Calgary Public Transit - Discussion

[SebC]

Part of the reason the LRT will never keep up with sprawl is that the LRT induces sprawl. For example, building the LRT to Saddle Ridge would put a station about 1km away from undeveloped land, thus making that land significantly more attractive for developers. If we want to reduce sprawl we need to to shift the focus from extending the LRT to the perimeter of the city to making service improvements in the city centre that would reduce vehicle dependency. Many people take transit to work, but nowhere else. If we want to increase off-peak use, we need to improve off-peak service.

[SeoulFire]

Originally Posted by SebC

Part of the reason the LRT will never keep up with sprawl is that the LRT induces sprawl. For example, building the LRT to Saddle Ridge would put a station about 1km away from undeveloped land, thus making that land significantly more attractive for developers. If we want to reduce sprawl we need to to shift the focus from extending the LRT to the perimeter of the city to making service improvements in the city centre that would reduce vehicle dependency. Many people take transit to work, but nowhere else. If we want to increase off-peak use, we need to improve off-peak service.

I really do not know how new developments are approved but I assume the city must sign off on them. If this is indeed the case then what you wrote makes no sense whatsoever.

[frinkprof]

Originally Posted by SeoulFire

I really do not know how new developments are approved but I assume the city must sign off on them. If this is indeed the case then what you wrote makes no sense whatsoever.

I'm not really sure what you're getting at. Could you elaborate?

[SebC]

Originally Posted by SeoulFire

I really do not know how new developments are approved but I assume the city must sign off on them. If this is indeed the case then what you wrote makes no sense whatsoever.

For all intents and purposes what you are assuming is that Calgary has some sort of green belt or development perimeter in place, and it doesn't.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

Yes, plus a couple other big advantages are:

1. Permanence - The permanency of the route (as opposed to a bus route that can be easily changed) is a factor in attracting development along the route. It shows an investment in the area.

2. Attracts more riders than equivalent bus service and capacity does due to rail bias. People are more likely to choose to take a rail mode of transit.

Funny that you mention that, as I was reading through the info on the airport bus I was thinking '$8 is great and all, but a bus? F that, I'll pay for the cab'. Maybe I'm a snob, and I'm obviously irrational, but even living in Manhattan if I can't get somewhere by subway (or if it involves a transfer) I'll typically take a cab. The idea of getting on a bus is genuinely completely out of the question 95% of the time, and it's the same for most people I know.

[SeoulFire]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

I'm not really sure what you're getting at. Could you elaborate?

LRT expansion does not create sprawl - it is the lack of planning around it that contributes to it. The LRT lines have to end somewhere....I am all for hubs or nodes in the city and that development should not focus on the core alone.

Originally Posted by SebC

For all intents and purposes what you are assuming is that Calgary has some sort of green belt or development perimeter in place, and it doesn't.

What I am assuming is that developers cannot just undertake a project at will. While an end line LRT station may provide an incentive to develop, it is the city who is ultimately at fault for the approval.

I really have no idea how or why you would equate "sign off on" with having a plan.

[frinkprof]

Originally Posted by SeoulFire

LRT expansion does not create sprawl - it is the lack of planning around it that contributes to it. The LRT lines have to end somewhere....I am all for hubs or nodes in the city and that development should not focus on the core alone.



What I am assuming is that developers cannot just undertake a project at will. While an end line LRT station may provide an incentive to develop, it is the city who is ultimately at fault for the approval.

I've heard the argument that "LRT line expansion induces sprawl" before. The points in the argument make a lot of sense, but I'm still uneasy with accepting it as true. That's not really because I can't reconcile that something I like produces something I don't like either. I just don't think it's that simple. I'm probably more of the opinion that outward expansion of the LRT is a symptom of sprawl, rather than the other way around.

What I would be more agreeable to is saying that "the nature of the prioritization of LRT expansion can encourage sprawl-type development and discourage infill development."

