Arena Negotiation Discussion v2

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by LWcrowfoot

The city does have daily counters on their website

Hey, cool. Yesterday there were 571 bikes on 8th ave SW. near my work. This is probably a low time of year of course. Although bike couriers downtown maybe bump the number a bit - that's their travel route.

After a little more looking it turns out that's probably the highest traffic area outside the Bow River Pathway (which isnt really a bike lane as I understand it). For example, 5th street north near 15th ave (so how a bike commuter would head downtown from the south) got 198 bikes yesterday.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Manhattanboy

Not sure of the breakdown of their contributions.


That's one way of looking at the organization, like any other business/good corporate citizen. So along those lines, losing the Flames would be like Suncor and Imperial relocating their head offices and taking all of their local charitable donations with them. Regardless of whether they are any better or worse, it would still represent a significant net loss.

Well, not exactly. The difference being that unlike Suncor, Imperial and the other large corporate entities in Calgary the Flames do not employ thousands—nor even hundreds—of the city's residents.

[GioforPM]

I totally get the "no money for private business" argument. On a non-monetary aspect, whoever, not too many other private businesses, however, have as much community interest. There's no site like CP for Suncor. Not much debate about who the next CFO will be for Shaw.

[tkflames]

Originally Posted by getbak

This is an amazing visual. Puts into perspective how much prime real estate is taken up by our perceived need for vehicles in central areas in North America.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

The onus is on those doing the studies. Asking critical questions of a research paper is not incredulity. And don't put words in my mouth and then claim a fallacy from the misquote.

You asked no critical questions, you just asserted the research couldn't be accurately done, and then asked Flash (sarcastically) if he could explain it for you, as you couldn't see how yourself. Argument from incredulity. Own it.

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Economics is not an exact science. Economic studies make lots of assumptions and substitutions and assertions. These studies are no different. Challenging them is part of the academic process.

Write your own report, lay out your assumptions, and let "the academic process" decide the issue then. Well - if Flash has some time to help you out with it, it doesn't seem to be your area of expertise. Not that it's his, either, but you were asking him to explain things for you, and it's hard to resist such deferential humility.

Personally, if I don't know much about an issue, I look to the experts to guide me, then, if there's a widely held consensus, I prefer to regard it as provisionally true, and not rely on my own fallacious reasons to dismiss that consensus. I'll admit this sometimes lacks in emotional satisfaction, though.

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

My contention lies with those who cite them as 'proof of no economic benefit'. No such proof exists.

I doubt very much you are qualified to evaluate such proofs. Nothing you've said here amounts to more than angry hand-waving and, again, arguments from incredulity. Once you start even-handedly arguing against those who make the opposite argument - without ANY proofs - that arenas and sports teams do have a net positive economic benefit, then I'll believe you are not merely spinning a narrative from your own motivated reasoning.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Manhattanboy

Not sure of the breakdown of their contributions.


That's one way of looking at the organization, like any other business/good corporate citizen. So along those lines, losing the Flames would be like Suncor and Imperial relocating their head offices and taking all of their local charitable donations with them. Regardless of whether they are any better or worse, it would still represent a significant net loss.

Agreed there would be a loss my argument which I have limited information to support is that the flames aren’t an exceptional charitable organization relative to businesses of a similar size therefore the argument of they do a lot of charity work is not a reason to subsidize them.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Manhattanboy

What about the millions contributed to the Flames Foundation and all of the other charitable and other public causes CSEC supports?

A few others have already refuted this, and I've already said this once, but apparently it can't be repeated enough:

whatever money the Flames directly give is offset by their sweetheart arena mgmt deal. The money raised from fans would decrease to some extent, but lots would be redirected to other charities and charitable experiences.

Originally Posted by The Boy Wonder

I happen to know first hand that the numbers are fudged. U of C students were sent out during the trial period to gauge cyclist traffic to see if we needed lanes and they were told that instead of doing an analysis of how many people in a set time period, to not complete their reports until they hit x number of riders.

Also the counter counts each wheel of the bike as a rider and a “tick” so each downtown rider who goes home the same way counts as 4 individual bike lane users per day.

False. Unless there are a lot of unicyclists out there, it doesn't take a math major to refute your BS. You do know that most of the counters display the numbers right in front of you on the pathway? Congratulations on demonstrating that you are willing to believe a BS story without any critical thought.

