The Economist: Calgary 5th most livable city - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

starseed · 02-13-2010, 05:05 PM

http://www.eiu.com/site_info.asp?inf...age=noads&rf=0

Vancouver #1, Toronto #4

Our two main rivals beat us out again, but I believe we have the balls to bring ourselves into the #1 position with a little hard work.

The first question is, who is bringing us down? And how quickly should we form a mob and run them out of town?

Bunk · 02-13-2010, 05:14 PM

Calgary still needs a good 10-15 years of reurbanization, downtown and inner city revitalization before it could ever realistically claim to be the most liveable city in the world. Vancouver went through this in the past 20 years and is reaping the rewards, Calgary is starting to see some progress but still a long way to go in my opinion.

fatso · 02-13-2010, 05:18 PM

Maybe I just have an irrational hate of Toronto, but I can't see how it's in the top 5. Awful, awful place.

Iowa_Flames_Fan · 02-13-2010, 05:23 PM

That sounds right to me. Calgary is an amazing place--that's why I came back.

With that said, there are two things Calgary desperately needs to remain a liveable place over the next 20 years: road infrastructure and public transit.

The fact that's there's no train service to the airport, or to any of the major hospitals... that's pretty dumb--and something the city should be working to rectify as soon as possible. The West Leg of the LRT is a start... but that's all it is. A start.

Look at cities like NY or Boston. They've made the investment in public transit, and they're reaping the benefits. It's an unfair comparison because building a city-wide train system in a relatively small area like Boston is much easier. But that just magnifies the importance.

Bunk · 02-13-2010, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatso

Maybe I just have an irrational hate of Toronto, but I can't see how it's in the top 5. Awful, awful place.

I'm a Calgarian living there, I can tell you that it is a great city. There are miles and miles of great walkable neighbourhoods in beatiful old victorian neighbourhoods. Calgary's housing stock and commercial main streets cannot touch Toronto's. The streets are full of life all the time, something that is a weakness of Calgary's that needs to be corrected. Also being the most multicurltural city on the planet has its benefits, particularly with great cuisine and diverse neighbourhoods. Toronto has its problems too - horrendous sprawl, a deteriorating housing stock in commie-block 60s complexes, horribly under-maintained and under-sized transit system - but by many measures its emerging as a true world city.

Bunk · 02-13-2010, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

The fact that's there's no train service to the airport, or to any of the major hospitals... that's pretty dumb--and something the city should be working to rectify as soon as possible. The West Leg of the LRT is a start... but that's all it is. A start.

Look at cities like NY or Boston. They've made the investment in public transit, and they're reaping the benefits. It's an unfair comparison because building a city-wide train system in a relatively small area like Boston is much easier. But that just magnifies the importance.

Keep in mind that cities like Boston and New York are 5-20 times the size of Calgary. Calgary, for a size of 1.2 million is miles ahead of pretty much any city near its size in North America for transit, particularly LRT. Calgary's LRT gets 270,000 rides per weekday. Portland, Oregon on the other hand, a city hailed for its smart growth and great LRT/Streetcar system only gets about 140,000 trips per weekday, despite being twice the metro size as Calgary.

That doesn't mean that Calgary doesn't need to expand its system, it does. I would say that Calgary needs to build a SE line, North-Central line (underground below centre street), a circle route and several inner city streetcar lines - such as a cross beltline route. More importantly though, Calgary needs to better tie land use to transit - more TOD nodes and corridors and better planned subdivisions to integrate with planned transit lines.

frinkprof · 02-13-2010, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

The fact that's there's no train service to the airport, or to any of the major hospitals... that's pretty dumb--and something the city should be working to rectify as soon as possible. The West Leg of the LRT is a start... but that's all it is. A start.

Peter Lougheed Hospital has LRT service, and the new South Hospital will be served by the future Southeast LRT.

As for the airport, it is way down on the priority list for LRT service, as it should be. Rapid transit stations serving airports typically have low ridership, and this has been projected for any service to Calgary's airport as well. Calgary's airport will be served by a direct BRT route to downtown in the short term, and likely an automated people mover (think the Link system at Toronto YYZ) going to a station on the future north central LRT line in the longer term. The people mover would be operated by the airport authority.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Look at cities like NY or Boston. They've made the investment in public transit, and they're reaping the benefits. It's an unfair comparison because building a city-wide train system in a relatively small area like Boston is much easier. But that just magnifies the importance.

New York and Boston were also established big cities in the era before widespread personal automobile use. They also built most of their subway systems when construction prices were much lower (after accounting for inflation).

That said, I agree, transit should be a high priority.

Iowa_Flames_Fan · 02-13-2010, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bunk

Keep in mind that cities like Boston and New York are 5-20 times the size of Calgary. Calgary, for a size of 1.2 million is miles ahead of pretty much any city near its size in North America for transit, particularly LRT. Calgary's LRT gets 270,000 rides per weekday. Portland, Oregon on the other hand, a city hailed for its smart growth and great LRT/Streetcar system only gets about 140,000 trips per weekday, despite being twice the metro size as Calgary.