As an example, probably the best one, was the greenlighting of the most recent northwest and northeast line extensions to Tuscany and Saddleridge. The problem wasn't so much the projects by themselves, which are generally good, but that they came when capacity expansion should have been a much higher priority than service expansion. Moving the end-of-line out means that, while residents in those communities now have closer access, trains become fuller earlier on which just makes the LRT less accessible for residents further in. It's also doubly problematic in that the funds used to expand to Tuscany, Saddleridge, etc. could have, and given the growth the LRT had experienced in the previous decade, should have been used on capacity expansions. That amount of funding could have been put toward the 8th Avenue Subway. If not that, then certainly earlier implementation of 4 car train service.

It may not be an easy thing to hear for Princes of Tuscany, Royal Oak folk, or the residents of Saddleridgecovetownehillspointville, but getting the train to their community has been to the detriment of a lot of other Calgarians.

The other point to be made, and the thrust of SebC's post, is that LRT service being expanded to near the edges of the current built area induces development further out. It's similar to the more-often-heard argument about road expansion causing induced demand. More transportation options to an area makes living in that area easier, thus increasing land values, thus increasing the economic viability of further greenfield development, thus inducing that development. The part that comes next in the case of roads is that the increased development leads to more use of the roads and eventually congestion, which leads to the "need" for more roads. This has arguably happened with transit expansion as well, whereby more people getting on earlier strains the capacity further down the line. I guess what I would say is that this shouldn't be looked at purely as a problem, and that capacity expansion should be looked at as a higher priority than it has been and the balance needs to shift.

Obviously land use and regional planning need to enter the equation as well. Aside from planning well immediately around transit stations (TOD principles, which is happening with the new stations), choosing line expansion over capacity expansion introduces another problem. It not only provides an incentive for greenfield development at the edges, it also discourages intensification through infill development, brownfield and greyfield development, and redevelopment in existing areas. If it's already impossible to board a train at 7:30AM on a weekday at Chinook Station (for example), how does the LRT service become a selling point for residents and businesses wanting to locate there? It quickly becomes a disincentive for developers to undertake projects in these areas.

I guess to respond more directly to your post SeoulFire, to lay all blame at the City's feet, in the context that "they have the final say when they approve it" isn't really correct. It's not that simple. Some blame certainly can be put on the City in that sense, but the task of providing people with homes, amenities, services, places of employment, etc. is something that is much bigger than the City or any municipality in the Calgary Region, Alberta, Canada, North America, and arguably the world. It can probably best be described as a partner and maybe a "guide." Denying approval of development just doesn't work as a long-term solution. Creating a green belt or development moratorium in a certain area around the edges is something that other cities have tried, to varying degrees of success. Aside from being a huge political and economic undertaking, I'm not sure how well it would work in the Calgary region. Calgary's satellite cities, towns, and counties would likely absorb as much of that demand as they could. As it stands, the City of Calgary's biggest tool in keeping development within their borders is controlling the region's limited water licenses.

Anyway, not sure if everything I typed comes to a single point or conclusion, just some stuff to think about.

[frinkprof]

Some photos taken of the Northeast extension by srperrycgy on SSP (stevinder on CP).

Originally Posted by srperrycgy on SSP

Took a very long overdue trip to the NE to grab a few shots of the construction work on the NE Extension to Saddletowne.

64th Avenue Tunnel taken from McKnight-Westwinds:


NEC2-07012011-17 by srp775, on Flickr

Northbound Martindale Platform:


NEC2-07012011-3 by srp775, on Flickr

Southbound Martindale Platform:


NEC2-07012011-2 by srp775, on Flickr

Track Construction South of Saddletowne:


NEC2-07012011-5 by srp775, on Flickr

Saddletowne Station:


NEC2-07012011-12 by srp775, on Flickr

Tail Track north of Saddletowne Station:


NEC2-07012011-15 by srp775, on Flickr

Getting there was fun with the CTrain construction closure downtown and up to Barlow.


CTrain Shuttle at Barlow by srp775, on Flickr

[SebC]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

I've heard the argument that "LRT line expansion induces sprawl" before. The points in the argument make a lot of sense, but I'm still uneasy with accepting it as true. That's not really because I can't reconcile that something I like produces something I don't like either. I just don't think it's that simple. I'm probably more of the opinion that outward expansion of the LRT is a symptom of sprawl, rather than the other way around.

LRT expansion inducing sprawl and sprawl inducing LRT expansion aren't mutually exclusive. It's both.

