^One other thing I have learned is that the rumour that the U2 cars have difficulty with the grades on the West LRT and therefore relegating them to the red line isn't really true. The reason you see less of the newer cars on the red line is because they are being stored at the Oliver Bowen Maintenance Facility on the NE line. This is done because they are easier to store and maintain at that facility due to the fact that more of the powered parts of the newer LRVs are on the roof. The newer garage in the northeast was built with more clearance and facilities to easier access and maintain the tops of the trains.
This leaves more of the U2 units at the older Anderson garage and Haysboro storage, meaning they are dispatched on the red line with more frequency.
Interesting Frink, I'm buds with one of the LRT mechanics and he said the grade thing was actually quite true, but it was the braking capacity coming down Bow trail with a full load that was suspect, thus the use of only the newer cars on the WLRT.
^Supposedly there is a little bit of truth to it. More like the U2s are noticeably sluggish up and down the line but not in a way that would significantly affect safety or service. The real reason is the consolidation of the newer cars at the maintenance facility on the NE line.
Off-hand, I don't think that's true. I actually think it's an impressive and innovative solution.
The point made clear in your subsequent post isn't lost though. Timely replacement is needed.
Yes, I probably said that poorly. I suspect the full cycle costs of stitching two cars together and then buying new ones a few years later are greater than the full cycle costs of replacing the cars in a timely fashion before they fail at the end of their service life.
I don't know if it they were newer ones or ones with newer brakes but there was a train with three of the older cars this morning on the west line. It was the second time I have seen these older cars up there.
If the city needed a 50 million dollar fund each year they should have put in the the city budget and raised our taxes 8.5% instead of 5%. Since they decided that it wasnt worth it to raise taxes as part of the budget process why is this windfall needed now. Therefore I think it should be refunded to tax payers either option 1 or 2 and these other ideas should compete at budget time for the money. It is much easier politically to sell not giving a tax break then to actually raise taxes to pay for what we need.
So while I do like the options of transit and debt reduction (neighbourhood revitalization should be paid by the developers redeveloping the area) it should be done as part of the standard budget process and not treated as free money from the province.
I wondered why they that obvious tear jerker for some wasnt already added.
__________________
MYK - Supports Arizona to democtratically pass laws for the state of Arizona
Rudy was the only hope in 08
2011 Election: Cons 40% - Nanos 38% Ekos 34%
What part of our policing and fire fighting is so bad that they need an additional $50 million per year? If it was needed so badly, why wouldn't we already be funding it?
The transit upgrades that this money could fund aren't currently funded, and are desperately needed. What RouteAhead envisions for transit in the next thirty years costs a lot of money, that we don't know where it will come from. Here is a start to get nearly all of the smaller projects funded, so that when big chunks of money come in, it all can go to the bigger projects.
Plus, with the city's growth, what RouteAhead envisions for the next 30 years should be a bare minimum of what gets done. If all we get done is what is listed on RouteAhead, for a city of 2+ million people, we might be just as far behind on transit infrastucture as we are now.
Not sure of the source of the survey, but Police/Fire is not formally one of the proposed options. That said, the consultation will also ask what other ideas citizens think should be considered. An Alderman may be putting this out to plant the seed that fire/police should be considered.
We've been working with Council and Administration to more clearly define what each option would mean. For instance, what projects would/could Transit build with this level of funding? What exactly would a community revitalization fund do, and how would it be implemented? What could $52.1m do to pay down debt, etc. That information should be out in a couple weeks.
What part of our policing and fire fighting is so bad that they need an additional $50 million per year? If it was needed so badly, why wouldn't we already be funding it?
And if the Police required another $50M per year they could always start ticketing people for jaywalking when it is perfectly safe to do so. Oh wait, they already do...
__________________
“Such suburban models are being rationalized as ‘what people want,’ when in fact they are simply what is most expedient to produce. The truth is that what people want is a decent place to live, not just a suburban version of a decent place to live.”
Anybody jaywalking who fails to notice the police being there was obviously not paying close enough attention to their surroundings.
Or they are tourists or new to the city and don't know that police officers actually give out tickets for jaywalking.
