Sw brt

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Well whaddya know. Guess they must have raised enough valid points.

I think that there was an issue regarding cost estimates for the project. From what I understand, there was a third party estimate for the project that came way under the received estimates. The only problem is that the third party estimate had no inclusion of noise abatement or walls.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by Regorium

And when everything gets answered with actual evidence, science and additional studies/reports, I'll be here waiting to hear from you about how they weren't consulted.

I took a look at some of these points, and it'll take any transportation engineer at the city a month to shoot down all of the concerns.

Did you read what you just wrote?

[8 Ball]

The concern in Woodlands/Woodbine is the furthest south station. It is sandwiched in between two large sports fields and a community playground. People are worried that the future plan for densification will mean losing them to housing development. Has anyone heard anything about future plans on this?

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by 8 Ball

The concern in Woodlands/Woodbine is the furthest south station. It is sandwiched in between two large sports fields and a community playground. People are worried that the future plan for densification will mean losing them to housing development. Has anyone heard anything about future plans on this?

There is virtually no precedent for developing such space. It was likely some sort of municipal reserve dedication for parks. The only way it could be potentially redeveloped is if it's a school site deemed surplus and given to the City. Also, it is quite likely the line will end up continuing south into the Providence ASP area and interlining with the planned 162nd Ave Transitway.

[8 Ball]

Originally Posted by Bunk

There is virtually no precedent for developing such space. It was likely some sort of municipal reserve dedication for parks. The only way it could be potentially redeveloped is if it's a school site deemed surplus and given to the City. Also, it is quite likely the line will end up continuing south into the Providence ASP area and interlining with the planned 162nd Ave Transitway.

Good to know, thanks for the feedback. How will it continue south? I knew about the plan for the development along 37th street to 22x, but wasn't sure how the brt would align with that.

[#-3]

10 years ago the LRT literally bisected a residential community the NE, with tracks not much more than 10 feet from some homes, the people who originally bought those homes were told it was a transit utility corridor, and when they asked what that meant they the answer was "hard to say what they will do with it". There is a house 4 ft from the entrance to a transit station was not offer special parking permits. And we heard nothing.

How is this even an issue in comparison.

Rich People with too much time on their hands and nothing better to do. I must be nice to have a job where you make $250K+ and can roll in at 10:00 am so you don't have to worry about traffic.

This city needs to build up transit infrastructure everywhere and take pressure off the roads.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Lubicon

ATCO is relocating their high pressure line from 14 Street to the Ring Road and downgrading the current line to a lower pressure distribution line, and may well move it as well due to the project. This has been in the works for several years now and was well publicized (I received notice for the work going on in our area of town).

http://www.atcopipelines.com/upr/Pro...id-Transit-BRT

I wonder if its related because code wise you could meet code by reducing the pressure in the line. That makes a lot of sense.

[GP_Matt]

Atco has been planning the new high pressure line for years. They have the same plans in Edmonton. I think it is just growth of the city and possibly trying to prolong the end of life on the existing high pressure lines.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Did you read what you just wrote?

Link to 90 pages of answers to Ready to Engage questions

Have they been consulted yet?

These questions are so laughable, and I applaud the city for dealing with these people.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by Regorium

Link to 90 pages of answers to Ready to Engage questions

Have they been consulted yet?

These questions are so laughable, and I applaud the city for dealing with these people.

Good one! It took three months, so I guess you sh*t the bed there, eh?

Not sure what you think you proved here, except my point exactly.

Clownshoes.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Good one! It took three months, so I guess you sh*t the bed there, eh?

Not sure what you think you proved here, except my point exactly.

Clownshoes.

Read the answers to the first five questions.

As I had suggested, consultations have been done long ago. These questions have been answered, but now it's nicely packaged into a report.

This is yet another round, and is a show of good faith by the City, which is commendable.

Answer me though. Do you consider the City NOW to have consulted? Or is this still not enough?

[4X4]

Originally Posted by Regorium

Read the answers to the first five questions.

As I had suggested, consultations have been done long ago. These questions have been answered, but now it's nicely packaged into a report.

This is yet another round, and is a show of good faith by the City, which is commendable.

Answer me though. Do you consider the City NOW to have consulted? Or is this still not enough?

I don't even know why I'm bothering with you. Everything I own is way further south than this BRT, so IDGAF, frankly. My reason for defending these poeple is because mailing out pamphlets in 2010 on what they're proposing and then having an info session on what they decided in 2013 is not necessarily the same as "consultation".
But it is clear now that the plan is the plan.

Whatever your reason is for really hating my defence of them is a mystery to me. But I'm happy you were staring at your computer for three months waiting to reply to that post. Hope you feel like you won with that. Slow clap. The real kind. Not the Weiser one.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by 4X4

I don't even know why I'm bothering with you. Everything I own is way further south than this BRT, so IDGAF, frankly. My reason for defending these poeple is because mailing out pamphlets in 2010 on what they're proposing and then having an info session on what they decided in 2013 is not necessarily the same as "consultation".
But it is clear now that the plan is the plan.

Whatever your reason is for really hating my defence of them is a mystery to me. But I'm happy you were staring at your computer for three months waiting to reply to that post. Hope you feel like you won with that. Slow clap. The real kind. Not the Weiser one.

So consulatation in 2010, the consultation in 2011 directly for the project, then consultation in 2013 as part of route ahead. Then the October 2015 consultations

After that they presented their results in Feb of 2016 and people got angry.

