I work for Mayor Nenshi, ask me anything!

[frinkprof]

Originally Posted by SebC

Agreed... if the city wants to continue suppressing parking supply downtown, it needs to ensure that transit is a viable alternative or it will simply be causing decentralization. That's where the 8th Ave Subway comes in.

That's where a lot of things come in really. Bus-only lanes into the CBD and also in the CBD itself, more routes with articulated buses, more circulating-type bus routes in the CBD and surrounding areas, and of course new LRT lines with their own dedicated route through the downtown - i.e. Southeast and North Central.

The 8th Avenue Subway is important indeed, but I'm starting to see the argument whereby it doesn't necessarily need to be the highest priority in order to increase transit capacity into the downtown. Building it as the first priority (combined with an increase in LRVs in operation of course) absolutely would though, don't get me wrong.

4 car train operation, improved track and signalling technologies (both on their way to happening) and the Southeast line will work to free up the capacity needs of the south line for a bit and thereby knock the 8th Avenue Subway down the priority list a bit. Other things like replacing the older U2 LRVs will help with realized capacity too due to improved capacity and reliability.

Now, if the timeline for Route Ahead is 30 years, I don't think that it should wait that long (I think pent-up demand and other factors will fill up 4 car trains faster than is officially expected, for example), but I think the southeast line (or at least a portion thereof) can go first.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Slava

By how much, in each case?

Honestly, I don't know. Having said that, the high prices observed for inner city, family homes reflects high demand. What we don't see is a large quantity demanded, which is a different quantity that also reflects suppy (quantity demanded and quantity supplied are the same for a market in equilibrium).

=============

Originally Posted by Bunk

The big shift if we were aiming for true cost recovery of new growth would relate to the acreage assessments (development levies). The City recently doubled the acreage assessment from about $7500 a door to about $15,000 a door. This moved us from covering about 25% of the capital cost to service a new home to about 50%. The Mayor believes this did not go far enough and that we should work toward full cost recovery. If we moved to full cost recovery, the acreage assessment will move to about $30,000 a door, which would have an impact on the purchase price of the home. Each agreement is 5 years, so I imagine it will continue to move closer to that full cost recovery number eventually.

It's an inherently unsustainable situation when each new home is actually a net cost to the City, rather than a net contributer - at least on the capital side. There's been less work done (although it's ongoing) on the relationship between new growth and operating costs.

Of course, redevelopment comes with some cost, although not as much as growth on the fringe - and at some point there's likely to be a new redevelopment levy to help cover some of those costs. Of course, you don't want to be punitive with that and discourage redevelopment, which on balance costs the City much less.

Getting back on topic, does the $30,000 figure account for things like downstream effects on infrastructure (e.g. needing the 8th Ave Subway so that people can still get on the trains at Heritage)?

Also, why is a CRL appropriate to make something like the East Village pay for itself, but not for a new community on in the suburbs?

[SebC]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

That's where a lot of things come in really. Bus-only lanes into the CBD and also in the CBD itself, more routes with articulated buses, more circulating-type bus routes in the CBD and surrounding areas, and of course new LRT lines with their own dedicated route through the downtown - i.e. Southeast and North Central.

The 8th Avenue Subway is important indeed, but I'm starting to see the argument whereby it doesn't necessarily need to be the highest priority in order to increase transit capacity into the downtown. Building it as the first priority (combined with an increase in LRVs in operation of course) absolutely would though, don't get me wrong.

4 car train operation, improved track and signalling technologies (both on their way to happening) and the Southeast line will work to free up the capacity needs of the south line for a bit and thereby knock the 8th Avenue Subway down the priority list a bit. Other things like replacing the older U2 LRVs will help with realized capacity too due to improved capacity and reliability.

Now, if the timeline for Route Ahead is 30 years, I don't think that it should wait that long (I think pent-up demand and other factors will fill up 4 car trains faster than is officially expected, for example), but I think the southeast line (or at least a portion thereof) can go first.

You might actually know this (whereas I can only speculate) - how many people who would use the SE line currently use the S line? It is something I've considered, but I don't know how significant a factor it would be.

I'm not sure if the 8th Ave Subway needs to be the absolute top priority, but I still don't see a good reason to build the LRT out to DeWinton first as the current timeline proposes. (That is unless the new developments are going to pay for their line extensions and the added capacity that would be needed.)

The 8th Ave Subway scores much higher than these "final" extensions in RouteAhead's own evaluation criteria, yet it is behind them in timeline.

[frinkprof]

Originally Posted by Clarkey

Why is the city implementing this same 1960's policy in the suburban outreaches in 2013? Don't you agree that it makes sense to provide an adequate supply of accessible parking in the burbs so that chimps like me only drive 5 minutes and jump on public transit vs. driving closer in or even biting the bullet and parking downtown?