__________________
“Such suburban models are being rationalized as ‘what people want,’ when in fact they are simply what is most expedient to produce. The truth is that what people want is a decent place to live, not just a suburban version of a decent place to live.”
One thing Council has made very clear is that this money is not to be used for operating. The point of taking this tax room would be to apply it to reduce the massive capital deficit we have or to reduce debt. Police and Fire's biggest issues are operating, and neither requires anywhere close to $50m annually to address capital needs.
You can go to calgary.ca/52million to look at all the information about each option and give your feedback.
Here are videos explaining each option and an intro video from the Mayor:
Intro
“Let the buses roll” Creating a new capital fund for Calgary Transit.
The idea
The RouteAhead strategy, which was developed in consultation with citizens and approved by Council in March 2013, is a 30-year, customer-oriented strategy to improve public transit in Calgary. $12.9 billion is required to fund the projects identified in RouteAhead but there is no identified source of funding. The $52 million per year would allow Calgary Transit to start several of these projects.
The problem it solves
A dedicated transit capital fund of $52 million a year for five years would allow high priority, small to medium scale projects to be built in different areas of the city.
These projects would improve transportation choices for Calgarians, providing more frequent and reliable transit options. This is the only option of the five that might leverage other funding sources from other governments. Calgary Transit estimates that each dollar in this fund could attract up to $1.50 in matching funds from the provincial and federal governments.
The highest priority projects for this funding, pending other funding sources, include:
Construction of new Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)/transitway projects, potentially including:
Transitways along the future Green Line, including Centre Street North and the Southeast Transitway (SETWAY)
The Southwest transitway, connecting downtown and Mount Royal University to Southwest communities as far as Woodbine along 14th St S.W.
The East 17th Transitway along 17th Avenue S.E. to downtown
South Crosstown BRT from Foothills Industrial through Quarry Park to Mount Royal University
North Crosstown BRT from Northeast communities to the University of Calgary and Foothills Hospital
West Campus BRT, connecting University of Calgary, Foothills, the Alberta Children’s Hospital and the Northwest LRT
Acquisition of new CTrain cars to begin four-car service at all times on the existing lines, reducing crowding, and replacing old trains that are less comfortable and more prone to breakdowns.
How it would work
Projects would be identified and prioritized based on criteria Council established in RouteAhead and our Investing in Mobility Plan and approved by Council in our regular budget process.
Of all the five options, this one is most likely to incur future operating costs as we put more buses and trains in service. This means that Council would need to cover these costs by cutting expenses elsewhere, by giving transit more tax funding, or by increasing the money that comes from fares – though more riders or higher fares.
For more information, please visit routeahead.ca.
---
Give business a break Reducing non-residential property taxes
The idea
The $52 million could be used to reduce the difference in tax rates between residential and non-residential properties. At the moment, non-residential properties (mostly commercial properties like stores and offices as well as industrial properties like factories) are taxed at a higher rate than residential properties: for every dollar of assessed value, a business pays 3.91 times as much as a homeowner does.
The problem it solves
While Calgary has the lowest residential municipal property taxes of any major city in Canada, our business tax rates are in the middle of the pack. Calgary is phasing out the stand-alone business tax, as most cities in Canada have done. This will be offset by increases to non-residential taxes, with the overall impact will being revenue-neutral.
A number of business organizations, including the Calgary Chamber of Commerce, believe that reducing the non-residential tax rate could make Calgary a more appealing place to do business, benefiting the city’s economy by attracting more people to live, work and play here. This would help to contribute to a healthy local economy and job creation.
How it would work
The exact mechanics of how to apply the $52 million to business taxes have not been finalized, but the money would reduce the differential from 3.91 to 3.67. In other words, for every $1.00 of residential property tax collected, $3.67 of non-residential property tax would be collected.
---
Revitalize our communities Investing in the maintenance and upgrading of older neighbourhoods
The Idea
A Revitalizing Our Communities Fund would provide comprehensive neighbourhood infrastructure upgrades, community by community, to support redevelopment and make older neighbourhoods more liveable.
The Problem it Solves
About 90 communities in Calgary are more than 50 years old, and there is insufficient funding to maintain what we have and replace what needs to be upgraded. Projects in different areas and from different City departments are undertaken as funding becomes available and needs become urgent. Work within a single community is done over time and not all at once.