The SE hospital is also gonna be a massive sprawl-inducer.

[frinkprof]

Originally Posted by SebC

LRT expansion inducing sprawl and sprawl inducing LRT expansion aren't mutually exclusive. It's both.

Oh absolutely. I get that it's more of a game of chicken and egg versus one or the other.

One of the reasons I get tripped up on the argument that outward LRT expansion induces sprawl is that a criterion for sprawl is that it is an auto-oriented pattern of development. Not to say that development can't be auto-oriented and have train service, because obviously examples abound in Calgary and elsewhere. I think that the two aspects are certainly at odds with each other though, philosophically. I think that it's more correct to say "LRT expansion, outward or otherwise, induces development." It takes a lot more than the LRT expansion fit all the criteria for being sprawl. Unfortunately a lot of it has been.

This and other reasons make me lean more toward chicken whereas you might say egg.

Originally Posted by SebC

The SE hospital is also gonna be a massive sprawl-inducer.

Greenfield development at the edges, certainly. However, what's planned around the future South Hospital and Southeast LRT terminus isn't actually that bad. It makes a lot of positive steps away from some of the worst things about the historical approach to greenfield development in this city. Don't get me wrong, it's in the middle of freaking nowhere, and the expanses of crap in between it and any other "good" existing development is huge. Still, far from the worst examples of sprawl.

http://www.setonurbandistrict.com/

[SebC]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

One of the reasons I get tripped up on the argument that outward LRT expansion induces sprawl is that a criterion for sprawl is that it is an auto-oriented pattern of development. Not to say that development can't be auto-oriented and have train service, because obviously examples abound in Calgary and elsewhere. I think that the two aspects are certainly at odds with each other though, philosophically. I think that it's more correct to say "LRT expansion, outward or otherwise, induces development." It takes a lot more than the LRT expansion fit all the criteria for being sprawl. Unfortunately a lot of it has been.

It seems our disagreement is largely a matter of definition. Whilst yours is probably more accurate, I will continue to apply the word "sprawl" to any new development at Calgary's periphery, until these developments start paying for themselves (including downstream effects). Newish communities that receive LRT expansions might be even more parasitic than those that don't!

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

Some photos taken of the Northeast extension by srperrycgy on SSP (stevinder on CP).

That's a purdy looking station. I had completely forgotten about the two NE extensions.

[Sr. Mints]

The Economist wrote a story on high speed rail in America. It argues that the best way for high speed rail in to take off over here, is for it to first be built somewhere to be showcased.

It's an American angle, but still worth a read.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/gulli...stisfastenough

[getbak]

http://cocnmp.com/transit/assets/vote.html

The three finalists for the name of the new smart card system have been announced:

• Connect
• Range
• Energy

Meh.

[YYC in LAX]

Originally Posted by getbak

http://cocnmp.com/transit/assets/vote.html

The three finalists for the name of the new smart card system have been announced:

• Connect
• Range
• Energy

Meh.

####ing horrible. Range? Energy? Wow.

[THE SCUD]

Originally Posted by YYC in LAX

####ing horrible. Range? Energy? Wow.

They should keep with the energy them and call it Surge, in an effort to speed up the trains.

[stevinder]

I'm not crazy about these three choices either. But there was a suggestion that this Smart Card could be extended to other City of Calgary services. With that information, "Connect" might be a suitable name.

[bizaro86]

I still like the "Prarie Oyster" card. It's got a bit of international flair, and a bit of western down home style, while not taking itself too seriously.

The name doesn't really matter, you could call it "Calgary Smart Card" and that would work, so why not make it something unique and/or interesting. "Energy" is terrible.

[malcolmk14]

Originally Posted by Russic

When I went to Toronto a few weeks back a bus from downtown to the airport was nearly $30 each way. Sure it was a nice bus, but if I could save $22 and take a welfare-wagon I'd be all over it.

That just can't be right. Every time I've been to Toronto I've taken the bus from the airport and it is $3 each way.

[Russic]

Originally Posted by malcolmk14

That just can't be right. Every time I've been to Toronto I've taken the bus from the airport and it is $3 each way.

It wasn't an actual Toronto transit bus but rather a shuttle. The bus travel time I was told would be very long.