Calgary SSP Development Listing

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Bunk

As for the parking policy generally - I think it's worth defending. I don't think it's an "anti-parking agenda". This policy dates back to the 1960s when the city was trying to get its rapid-bus service going (blue arrow) - the precursor to the LRT. Recognizing that an abundance of free parking downtown would not only lead to congestion on finite road capacity, few would take transit unless parking supply was somewhat constrained.

The problem the parking policy now is that the trains are full. Too little parking and an overloaded transit system could force businesses out of downtown. IMO, we need to increase our transit capacity downtown (and four-car trains are not sufficient for this beyond the short term) or we need to relax the parking policy a bit.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by SebC

The problem the parking policy now is that the trains are full. Too little parking and an overloaded transit system could force businesses out of downtown. IMO, we need to increase our transit capacity downtown (and four-car trains are not sufficient for this beyond the short term) or we need to relax the parking policy a bit.

Totally agree. I can think of a certain $52 million that could help resolve this transit deficiency.

I think the parking policy could be relaxed somewhat as well, or simply building more public parking facilities could ease that crunch a bit. Perhaps could be a feature of the campaign platform???

[jammies]

More parking isn't magically going to fix the road capacity downtown, and into/out of downtown. It's already bad enough in the winter, you don't want to put many more cars on the road in the core or you could start seeing gridlock every single day.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by jammies

More parking isn't magically going to fix the road capacity downtown, and into/out of downtown.

Oh for sure. That's why the 8th Ave Subway is the preferred solution. But in the meantime, putting the $52M/y towards having enough train cars to use the full 4-car capacity would be a good idea (if we haven't already funded that through GreenTrip/MSI).

[frinkprof]

^Hasn't been fully funded yet. Green TRIP will pay for an order of 50 new LRVs ($200M). 20 of those will be for replacement, 30 for growth (i.e. partial 4-car train operation). Look for that contract to be awarded, possibly to a new manufacturer, in the next few months. One date I heard is for trains to start arriving (or be the full order to have arrived, can't remember) January 2015. 4 car capacity won't be available until end of 2014 anyway, so that's not so bad.

That leaves 60 U2s to be replaced and, at current fleet numbers, another 35-40 will be needed for full 4 car operation.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Bunk

As for the parking policy generally - I think it's worth defending. I don't think it's an "anti-parking agenda". This policy dates back to the 1960s when the city was trying to get its rapid-bus service going (blue arrow) - the precursor to the LRT. Recognizing that an abundance of free parking downtown would not only lead to congestion on finite road capacity, few would take transit unless parking supply was somewhat constrained. Downtown development is only allowed to build 50% of the by-lawed requirement on site - 50% is paid cash-in-lieu to the parking authority to build parking facilities in more strategic locations (like along major vehicular routes close to the periphery of the business core).

I think my main issue with the parking policy is that it seems so extreme for a city of Calgary's size and build, and current transit situation. Does Calgary really need to have the 2nd highest parking rates in North America when the alternates aren't really there for people to use easily? Do they need to be more strict than a place like SF or Boston, that actually has density and traffic issues that make Calgary rush hour look like a country-cruise?

I'm a huge fan of cosmopolitan, transit-oriented, cities...but I think we have to be a little realistic about this. You can't build a city that stretches out past the horizon, and then ask its residence to live like we are in Amsterdam. As much as we want Calgary to evolve, Calgary will most likely always be somewhat of a car-city because of the way it has already been built and it's lack of natural barriers. It will never turn into Paris or Amsterdam. It will never even be Vancouver. In some ways, the best we can hope for is a Toronto type of situation where you have a lively inner city surrounded by suburbs.

I also think it's unnecessary to be so extreme about it. Calgary is well on its way to becoming a denser and more pedestrian friendly place no matter what the rules are. It's turned a corner. The demand is there for people who want to live closer to their work. The demand is there for people wanting a more cosmopolitan city. I doubt if you loosen a lot of the parking restrictions all of a sudden, we will turn into Houston. What you would probably have happen though is actually more people come downtown to enjoy its amenities.

I actually think the current parking policy is a roadblock to a more lively inner city. It's preventing a lot of people from coming downtown because it's just too much of a hassle. And not just for work. I think this city puts too much focus on transportation for downtown workers, and ignores the fact that a lively city has people moving around all the time for different reasons, and the you need a variety of transportation options...which includes driving.

