I work for Mayor Nenshi, ask me anything!

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

I seem to recall reading about the Mayor's desire to update (or, heck, even have) a traffic management plan in regards to the traffic-light synchronization.

How is that plan going?

I honestly don't know who synchronizes the traffic lights in downtown, but whoever it is should be shot. Many, many, many times.

If you are trying to travel north (or south) down 8th street SW, heaven help you, because you are only going to get to go a block at a time, so you best plan to be burning fuel for about 10 minutes to get from 4th Avenue to 10th Avenue. And if you are trying to leave downtown on 5th Avenue any time outside of the wee hours of the day, well, good luck, because traffic will back up for blocks because of poor traffic light timings around McLeod and 1st Street SE.

So, I ask: what is the Mayor's plan to get the traffic lights timed properly so as to allow for the free-flow of traffic? Or does he think that the timing of the traffic lights is working just fine?

There isn't some magical algorithm that gets traffic through in all directions without any delay.

[V]

It's pretty hard to argue that the signal timings throughout Calgary are any good, though. They're pretty terrible for the most part.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by V

It's pretty hard to argue that the signal timings throughout Calgary are any good, though. They're pretty terrible for the most part.

I think signal optimization is one of the things that you think isn't working properly, until it actually isn't working properly.

Wasn't in the days after the flood were traffic was terrible with less than normal traffic counts because the city's traffic signal computers weren't running?

You can synchronize one street going in one direction so that it could flow smoothly, however, when you add side streets, and parallel streets into the equation, it just isn't that simple.

To optimize traffic lights more than current, probably requires real time traffic counting, and extremely complex computer software. The computer program that figures out light timing likely already is super complex, just dealing with theoretical numbers.

[HockeyIlliterate]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

There isn't some magical algorithm that gets traffic through in all directions without any delay.

So what is the explanation for essentially allowing all downtown east/west traffic to, once they hit one green light, to hit every other green light (save for the McLeod congestion), while slowing all north/south traffic to just going one block at a time?

In 3 years time, I've never once been able to (legally) go north/south through 2 lights at a time, yet--going down 5th Avenue, once I get a green light on 7th Street, I can just about make it all the way to McLeod without hitting a red light.*


* And if I am careful with the speed, I can sometimes get all the way to Memorial without stopping.

[Addick]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

A growth-oriented municipality

This is the issue. The City should be striving to be a development-oriented municipality rather than a growth-oriented municipality. Growing should not be the end goal but rather a means to an end. It doesn't make much sense for the City to grow its tax-base when the amount of taxes brought in will not exceed the public-borne development costs before the end of the infrastructure in the development's life cycle.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by Addick

This is the issue. The City should be striving to be a development-oriented municipality rather than a growth-oriented municipality...

I don't think such thing can exist other than in an abstract form. Development does not happen only because the city wants it to happen. It supplies housing to support the economic growth.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Hell, yeah.

Example?

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by psycnet

example?

1988-89, 1993-94, 2008.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

1988-89, 1993-94, 2008.

Were those actual development stoppages, or just slowdowns? I don't recall Calgary having abandoned projects and the like that you see during development stoppages.

[V]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

I think signal optimization is one of the things that you think isn't working properly, until it actually isn't working properly.

Wasn't in the days after the flood were traffic was terrible with less than normal traffic counts because the city's traffic signal computers weren't running?

You can synchronize one street going in one direction so that it could flow smoothly, however, when you add side streets, and parallel streets into the equation, it just isn't that simple.

To optimize traffic lights more than current, probably requires real time traffic counting, and extremely complex computer software. The computer program that figures out light timing likely already is super complex, just dealing with theoretical numbers.

It's actually not that hard. We do it out of our office. The biggest problem with Calgary is that all signal timing design is done by the City staff. They need a consultant to do it better, imo.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Were those actual development stoppages, or just slowdowns? I don't recall Calgary having abandoned projects and the like that you see during development stoppages.