All that said, I'm sure the counters are capable of some errors, just like anything else.

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Hey, cool. Yesterday there were 571 bikes on 8th ave SW. near my work. This is probably a low time of year of course. Although bike couriers downtown maybe bump the number a bit - that's their travel route.

Don't be so sure, it was probably actually 285 bicycles and a unicycle

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I totally get the "no money for private business" argument. On a non-monetary aspect, whoever, not too many other private businesses, however, have as much community interest. There's no site like CP for Suncor. Not much debate about who the next CFO will be for Shaw.

Well, now I'm convinced.

[Tyler]

Edit: nm

[The Boy Wonder]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

A few others have already refuted this, and I've already said this once, but apparently it can't be repeated enough:

whatever money the Flames directly give is offset by their sweetheart arena mgmt deal. The money raised from fans would decrease to some extent, but lots would be redirected to other charities and charitable experiences.




False. Unless there are a lot of unicyclists out there, it doesn't take a math major to refute your BS. You do know that most of the counters display the numbers right in front of you on the pathway? Congratulations on demonstrating that you are willing to believe a BS story without any critical thought.

All that said, I'm sure the counters are capable of some errors, just like anything else.



Don't be so sure, it was probably actually 285 bicycles and a unicycle



Well, now I'm convinced.

Maybe they’ve fixed the counters since the early months of the bike lanes but I was there as a student during the studies of bicycle traffic before they went ahead with the project so no that part isn’t false and they did count quadruple when it first started as a way to “prove” it was a great thing.

Still counting the same person on the way to and from work is already bull#### because that is still only one commuter so the city can gft

[Barnes]

That’s big bicycle for ya.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by The Boy Wonder

Maybe they’ve fixed the counters since the early months of the bike lanes but I was there as a student during the studies of bicycle traffic before they went ahead with the project so no that part isn’t false and they did count quadruple when it first started as a way to “prove” it was a great thing.

Still counting the same person on the way to and from work is already bull#### because that is still only one commuter so the city can gft

When they count car traffic you may be surprised to learn that they count commuters regardless of the direction they are traveling. Cars also have two axles so when go over the counters would count twice. Provided they run the stats the same for bikes and cars it is correct.

From using the bike lanes my observation is that the counts count once per bike.

In 2017 you had 12000 cars per day on 5th st in 3 lanes. In summer you get 1400 bikes per day. So just on that street alone the bike use is 50% of the car use. This ignores all of the other roads that cars can use which they do at lower density. 1400 commuters is a significant enough volume to have a North South lane dedicated to them somewhere.

http://www.calgary.ca/Transportation...flowmap-DT.pdf

[The Boy Wonder]

Originally Posted by GGG

When they count car traffic you may be surprised to learn that they count commuters regardless of the direction they are traveling. Cars also have two axles so when go over the counters would count twice. Provided they run the stats the same for bikes and cars it is correct.

From using the bike lanes my observation is that the counts count once per bike.

In 2017 you had 12000 cars per day on 5th st in 3 lanes. In summer you get 1400 bikes per day. So just on that street alone the bike use is 50% of the car use. This ignores all of the other roads that cars can use which they do at lower density. 1400 commuters is a significant enough volume to have a North South lane dedicated to them somewhere.

http://www.calgary.ca/Transportation...flowmap-DT.pdf

Please ignore my real point which was the city skewing research methods (for grades) to ensure they got the result.


I’m pretty sure the stats GioforPM mentioned above speak for themselves, even if they are inflated IMO. Bike lanes getting 100 -300 individual users per day is not a great use of a traffic lane that would service IDK ~2000 people per day?



Not to mention it’s separate technology on bike lanes to count traffic than on roadways


Just saying.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by The Boy Wonder

Please ignore my real point which was the city skewing research methods (for grades) to ensure they got the result.


I’m pretty sure the stats GioforPM mentioned above speak for themselves, even if they are inflated IMO. Bike lanes getting 100 -300 individual users per day is not a great use of a traffic lane that would service IDK ~2000 people per day?



Not to mention it’s separate technology on bike lanes to count traffic than on roadways


Just saying.

I ignored the points of your post which could not be backed up by facts.

In summer the bike lanes are utilized reasonably for the space they take up, in winter not so much.

