Rant against BestWestLRT NIMBY whiners

[SteveToms]

Originally Posted by FurnaceFace

Just read the landing page on the creating Calgary site.



This I would wholeheartedly support. It seems to address any concerns I'd have.

However, does this mean screwing up Bow Trail traffic etc to do this? If so, I am moving to school parking lot

[4X4]

Originally Posted by Kerplunk

I was reading about some of this yesterday, and the consensus around some of the Internet forums is that if these people continue to whine then the city should take away their train extension and give it to other projects, like the SE line or maybe to help build the underground downtown.

Hell, use the money to upgrade some of other lines. How about giving the Rundle station more than 350 parking stalls to service 2 communities, or give us a raised or buried line at some of the major intersections on 36th.

Sad part is that the whiners would win and the people that really need the LRT in the west would lose.

[Thunderball]

But FF, that's the problem with Calgary, they try to do everything on the cheap, and it the end it becomes inadequate way before its time, and it costs even more to fix it/expand it.

Deerfoot shrinking to two lanes at Glenmore, Bow River Bridge on Crowchild, 3 car LRT stations, no west arterial road, no northern E-W road... just a general lack of foresight.

Maybe they'll learn, but I doubt it.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by FurnaceFace

I've recently come back from Paris and Barcelona and I did wonder how these cities managed to build the extensive underground network through cities that have been around forever.

That's the key word right there. Not sure of the exact dates, but many North American subways were built in the late 19th and the first 1/2 of the 20th century. Back when if you could shave $10 million off a project but would have 8 more deaths; well that was the cost of doing business.

Not saying that if I had a starving family in the 30's that I would have turned down dnagerous work either.

Back to Calgary, I agree with what was said earlier, make the NIMBYs drive down 36th during rush hour, or a Saturday even, and see how well that plan works. The bottom line is level crossings are bad, so you either elevate or bury the train, or you do what they did for Crowchild and elevate/bury the roadways.

Of course north of Brentwood the median was built specifically for the LRT, so that really helps there.

[Kerplunk]

Originally Posted by SteveToms

However, does this mean screwing up Bow Trail traffic etc to do this? If so, I am moving to school parking lot

They could try a TBM, but those get expensive, and I'm not sure if the ground in Calgary is really good for it. I think anything they do will bork traffic in the area.

[Muta]

As a resident across the street from Shaganappi golf course on the West end, I'd be all for an elevated line, or an underground line.

As a resident in this area, I'd pay extra taxes to have this done. I'd pay more for the underground line right from downtown, if it were an option.

Every major city around the world has extensive subway systems; Calgary, as a city with a latitudinal location north of the 49th parallel, should be following in this direction. Are they? No. Or, not really.

Underground lines not only eliminate noise issues, they also identify - and solve - transportational / load capacity issues above ground in a variety of instances.

London, Moscow, Paris, New York, Dehli, Sao Paulo, Tokyo... at some point, all these cities identified their infrastructure demands by building light rail transit systems underground. The longer Calgary waits to begin following in these cities' footsteps, the harder it will be to facilitate those demands by the public and private sectors later on.

Calgary needs to just open its wallet and make the investment. This City needs to stop being so cheap, and move in the right direction - the cost might be an initial concern, but the benefits will quickly be seen as this City grows. With the rising cost of oil and increasingly environmentally-concious people taking a green approach to living, any type of public transporation additions will be a sound investment all-around no matter what. Calgary needs to take a page from the international community on how to develop infrastrucutre. Will they? No, because there's too many NIMBY'ers and stakeholders that want to dip their hands in this cookie jar, which is an absolute shame.

It's amazing how easily this City bends over backward for those opposed to change / new initiatives.

[troutman]

Response from my alderman (I sent them Cowboy's form letter):

We have our fingers crossed as well. This item goes to Council in June. Thanks for your comments.

Ms. Bernie Gristwood, Executive Assistant to
Ward 6 Alderman Joe Connelly

[I take it he is in favor of the original city plan?]