Putting $52 million a year for five years into a Revitalizing Our Communities Fund would allow different types of infrastructure to be completed in a coordinated and timely manner within communities, including:
Replacement and enhancement of sidewalks, curbs and gutters, as well as street light replacement, overhead utility relocation and road, cycling, and pedestrian enhancements; and
Maintenance and modest upgrades to parks, pathways, playgrounds, community buildings, and community recreation facilities.
Depending on which infrastructure improvements are chosen, there may be associated future operating costs which would have to be covered by property taxes.
How it would work
Every year, a number of communities would be chosen for comprehensive investments, with the goal of cycling through all of Calgary’s communities as they age. (Edmonton has a similar program, though limited to roads, sidewalks, and streetlights).
The City would work jointly with communities to understand community goals, identify infrastructure needs and implement upgrades. Existing initiatives, such as our local area planning process, The Centre City implementation program, “Inspiring Strong Neighbourhoods” and “Supporting Partnerships for Urban Investment” could be used as the tools to link this funding with needs identified by citizens.
---
Drop the debt Reduce The City’s debt and annual interest payments
The idea
The City, like all governments, sometimes uses debt to build certain projects. This means that we must pay interest payments every year. Reducing debt would allow us to decrease these interest payments and ultimately save us all money. Although Calgary maintains a very high credit rating, the current level of debt is relatively high, and this limits The City’s ability to borrow for future capital projects – City-owned infrastructure, facilities and other improvements that provide services to the public, such as overpasses or C-Train lines.
The problem it solves
Calgary currently has $3.4 billion in debt. While we believe this to be manageable, and we maintain excellent credit ratings, it is high by historical standards.
This funding would enable The City to pay down some of its existing debt, or avoid taking on some new debt for large infrastructure projects. Lower debt would create annual savings for The City in interest costs.
That means that this option is the only one that would certainly reduce operating budgets (and the associated taxes needed to fund them) in the future.
How it would work
It is difficult to calculate the exact impact of this debt reduction, as The City has many different categories of debt, some of which may be repaid early but some of which have significant penalties for early repayment. Since interest rates change over time, the amount of annual savings would vary depending on what interest rates are at the time that the debt is eliminated or avoided.
However, with an interest rate of 3.0 per cent as an example, this funding would save an estimated $1.56 million in interest per year, or about $1 per month in taxes to the average home.
For every additional year that debt is retired the combined annual savings grow. Eliminating $52 million of debt in one year would provide an estimated annual saving of $1.56 million in interest per year. Eliminating an additional $52 million of debt in the second year would increase the total annual savings to approximately $3.1 million per year. This combined incremental annual savings would increase with every additional amount of debt eliminated.
For more information, please see The City’s Long-Range Financial Plan.
---
Give it back Lowering the tax that homeowners pay
The idea
For 2013, City Council approved a combined property tax rate increase of 5.5 per cent. On the median single residential property (assessed at $410,000), this tax increase would be $135 per year.
Returning the $52 million to the residential taxpayer would mean that the combined property tax increase would have been just $9 per year – a savings of $10.50 per month or $126 per year versus the current plan.
The problem it solves
Calgary has the lowest property taxes of any major city in Canada, and we are proud of that advantage. Lowering overall residential property taxes would provide direct benefit to taxpayers by making more money available for your own priorities.
How it would work
Because of the timing of the Provincial government’s requisition and the need to print the tax bills on time, you would not see a change for 2013, but the reduction would start in 2014.
The planned increase to non-residential property taxpayers would remain the same.
__________________
Trust the snake.
Last edited by Bunk; 05-16-2013 at 05:22 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Bunk For This Useful Post:
I honestly would only be upset if they chose 2/5 options, the other 3 I could each justify.
Giving it back and lowering business taxes. I dont think Calgary is lacking for jobs, and businesses arent lacking customers so no reason to lower the business tax IMO.
__________________
MYK - Supports Arizona to democtratically pass laws for the state of Arizona
Rudy was the only hope in 08
2011 Election: Cons 40% - Nanos 38% Ekos 34%