1988-89 were the horror years (post O&Y), when everything just stopped cold. 1993-94 was when major developers in Calgary cut lot output production almost 90%. 2008 - is still very fresh in the memory – when major city builders started to walk away from their lot purchase commitments. Only the massive federal capital infusions on both sides of the border have helped a reasonably quick recovery and prevented a deep depression-type crisis.

[19Yzerman19]

I noticed immediately after moving here that the traffic lights weren't synchronized basically at all. Like, if there's any sort of timing going on, it's so completely off and random that it might as well not exist at all. Although there are certain places (and I suppose times of day) where, if the light turns green, you're basically guaranteed to see the next light turn red as you approach, so there must be SOME sort of set pattern going on.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Addick

This is the issue. The City should be striving to be a development-oriented municipality rather than a growth-oriented municipality. Growing should not be the end goal but rather a means to an end. It doesn't make much sense for the City to grow its tax-base when the amount of taxes brought in will not exceed the public-borne development costs before the end of the infrastructure in the development's life cycle.

100% agreed

What about a liveability-oriented municipality? Wouldn't that be a better goal?

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Hell, yeah.

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Example?

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

1988-89, 1993-94, 2008.

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

1988-89 were the horror years (post O&Y), when everything just stopped cold. 1993-94 was when major developers in Calgary cut lot output production almost 90%. 2008 - is still very fresh in the memory – when major city builders started to walk away from their lot purchase commitments. Only the massive federal capital infusions on both sides of the border have helped a reasonably quick recovery and prevented a deep depression-type crisis.

I think what PsYcNeT was getting at here is if there has ever been a development stoppage due to the city not having the land available for greenfield development.

Correct?

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

I think what PsYcNeT was getting at here is if there has ever been a development stoppage due to the city not having the land available for greenfield development.

Correct?

That was part of it, yeah.

The other part was wondering if there was ever a mass walking-away by the majority of developers due to recession, which has happened on occasion (outside Calgary). I've always viewed this city as "recession-proof" due to O&G, though that may be my age showing.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

I think what PsYcNeT was getting at here is if there has ever been a development stoppage due to the city not having the land available for greenfield development.

Correct?

I didn't read it that way and I believe I answered his question to his satisfaction (judging by a "Thank You").

Again, the City does not have to make the land available for greenfield development; when it does, something is wrong, meaning that there is no interest from the private sector (think of Saskatchewan not so long ago). Another example, Calgary's policy on industrial land development – it still does a lot of it despite the strong interest by the private sector, because it knows this interest has not always been there.

The City has the tools to make costs of growth shared widely (if it believes they benefit the whole city) or narrowly (if it doesn't). I argue that the latter is a lot more risky policy/strategy in the long run.

[Addick]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

I don't think such thing can exist other than in an abstract form. Development does not happen only because the city wants it to happen. It supplies housing to support the economic growth.

Much to the contrary, I don't think any municipality that has had long-term success prioritized growth over development; it's unsustainable. At the same point in time, growth will, at times, be required for development.

If there comes a time when the housing market stalls because consumers cannot afford to purchase new homes, the City shouldn't rush to lower the cost of new homes. It first needs to figure out what exactly is wrong with the market or why it won't produce the desired results.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Now, getting into the very hypothetical area of this debate: the City is trying to get into a zero-cost approach to new growth funding (or 100% cost recovery, whichever way one likes to look at it) . It can get away with it when the times are good, both politically and economically. The biggest risk comes when times are bad and all development stops, which is exactly when a municipality would face a double whammy – no established funding-in-place for the new infrastructure and no ability to raise the tax base to avoid stagnation.

A pyramid scheme works well when you are growing the pyramid.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by SebC

A pyramid scheme works well when you are growing the pyramid.

Jesus, man, Oscar Fech used to bring the Roman Empire collapse example into all of his questions.

[Bmuzyka]

Bunk, what plans does the city have for improving the situation on Deerfoot North in the afternoons?

There is no reason for a Freeway without any lights to slow down from 100km/h to 10-20 km/h during the afternoon rush from McKnight all the way down to Glenmore.