If it were up to me, I would go China on this. Instead of diddling along for 50 years to built a couple of train lines, let's build out the entire system now. Built out the C-train lines, the inner city trams, the bike lanes, etc. Yes, it will mean higher taxes. Yes, we'll have to take out some massive $5 Billion bond/loan and spend 30 years paying it off. But if we're going to act like a bold city in terms of parking, let's also act like a bold city in terms of public transit.

[Addick]

Originally Posted by Table 5

I doubt if you loosen a lot of the parking restrictions all of a sudden, we will turn into Houston.

You'd hope. If a loosening of the restrictions had a negative effect (i.e. not Houston bad but still bad), would the attempt have been worth it? Are we willing to take the risk and end up losing some of the great work already accomplished?

Personally, I think it is a case of trusting the medicine we are currently using and treating the negative symptoms that it causes. Treating the symptoms can become a dangerous game but we've accomplished so much with the medicine that we are using.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Table 5

If it were up to me, I would go China on this. Instead of diddling along for 50 years to built a couple of train lines, let's build out the entire system now. Built out the C-train lines, the inner city trams, the bike lanes, etc. Yes, it will mean higher taxes. Yes, we'll have to take out some massive $5 Billion bond/loan and spend 30 years paying it off. But if we're going to act like a bold city in terms of parking, let's also act like a bold city in terms of public transit.

The RouteAhead plan (which is a bold plan) is $13 billion - the one LRT line from North Central to SE is over $5 billion on its own. Trust me, we're fighting tooth and nail for the funding arrangement with the Province (especially) and Federal Government to achieve it. There isn't a higher priority.

BTW, I agree with you on parking - there is definitely room to ease - and the explosion of downtown employment pushed demand far higher than I'm sure anyone ever anticipated. Having 50m sq ft of office in a downtown of a city of 1.2 million is also extraordinary.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Bunk

The RouteAhead plan (which is a bold plan) is $13 billion - the one LRT line from North Central to SE is over $5 billion on its own. Trust me, we're fighting tooth and nail for the funding arrangement with the Province (especially) and Federal Government to achieve it. There isn't a higher priority.

Yeah, I guess I forgot that a billion doesn't even got that far these days. Fine...5 TRILLION dollars it is.

I think the RouteAhead plan is a sound one (even though I still feel like it puts a little too much emphasis on commuting to work)...it's the timelines I wish were shortened drastically.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Table 5

I think the RouteAhead plan is a sound one (even though I still feel like it puts a little too much emphasis on commuting to work)...it's the timelines I wish were shortened drastically.

Hmmmm, really? I'd say that's exactly what it moves us away from. Most of the new lines are crosstown, not just through downtown to create a grid of fast, high frequency service. Plus, the service model is to shift toward all-day oriented, vs. Peak-oriented.

Have a read on the "driving ideas in designing the transit network" it's a section of the plan I happened to write, to help the project team. It really highlights the shift in philosophy for the system.

Starts on Pg. 105 http://www.routeahead.ca/wp-content/...yAheadWeb1.pdf

I wish timelines were faster too. We can build it if we get a good long term, predictable funding source from the Province (which we can borrow against and leverage federal funds).

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Bunk

Most of the new lines are crosstown, not just through downtown to create a grid of fast, high frequency service. Plus, the service model is to shift toward all-day oriented, vs. Peak-oriented.

Perhaps I'm out of touch, or things have been modified, but I was under the impression that all the cross-town service was with BRT's, and the LRT lines were still just spokes coming out from downtown. I'm definitely a supporter, I just wish it had a "wheel" to connect the spokes. And I'd still want some sort of inner-city line...but that may be addressed by some other plan that I'm unaware of.

Definitely need to read through that doc.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by Table 5

I also think it's unnecessary to be so extreme about it. Calgary is well on its way to becoming a denser and more pedestrian friendly place no matter what the rules are. It's turned a corner. The demand is there for people who want to live closer to their work. The demand is there for people wanting a more cosmopolitan city. I doubt if you loosen a lot of the parking restrictions all of a sudden, we will turn into Houston. What you would probably have happen though is actually more people come downtown to enjoy its amenities.

I actually think the current parking policy is a roadblock to a more lively inner city. It's preventing a lot of people from coming downtown because it's just too much of a hassle. And not just for work. I think this city puts too much focus on transportation for downtown workers, and ignores the fact that a lively city has people moving around all the time for different reasons, and the you need a variety of transportation options...which includes driving.

