Arena Negotiation Discussion v2

[GGG]

Originally Posted by rage2

I stopped using 10th and took an alternate route. Lots of coworkers did the same.

When? The timing of the drop doesn’t seem to match the addition of bike lanes? 2012 in peak boom was 16,000 so post bike lanes being added.

[rage2]

Originally Posted by GGG

When? The timing of the drop doesn’t seem to match the addition of bike lanes? 2012 in peak boom was 16,000 so post bike lanes being added.

Let me know when you pull the right numbers (maybe in another thread so this one doesn’t get derailed) and I’ll respond. A quick peak of the city data doesn’t match what you posted.

I can’t remember when 10th ave lost its bike lanes, but since switching to alternate routes I haven’t been back on a regular basis, except to go to Flames games after work just to avoid 9th and 12th.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by rage2

Let me know when you pull the right numbers (maybe in another thread so this one doesn’t get derailed) and I’ll respond. A quick peak of the city data doesn’t match what you posted.

I can’t remember when 10th ave lost its bike lanes, but since switching to alternate routes I haven’t been back on a regular basis, except to go to Flames games after work just to avoid 9th and 12th.

Pretty sure he's talking about 10th St NW, not 10th Ave SW.

[monkeyman]

Originally Posted by Bunk

It really is not. The lanes are a bit narrower, which slows traffic speed, there is street parking where it matters (loading zones, hotels, daycares - including my own kid’s). Travel lane volumes are the same.

Stephen Ave, 90% of bike volume is at morning and evening rush hour, when pedestrian volumes are extremely low. Bike volumes are very low when pedestrian volumes at lunch are high. There is about 4 times the space as the river pathways where bikes and pedestrians also mix. It works just fine.

It really is.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by monkeyman

It really is.

It’s not, you monkeyman.

[monkeyman]

8th used to be a nice eclectic place to go at lunch, street performers, people strolling down without a care. Those stupid bike lanes right in the middle break it up and take away from the atmosphere. The city and the genius planners couldn't see past the numbers.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by monkeyman

8th used to be a nice eclectic place to go at lunch, street performers, people strolling down without a care. Those stupid bike lanes right in the middle break it up and take away from the atmosphere. The city and the genius planners couldn't see past the numbers.

I think they should limit bikes from 6-9 and 4-6. I agree that the lunch hour stroll has changed how the street feels. It is ironic though that an argument against bike lanes is that it makes the pedestrian environment less inviting when the corresponding argument to add bike lanes to neighbouring streets to make the bike environment better is also rejected.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by monkeyman

8th used to be a nice eclectic place to go at lunch, street performers, people strolling down without a care. Those stupid bike lanes right in the middle break it up and take away from the atmosphere. The city and the genius planners couldn't see past the numbers.

They aren’t even lanes, they are shared space. Also, the BRZ still programs street performers and in busy times can close the street to bikes. So if they’re not doing that, it’s because they aren’t doing it (due to costs, reduced BRZ fees), not because of bikes.

The City surveyed satisfaction with each street for each user type. Stephen Ave pedestrians: 82% before bikes, 82% after bikes.

http://www.calgary.ca/_layouts/cocis...edirect=1&sf=1

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by GGG

I think they should limit bikes from 6-9 and 4-6. I agree that the lunch hour stroll has changed how the street feels. It is ironic though that an argument against bike lanes is that it makes the pedestrian environment less inviting when the corresponding argument to add bike lanes to neighbouring streets to make the bike environment better is also rejected.

'Just bike on the sidewalk' is also a common argument against bike lanes.


But to bring it back to arena talk, can we get LimeBikes to not black out the Stampede grounds so I can bike here when I'm running late?!

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

'Just bike on the sidewalk' is also a common argument against bike lanes.


But to bring it back to arena talk, can we get LimeBikes to not black out the Stampede grounds so I can bike here when I'm running late?!

That's all private property, not public streets. It's the same reason car2go is so restricted. I have no idea why they signed the frigging streets and sidewalks over to the Stampede.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

You live in Brentwood...have you considered that you might face a lot less aggravation if you hopped on the train?

Fortunately for me, I work from home. But whenever I do have to get onto Crowchild, I have to run the gauntlet of a street that is continually and needlessly congested because the city decided that a small number of bikes should take priority over a much larger number of motor vehicles.

By the way, I never go downtown if I can help it. The train is virtually useless to me.

[Tyler]

Does this really need to turn into a bike lane thread?

[marsplasticeraser]

Hey jay Random.

