different groups introduced level pedestrian crossings across Bow Trail, creating a huge congestion issue, and across 17th Ave SW, doing the same. In Signal Hill you have the park and ride and TOD site far removed from the station due to the removal of the pedestrian bridge, potentially adding increased costs to the city due to reduced land value handed over to the city. At 26th and Sirocco, if the stations ever develops any sort of real passenger volume it will become unsafe and need modifications, probably receiving a much more ugly modification than the original 26th station design in interest of time and speed (the original Sirocco pedestrian bridge did not merit aesthetic awards). Both of these stations redesigns were part of the formal consultations that was deemed positive by you, but all that was produced in these two examples were false economies. Hopefully the design builder reverses both of these mistakes. Saving money is not always a savings to society. (Just as spending more more is not necessarily more expensive as you pointed out, even if your not taking into account the huge cost of path dependency that the current plan causes that the original city proposal does not.)

This isn't even talking about the informal consultations at the very start of this project, which produced the modified route. If the Mount Royal College Route hadn't been pushed by some misguided Aldermen, there would have been no 'window' to change the route and all the problems created by it would have never been.

As for my anonymity, it is merely to make it harder in a google search to find my musings. As you saw yourself, it is pretty easy to figure out who I am. I didn't hide behind a veil during the WLRT debate, and wouldn't unless I was required to by work purposes (as is rather normal on here when one graduates and enters the professional work force). Plus, it isn't like I am an informed insider, I am currently employed in Toronto the smelly. Oh, and why do you guys monitor this place? Nothing that goes up here is anything more than conjecture, and informed public knowledge.