I get that the city wants to squeeze people into taking the feeder buses to the ctrain stations but the reality is that the bulk of the morning commuters will never bother with the buses. It's an extra 15-30 minutes each way, that's 30-60 minutes of family or leisure time lost.

I think most would agree that if you provide adequate parking on the perimeter the rest of the city's infrastructure will benefit. It is myopic to look at each parking lot's operating costs in isolation. The city should be overbuilding suburb parking lot infrastructure to make huge gains in the core and outer core's fluidity. This is an opportunity that is hampered by the 'cars are bad' perception held by so many in planning and policy roles. Cars are actually an excellent compliment to the city's transportation strategy if leveraged properly and used sparingly (2-5 minute commutes to the train hubs).

The bolded isn't really correct (if referring to LRT users - not all commuters).

50+% of LRT users access it via feeder bus and only 10-15% access it using park and rides (and of course many of those are from exurban communities which feeder buses do not operate). This leaves the remaining 35% which is made up of those who walk, cycle, or are dropped off at the station.

I do think feeder bus service should be improved though. Most of the time the route itself can't be made much better (in some cases they can be though). The big thing is frequency. Adding frequency is one of the most expensive things you can do but it would be huge. Transferring as well as the wait and timing of the first part of the trip is what makes or breaks things in transit.

[frinkprof]

Originally Posted by SebC

You might actually know this (whereas I can only speculate) - how many people who would use the SE line currently use the S line? It is something I've considered, but I don't know how significant a factor it would be.

I'm not sure exactly. It would be everyone that rides the 36 and 41 which currently transfer at Chinook; as well as the 153, some of the 14, and the 406 which all transfer at Somerset-Bridlewood (and also connect to the SE BRT but some choose to transfer to the south line). Add in park & riders and people dropped off at south line stations that would actually end up using the SE line once it is in service.

If I had to take a guess it would be 10-20% now, but that number would probably climb going forward due to the high growth in the SE LRT catchment area.

Originally Posted by SebC

I'm not sure if the 8th Ave Subway needs to be the absolute top priority, but I still don't see a good reason to build the LRT out to DeWinton first as the current timeline proposes. (That is unless the new developments are going to pay for their line extensions and the added capacity that would be needed.)

The 8th Ave Subway scores much higher than these "final" extensions in RouteAhead's own evaluation criteria, yet it is behind them in timeline.

I mostly agree, save possibly for the next south line extension because it would include the construction of a new LRV storage facility which is needed for service growth (i.e. more 4 car trains and 8th Avenue Subway).

[Slava]

Originally Posted by SebC

Honestly, I don't know. Having said that, the high prices observed for inner city, family homes reflects high demand. What we don't see is a large quantity demanded, which is a different quantity that also reflects suppy (quantity demanded and quantity supplied are the same for a market in equilibrium).

I know we're off topic now, but I have no idea how you get to your position that the current market is not in equilibrium? Even if the inner city prices are too high and suburb prices are too low though, it would appear to be a small amount, as there aren't drastic price moves to compensate in either case at this point?

Secondly, if you want to turn this into a pure economics discussion, the introduction of a tariff to build new subdivisions would actually create more inefficiencies, never mind the policy ramifications that would arise. In other words, you don't want to build overpass and deal with snow removal and transportation now, but how do you avoid that once this kind of feel is implemented? Now the city is in a position where they have to address all of these issues because everyone is "paying their fair share", only you still have an inequality because the inner city has paid their fair share since the dawn of time (allegedly), I know I'm in a suburb, and according to the inner city denizens haven't paid my fair share, and of course the new builders would be. Careful what you wish for.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by SebC

=============

Getting back on topic, does the $30,000 figure account for things like downstream effects on infrastructure (e.g. needing the 8th Ave Subway so that people can still get on the trains at Heritage)?

Also, why is a CRL appropriate to make something like the East Village pay for itself, but not for a new community on in the suburbs?

Yes, to some extent. For instance the levy calculation on transportation infrastructure includes 100% of infrastructure within a reasonably proximity (except LRT lines - which are not considered in the levy) and I believe 17% of other downstream infrastructure - for example a planned interchange within established areas.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Slava

I know we're off topic now, but I have no idea how you get to your position that the current market is not in equilibrium? Even if the inner city prices are too high and suburb prices are too low though, it would appear to be a small amount, as there aren't drastic price moves to compensate in either case at this point?

I didn't say the market was not equilibrium. I suspect that it is (or is close to it, anyways).