That's interesting. One on hand, the commute issue could be driving the rise in downtown residential growth from people who are sick of driving/taking the train and the parking rates.

On the other hand, you are right that the parking policy is preventing everybody else from driving to downtown for everything else besides work and inhibiting the growth of a vibrant core.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Table 5

And I'd still want some sort of inner-city line...

There are inner city lines already... the problem is they're full of suburbanites by the time they get to the inner city!

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

That's interesting. One on hand, the commute issue could be driving the rise in downtown residential growth from people who are sick of driving/taking the train and the parking rates.

On the other hand, you are right that the parking policy is preventing everybody else from driving to downtown for everything else besides work and inhibiting the growth of a vibrant core.

Obviously it's not a black and white issue, as I'm sure both statements are true to some extent. I support the city's desire to move towards less emphasis on driving, I just wish it was done with a little more finesse and context. The cities that handle transportation best, are the ones that realize you will always need multiple modes of options to get around, and implementing a fairly drastic de-emphasis on one will have its own negative consequences.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by SebC

There are inner city lines already... the problem is they're full of suburbanites by the time they get to the inner city!

No, I mean a line that goes in a circle around the inner city neighborhoods, that only services the inner city neighborhoods. Ie, a subway/tram that goes from Beltline > Kensington > Sunnyside > Bridgeland > East Village > Victoria Park > Mission > Beltline. These are the neighborhoods where you have people willingly living the inner city life, yet don't necessarily have an easy/quick way of getting from one neighborhood to another. I think a little euro-style at-grade tram line adjacent to the main streets would be great.

[burn_this_city]

I would love to see the parking cost eased back, some of us are forced to drive downtown because we bounce between downtown office and suburban campuses for meetings. It should still be expensive, but not $600/month expensive.

[Robbob]

Originally Posted by SebC

There are inner city lines already... the problem is they're full of suburbanites by the time they get to the inner city!

It isn't us suburbanites but rather those leaches from the satellite communities

Originally Posted by Table 5

No, I mean a line that goes in a circle around the inner city neighborhoods, that only services the inner city neighborhoods. Ie, a subway/tram that goes from Beltline > Kensington > Sunnyside > Bridgeland > East Village > Victoria Park > Mission > Beltline. These are the neighborhoods where you have people willingly living the inner city life, yet don't necessarily have an easy/quick way of getting from one neighborhood to another. I think a little euro-style at-grade tram line adjacent to the main streets would be great.

The inner city neighborhoods have Car 2 Go to help with that. I know not every one is signed up but when you look at map for cars there are a ton of car2go in the inner city.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Robbob

The inner city neighborhoods have Car 2 Go to help with that. I know not every one is signed up but when you look at map for cars there are a ton of car2go in the inner city.

While I don't its something that can replace a good inner city public transit option, I think Car2Go has been a great addition to the city.

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by Robbob

It isn't us suburbanites but rather those leaches from the satellite communities



The inner city neighborhoods have Car 2 Go to help with that. I know not every one is signed up but when you look at map for cars there are a ton of car2go in the inner city.

Not in the evenings, the majority of them end up on the peripheries of the home area. Weekends can be much the same.

Plus you probably shouldn't hop into a Car2Go if you've been drinking, and I can't bring my wife and 2 kids in one. A line like Table5 describes would be awesome to have.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Perhaps I'm out of touch, or things have been modified, but I was under the impression that all the cross-town service was with BRT's, and the LRT lines were still just spokes coming out from downtown. I'm definitely a supporter, I just wish it had a "wheel" to connect the spokes. And I'd still want some sort of inner-city line...but that may be addressed by some other plan that I'm unaware of.

Definitely need to read through that doc.

No, that is true, the LRT lines are still spoke - except for an Airport connection. Crosstown routes like 16th Avenue simply would not ever have the ridership to justify the cost of an LRT. Buses, if they have the right facilities (such as dedicated right of ways) that facilitate faster travel time and have high frequencies can and will be a great service. They don't have to be second-class transit. Other routes like Across Bow Valley from Westbrook to the University might require other technology like gondolas simply because of the topography.

There is a study coming out of RouteAhead, thanks to John Mar, to look specifically at a Centre-City/Inner City Tram network. A very strong planner in Transit is working on that now. That will be very interesting!