That doesn't mean that Calgary doesn't need to expand its system, it does. I would say that Calgary needs to build a SE line, North-Central line (underground below centre street), a circle route and several inner city streetcar lines - such as a cross beltline route. More importantly though, Calgary needs to better tie land use to transit - more TOD nodes and corridors and better planned subdivisions to integrate with planned transit lines.

Good post--my one caution is how you interpret high ridership--one way to look at it is that a lot of people riding the LRT just confirms that the market is underserved in terms of public transit infrastructure.

Iowa_Flames_Fan · 02-13-2010, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by frinkprof

Rapid transit stations serving airports typically have low ridership, and this has been projected for any service to Calgary's airport as well.

That's interesting. I wonder why that would be, other than that people have a high desire to not shlep their baggage on a train.

Is that also true in areas like Boston, where the airport is easily accessible by train anywhere from the city? When I lived there it always seemed like tons of people were going to the airport, but admittedly that's anecdotal.

frinkprof · 02-13-2010, 06:14 PM

^Not sure about Boston specifically.

There's a few factors to consider with airports. Most people only visit an airport a few times a year so they are more apt to drive or take a cab or shuttle since it is a cost being incurred infrequently rather than 5 days a week. This also makes it easier to arrange for rides/pickup from family and friends. In addition, business travellers can often write-off cab fares as expenses, so they will choose that. You mention the luggage factor.

Often the biggest ridership group (for public transit) for airports is not travellers at all, but aiport employees. Ridership among this group would not be that high though due to the availability and low cost of parking at the airport, and atypical working schedules (i.e. not 9-5 and inconsistent), so there really aren't strong rush hours for airport workers. For Calgary at the moment, there just isn't a critical mass of riders to make an airport line feasible.

Bunk · 02-13-2010, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Good post--my one caution is how you interpret high ridership--one way to look at it is that a lot of people riding the LRT just confirms that the market is underserved in terms of public transit infrastructure.

Definitely underserved. The biggest factors for Calgary's high ridership are the highly centralized workforce in the downtown core and a parking policy since the 1960s that has restricted supply. The big issue with many other cities is that employment is all over the metro area and increasingly in car-oriented business parks on the suburban fringes where land values and taxes are lower and parking is free. The nature of Calgary's energy sector is such that they like to cluster - also Calgary as a unicity has not had to deal with undercutting suburban municipalities trying to lure out employment.

The next step as I said is to link up all parts of the city currently not served by LRT and start making more cross town connections.

frinkprof · 02-13-2010, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by starseed

The first question is, who is bringing us down?

Rick Bell.

Quote:

Originally Posted by starseed

And how quickly should we form a mob and run them out of town?

Immediately.

Muta · 02-13-2010, 07:51 PM

I'm staying in downtown Toronto right now, have been for the past two months, and it's fantastic. So much to do. I can see why people would have it high on this list, I'm incredibly impressed. If you can put the Leafs and their puke-inducing presence to the side, this city is awesome. Almost as awesome as Calgary, but not quite. Haha...

stampsx2 · 02-13-2010, 08:19 PM

I don't get how Vancouver is always at the top of that list. Their traffic problems are worse than Calgary's, their crime rate is high, you have to be a millionaire to buy a house, it constantly rains and their hockey team sucks. Calgary has all of those beat.

T@T · 02-13-2010, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatso

Maybe I just have an irrational hate of Toronto, but I can't see how it's in the top 5. Awful, awful place.

I lived there for 4 years, totally agree.. a brutal place to live. crazy traffic, not so friendly and the worst weather in Canada.

Jordan! · 02-13-2010, 09:13 PM

Livable if you can afford $4000+ per month living expenses.

Table 5 · 02-13-2010, 09:32 PM

I think Calgary used to be the most livable city in the country....then it started thinking it was as a big time player and has charging accordingly since. It's relative affordability is what really made it great....a cheap place to do business, a cheap place to live, and a great place to raise a family without having to be rich. I don't really see that advantage any more. It now charges big-city prices without necessarily offering big-city amenities, which in my mind brings it down considerably in terms of a place that is attractive to a lot of outsiders. When I can almost pay the same price for a condo in Calgary than I do here in Brooklyn, somethings off.

Hemi-Cuda · 02-13-2010, 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bouw N Arrow

Livable if you can afford $4000+ per month living expenses.

my living expenses aren't even close to that, or are you referring to Vancouver? even then i doubt it's that high

edn88 · 02-13-2010, 10:28 PM

The only thing I would like Calgary to have that we don't know is proximity to a real body of water... oh, and maybe a longer summer.

Not much that we can do about either of those, except maybe help accelerate global warming.

starseed · 02-13-2010, 10:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by edn88

The only thing I would like Calgary to have that we don't know is proximity to a real body of water... oh, and maybe a longer summer.

Not much that we can do about either of those, except maybe help accelerate global warming.

It all makes sense now! http://www.macleans.ca/canada/featur...02_130014_3968