Secondly, if you want to turn this into a pure economics discussion, the introduction of a tariff to build new subdivisions would actually create more inefficiencies, never mind the policy ramifications that would arise. In other words, you don't want to build overpass and deal with snow removal and transportation now, but how do you avoid that once this kind of feel is implemented? Now the city is in a position where they have to address all of these issues because everyone is "paying their fair share", only you still have an inequality because the inner city has paid their fair share since the dawn of time (allegedly), I know I'm in a suburb, and according to the inner city denizens haven't paid my fair share, and of course the new builders would be. Careful what you wish for.

I just want the suburbs to pay their fair share, be it up front through developer levies or amortized into property taxes. How it is achieved doesn't really matter to me - they are pretty much equivalent. Yeah, if you're going to do it through developer fees you're probably going to end up grandfathering in existing, newer developments that haven't paid their way. But it's still better to do something than to do nothing.

As far as a higher fee inducing higher spending demands, the fee is based on the level of service. For a higher level of service, the fee would have to go up further. (Both of these point seem to suggest that a taxation-based solution would be better, but there may be arguments against.)

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Bunk

Yes, to some extent. For instance the levy calculation on transportation infrastructure includes 100% of infrastructure within a reasonably proximity (except LRT lines - which are not considered in the levy) and I believe 17% of other downstream infrastructure - for example a planned interchange within established areas.

What's the rationale for excluding LRT lines from the calcuation?

[kermitology]

One of the frustrations for inner city development is that you get double dipped.

In my example, we took a lot, improved it by tearing down the POS structure that was there, upgraded the density, upgraded the service connections, gave the city a tonne of money in fees, gave the city access to the corner of our lot because they demanded it as a condition for subdivision, improved the resale value of the homes in the community, upgraded the density and finally, gave the city two properties to tax at more than double the amount of the existing property.

And what will we get out of that from the city?

This doesn't even begin to talk about the house inspections that we failed because the inspector held us to an OLD code and had it not been for my industrious wife, we would have had to change things that weren't wrong.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by SebC

What's the rationale for excluding LRT lines from the calcuation?

A few things - until the project is in design the cost is largely unknown. For instance, it's actually fairly easy to estimate costs of interchanges, new libraries, new firehalls, water/sewer infrastructure. Additionally, LRT in particular is viewed as city-wide infrastructure with funding sources very different than other infrastructure because of the massive difference in the order of magnitude of cost.

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by fotze

Don't forget about the luxury of having your bikes stolen on Christmas day as a welcome to the 'inner city' present.

No kidding, sucked to see that on twitter.

We had one wheel, ONE wheel stolen off our chariot in early December. That was more of a frustrating thing than upsetting though.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Bunk

A few things - until the project is in design the cost is largely unknown. For instance, it's actually fairly easy to estimate costs of interchanges, new libraries, new firehalls, water/sewer infrastructure. Additionally, LRT in particular is viewed as city-wide infrastructure with funding sources very different than other infrastructure because of the massive difference in the order of magnitude of cost.

I really don't see how stations like Tuscany and Saddletowne are "city-wide infrastructure".

[Slava]

nm

[mykalberta]

I actually find this thread very informative and quite delightful to read.

With the exception of the burb vs core, and the dog wars bs debates which should be kept out of this thread imo.

I would like to know what the city plans to do with the section of land of the old Brick building on the SE corner of the Centre Street and Transcanada intersection (is it being purposefully undeveloped for a future transit station )

[Bigtime]

That's a great question mykalberta. I don't think the city has sold that land yet, and your idea is a very, very good one. Perhaps a nice mixed use site with a built in LRT station? Nice...

[mykalberta]

I saw a sign up a few months ago for sale but then it was taken down and nothing has happened since.

[DownInFlames]

Bunk, is there any progress on adopting the Skateboarding Amenities Strategy?

There are few legitimate places for skateboarders in this city. Besides the aging Millennium Park there is a tiny community park in McKenzie Town and the private park run by the Westside Rec Centre that last limited hour.

Even Edmonton has a better skatepark infrastructure. How sad is that?

[GP_Matt]

Bunk,

You have mentioned several times that Mayor Nenshi is revamping some procedure or totally overhauling something else. Do you know if this is something that a future mayor can just undo or are the changes deeper?
The question is a bit vague but I would hate to think that all the work could be easily ignored because the next mayor wants to overhaul the system again.

[GP_Matt]

Also, my limited knowledge of the Calgary mayoral race has led me to believe that the incumbent usually wins in a landslide. In fact, the last time the incumbent lost was in 1980 when Ralph Klien came into power. This has led me to think that quality candidates do not oppose the mayor but instead wait until the mayor steps down for a close race to replace him.

Assuming that I am correct, is there any indication that this election will be different or is Nenshi looking at 80-90% support?
(This question isn't necessarily directed at Bunk)