[Bunk]

City has a cordon count annually shows the same level of growth the on street trackers indicate. This was all while the downtown working population fell by almost 25%, absolute numbers of cyclists grew in that same period from about 12,000 daily trips in and out of downtown to over 17,000. Pre and post cycle tracks. It’s a success we should be happy about!

https://peopleforbikes.org/blog/dont...crease-biking/

[Macindoc]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Really hard question to answer, especially because my view is that the Saddledome has another decade or two of life in it (in a wider sense, it's an efficient use of resources thing for me...it's like selling low on a fully loaded, mechanically sound '04 Honda Accord to buy a brand new one. I could drive it for 5 more years for free costing nothing more than oil changes; I don't begrudge anyone who wants to upgrade to a new model that includes a wireless phone charger, but I don't want to help them pay for it).

Personally, I'd find it hard to swallow more than a $20 bill each year directly related to a new hockey barn. At the same time, I don't mind a $20 for bike lanes I rarely use, or a $50 for a library, or $100 to subsidize transit I rarely use, or say $50 for a new fieldhouse I'll rarely use...

I've never actually put the city budget pie chart against a property tax bill, so my numbers may be way out of whack. My broader philosophy would be about $100M (today's value) of city money every 50 years for a hockey arena. I'd be happy to double it to $200M for a 10% stake in the team (waaaaay below market value). And I want a permanent facility-revitalization-fee implemented to pay for the next next building, in addition to the ticket tax for this new one.

Unfortunately, the Saddledome does not have another decade or two in it as a professional sports or entertainment venue. It was built in an era in which seating configurations and services were completely different from what they are today. The way it was designed, there's no way to fix that. And the future of entertainment is rapidly taking shape with augmented experiences that will be available in other venues that the Saddledome simply can't be retrofitted for. The NHL is already trending away from having a gate-driven revenue model (with the exception of box seats, which are a much more efficient generator of revenue), and as the gate continues to become a smaller and smaller portion of the revenue pie, the Saddledome will cease to be a financially viable venue for NHL hockey. It's already being bypassed by half of the big acts when it comes to concerts.

I am very confident in saying that if the Saddledome is the only large hockey venue in Calgary in 10 years, let alone 20, then the Flames will no longer be playing in it, and we will all be forced to cheer for the Oilers.

[GGG]

That’s only because other jurisdictions are filled with idiots.

The NHL would exist if no one funded arenas. Calgary would have an NHL team if no one funded arenas. Calgary would have a brand new arena if no one funded them. The Salary cap would just be 35-40% of revenues.

The solution is so simple. All municipalities quit funding arenas.

[Erick Estrada]

It boils down to where you stand on the question; Do you want the Flames to remain in Calgary? If the answer is yes then you are pro-city funding. If the answer is no then you are anti-city funding. Anyone that wants the Flames to remain in Calgary while being anti-city funding will never see a resolution to their liking as either the Flames will stay with a city funded arena or they will leave Calgary.

I don't care to rehash the same cyclical arguments that have been going on in this thread since it's beginning nor do I care about people's opinions that the Saddledome should be fine for the Flames for another decade or two because the Flames clearly disagree and do not intend to play in the Saddledome for another decade. It's becoming clear that the city and Flames ownership will eventually come to terms on a new arena and it's the right thing if the city wants to keep the team. None of the arguments in this thread really matter when it's all said and done because it's going to happen and some people will be happy and some wont as with any city funded project.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

It boils down to where you stand on the question; Do you want the Flames to remain in Calgary? If the answer is yes then you are pro-city funding.

Don't be silly.

It doesn't "boil" down to anything so binary. It's an entirely reasonable position to take that you think Calgary Sports and Entertainment Corporation can and should pay it's own capital costs just like any other business and that taxpayers shouldn't be subsidizing a private entertainment company.

[stone hands]

Even if it was binary....cya later

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Parallex

Don't be silly.

It doesn't "boil" down to anything so binary. It's an entirely reasonable position to take that you think Calgary Sports and Entertainment Corporation can and should pay it's own capital costs just like any other business and that taxpayers shouldn't be subsidizing a private entertainment company.

It's not silly because we all know the conclusion is binary as the city will subsidize a new arena or the Flames will leave. It's reasonable to "think" for sure but it's not reasonable to expect it to happen because it won't. People have argued for years through today, and will continue to argue against subsidizing the day shovels break ground but we all know a subsidized arena is going to happen.