How can I take your points seriously if you don’t even know what you do yourself?

Here you say you spend a lot of time in the inner city (maybe to show you understand the issue (full disclosure: you don’t)). On post 991 you say “By the way, I never go downtown if I can help it. The train is virtually useless to me.”

What is it jay random?

Originally Posted by Jay Random

In rush hour, those parts of the road that are now bike lanes were filled to capacity with vehicles. Now they're virtually empty. I spend a lot of time in the inner city, and I have yet to see heavy traffic in a bike lane.
.

[Freeway]

So anyway, the arena.


In retrospect, pretty impressed by the work the committee's done, since it's provided some pretty clear boundaries to where the negotiations can wander.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Freeway

So anyway, the arena.


In retrospect, pretty impressed by the work the committee's done, since it's provided some pretty clear boundaries to where the negotiations can wander.

Thanks. Before trying to find arena news amid bike lane grumblings and Jay Random deciding whether he goes downtown a lot or not at all, I'd be interested in a synopsis of where things stand currently from someone who follows such things currently.

Specifically, is there an actual price tag associated with the arena yet that the parties have agreed upon, and can then get into the tough issue of how to fund?

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Freeway

So anyway, the arena.


In retrospect, pretty impressed by the work the committee's done, since it's provided some pretty clear boundaries to where the negotiations can wander.

What in summary are those boundaries (if public)?

[getbak]

Where things stand (publicly)...


On December 14, CMLC presented to the Event Centre Assessment Committee of city council. In the presentation, it was noted that their estimated cost to build the Rossetti "inverted bowl" design that the Flames commissioned will be $550-600 million (excluding land costs).

Also in that meeting, Ernst & Young presented their methodology for creating an Economic Impact study that will analyze the long-term impacts of the established arena/entertainment districts in other cities, notably Nashville, Columbus, and Edmonton. This report is due to council by the middle of January.


Last week, the Premier was in town to announce the 20 year extension of the "Rivers District" CRL that was originally used to fund the revitalization of the East Village. That presents a possible source of some funding. There are apparently some limitations to how that money can be used, so it might not be able to build an arena/event centre specifically, but people always seem to be able to find creative ways to make these things work.


At the end of January, council is scheduled to make decisions on the capital budget for the next few years.

[Freeway]

The province seems OK with allowing the CRL money to go towards the BMO expansion, but it's unclear if they'd be able to sink money into the arena or not.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by getbak

Last week, the Premier was in town to announce the 20 year extension of the "Rivers District" CRL that was originally used to fund the revitalization of the East Village. That presents a possible source of some funding. There are apparently some limitations to how that money can be used, so it might not be able to build an arena/event centre specifically, but people always seem to be able to find creative ways to make these things work.

I think CMLC was being very deliberate by bringing up pop-up galleries and other performance space as part of an arena, or at least as part of an integrated project with the convention centre. Connect as much public realm and 'cultural spaces' to the project as possible and you can get a lot more overlap on various costs. Not to mention having a new funding source for Arts Commons upgrades would help placate some opponents as well (maybe not make them supporters, but if they get their stuff, they might not put up a fight).



At the end of the day, if the CRL can fund all the public improvements they were looking for, there shouldn't be any reason the rest couldn't directly go to arena funding at that point (IMO). Would be money that the city could afford to 'not be paid back' which makes a more firm commitment from CSEC more palatable and the priorities of a CRL would already be taken care of. And given the development already completed in the Rivers District, the next 20 years of a CRL is significantly less risky than the previous 20 to boot (somebody correct me if I'm wrong on that one).

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Tyler

Does this really need to turn into a bike lane thread?

Why not? We hear the "money is wasted on bike lanes and libraries, then why not an arena" argument in here enough that we might as well argue about it, too. For a long time now, this thread has been about the value and prioritization of public funds; I would argue that this is an outcome of CSEC's failure to demonstrate public benefit, or even provide sexy ideas for people to actually be excited about.

We simply haven't been given any reasons to talk about things like seating layouts, arena amenities, or how the arena will interface with the surrounding area.

Originally Posted by Roughneck

At the end of the day, if the CRL can fund all the public improvements they were looking for, there shouldn't be any reason the rest couldn't directly go to arena funding at that point (IMO).

Sounds good in theory, but how often is a wish-list much shorter than the budget attached to it? That said, if you can organize the wishlist into 'must-haves' and 'nice-to-haves', then the arena is certainly worthy of discussion among the other'nice-to-haves' when allocating any leftover funds.