How much is enough?

I assume you are angry that Pipelines don't get built through BC, Quebec and Ontario.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by GGG

So consulatation in 2010, the consultation in 2011 directly for the project, then consultation in 2013 as part of route ahead. Then the October 2015 consultations

After that they presented their results in Feb of 2016 and people got angry.

How much is enough?

I assume you are angry that Pipelines don't get built through BC, Quebec and Ontario.

Ok, I'm looking at the timeline, and they're lumping this into Route Ahead, and saying that ~4,000 Calgarians participated here, and some such others participated there. This is not the same as a local consultation about a BRT running through a few communities. This is exactly the same as the pipelines, and I am angry that pipelines are not getting built. I'm pretty sure I know that it's better for the country, but I can surely see why the local populations aren't happy about getting "railroaded" into accepting it.

Not sure why this is so hard to understand.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Ok, I'm looking at the timeline, and they're lumping this into Route Ahead, and saying that ~4,000 Calgarians participated here, and some such others participated there. This is not the same as a local consultation about a BRT running through a few communities. This is exactly the same as the pipelines, and I am angry that pipelines are not getting built. I'm pretty sure I know that it's better for the country, but I can surely see why the local populations aren't happy about getting "railroaded" into accepting it.

Not sure why this is so hard to understand.

This is a reasonable amount of consulatation. 2010, 2011, 2015, all prior to the 2016 fights.

What would you say is a reasonable amount of consultation for a project like this.

[GGG]

Here is where we probably disagree. It's the response to question 5

Because work had progressed on route planning, budget, and BRT network years prior to the funding announcement (as described in questions 1, 2, and 3)
there initially weren’t any decisions open for public input, as alignment, placement of stations and infrastructure were determined by transit needs, budget and technical feasibility. For this reason, information sessions served to inform the public rather than to seek input (or engage). Feedback forms were available at both information sessions and the project team reviewed all comments and considered all questions and ideas presented. Similarly, in meetings with community members, commercial and institutional stakeholders, the project team sought to primarily inform rather than to engage. All questions and ideas presented were considered. The exception to this level of engagement on the Southwest BRT project was with stakeholders whose property would be directly impacted by the project, such as Rockyview General Hospital or Heritage Park.

The purpose is to inform the public what you are doing, listen to the comments and questions to ensure none of your assumptions were wrong, then build it. The public doesn't get to design the thing.

The public also misses that the high level plans are when it is appropriate to have the input. Iniatives like plan it and route ahead are when questions like is this necessary are decided. Once the detailed project start the question of is this needed as long been answered.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by GGG

This is a reasonable amount of consulatation. 2010, 2011, 2015, all prior to the 2016 fights.

What would you say is a reasonable amount of consultation for a project like this.

Clearly we're looking at two different timelines. I see 2010, directly related to SW brt, 2013 RouteAhead, which was city wide, another footnote in 2014, and then 2016, when it became official.

I don't know how much consultation is needed. I'm simply gauging the reaction that the people that live there had.

I mean, we need pipelines, right? Yeah? Ok, so if we talk about running it to Kitimat, and they say they don't want it. And then we talk about it again in 3 years, and they still don't want it, and then we add it to a couple of national pipeline strategy meetings discussing Energy East, and KXL, and they still don't want it, does that mean that if we ram it through today, that they've had enough consultation?

You tell me.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Clearly we're looking at two different timelines. I see 2010, directly related to SW brt, 2013 RouteAhead, which was city wide, another footnote in 2014, and then 2016, when it became official.

I don't know how much consultation is needed. I'm simply gauging the reaction that the people that live there had.

I mean, we need pipelines, right? Yeah? Ok, so if we talk about running it to Kitimat, and they say they don't want it. And then we talk about it again in 3 years, and they still don't want it, and then we add it to a couple of national pipeline strategy meetings discussing Energy East, and KXL, and they still don't want it, does that mean that if we ram it through today, that they've had enough consultation?

You tell me.

Yes, it would be sufficient. The fact that Nimbys get to hijack stuff is a problem.

Consultation does not mean having all your questions answered regardless of quality. It also doesn't mean your objections are meaningful, right, or should be listened to.

Endless consultation just adds cost. Was the 90 page report here worth the 100k it took to write? I mean the answers boil down to: Not a concern, yeah we looked at it and are doing it anyway, your an idiot, and here is how we do things.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by GGG

Yes, it would be sufficient. The fact that Nimbys get to hijack stuff is a problem.

Consultation does not mean having all your questions answered regardless of quality. It also doesn't mean your objections are meaningful, right, or should be listened to.

Endless consultation just adds cost. Was the 90 page report here worth the 100k it took to write? I mean the answers boil down to: Not a concern, yeah we looked at it and are doing it anyway, your an idiot, and here is how we do things.

Yeah, well, ok. I guess you're right. If the City is going to build it, there's no point in "consulting" over and over. I suppose it's no different than the expropriation for the glenmore/elbow overpass, or the WLRT. It makes the city better.

I just know I'd be pissed if it was my property being affected. Even if I attended 100 meetings, I'd still be pissed.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Even if I attended 100 meetings, I'd still be pissed.

Exactly. You're pissed because you're negatively affected, despite the greater good, and "consultation" is a red herring.

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

I love that the city calls their online portal "Engage". Sass level: over 9000!