[FireFly]

The problem with putting it all underground is then you end up with a transit system like Edmontons... have you ever been on Edmonton's subway? It goes for what, 3 blocks? Now, I'm not saying that it shouldn't be underground, I'm saying that a cost/benefit analysis was likely done and it was probably determined that the extra expense wasn't worth the added delays for the most part.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Muta

London, Moscow, Paris, New York, Dehli, Sao Paulo, Tokyo... at some point, all these cities identified their infrastructure demands by building light rail transit systems underground. The longer Calgary waits to begin following in these cities' footsteps, the harder it will be to facilitate those demands by the public and private sectors later on.

yikes all those cities with 10 million +
that means 10X more money quite possibly
with a construction cost that should roughly be the same or equivalent. Assuming those cities would be looking at the same type of project today.
Sorry Calgary isnt in that class.
Also most of those cities transit systems are run by public benefit corporations, whereas Calgary Transit is run by the city. Not sure if that makes a difference...

[habernac]

Originally Posted by FireFly

The problem with putting it all underground is then you end up with a transit system like Edmontons... have you ever been on Edmonton's subway? It goes for what, 3 blocks? Now, I'm not saying that it shouldn't be underground, I'm saying that a cost/benefit analysis was likely done and it was probably determined that the extra expense wasn't worth the added delays for the most part.

Montreal's is underground and goes everywhere. Poor planning put Calgary's above ground.

[Kerplunk]

Originally Posted by habernac

Montreal's is underground and goes everywhere. Poor planning put Calgary's above ground.

Montreal also has more people located in a smaller area, making it more economical to build it underground.

[Teh_Bandwagoner]

Originally Posted by WhiteTom

http://www.bestwestlrt.com/Default.aspx?pageId=136942

The part that gets me is that the car is shown parked in the same place the whole time with the apparent graffiti artists and degenerates running around and it hasn't been touched?

Whoever did this are amateurs.

K first of all, in the sunalta 2 photos, it was ugly before, and it's ugly after. Oh noes!

Second of all, what are those purple blotches on the wall on that condo in the before pics? Did they try to photoshop out some existing graffiti?? Man the people on this forum could do a better job than that!

Here's what I assumed happened:

Graphics Artist: Here are the CGI pics. They don't look too bad actually.
NIMBY: Huh... you're right.
Graphics Artist: So... we're good to go?
NIMBY: No no... this isn't right. This isn't right at all. How good are you at doing up graffiti and hobos?
Graphics Artist: I can pull it off but...
NIMBY: DO IT! No one will expect a thing! I'm a genius!
Graphics Artist: But isn't that kind of slanderous?
NIMBY: Shut your face hole, cretin! You work for me! Bahahah!
Graphics Artist: Okay... *walks away slowly*

[WhiteTom]

Originally Posted by Teh_Bandwagoner

Second of all, what are those purple blotches on the wall on that condo in the before pics? Did they try to photoshop out some existing graffiti?? Man the people on this forum could do a better job than that!

That was my first thought about the blotches too.

I especially love how they photoshopped in some random guy sitting underneath the rails. I'm not sure what he is even supposed to be doing. In all of the other pictures they look like hobos and graffiti artists, this guy just looks like he's sitting on a bench or something. Is he plotting something? Another hobo? Did he leave his paint cans at home? Who knows.

Re-photoshopping these would be a fun exercise, but I would worry that these would fall into the wrong hands.

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by habernac

Montreal's is underground and goes everywhere. Poor planning put Calgary's above ground.

don't necessairily agree, with good planning like in the NW from the Univeristy and beyond the above ground track works fine. They left room for it, and it does not effect traffic flow at all. In addition there is quite a large amount of parking at most of the NW LRT stations.

In the established neighborhoods where they didn't leave a large amount of room, they really need to strongly consider putting it undergroud and definately through downtown.

[Boblobla]

Originally Posted by Dan02

In addition there is quite a large amount of parking at most of the NW LRT stations.

What? Have you been to the Dalhousie station? It is full by 6:30.

[McMack]

Originally Posted by WhiteTom

That was my first thought about the blotches too.

I especially love how they photoshopped in some random guy sitting underneath the rails. I'm not sure what he is even supposed to be doing. In all of the other pictures they look like hobos and graffiti artists, this guy just looks like he's sitting on a bench or something. Is he plotting something? Another hobo? Did he leave his paint cans at home? Who knows.

Re-photoshopping these would be a fun exercise, but I would worry that these would fall into the wrong hands.

Someone needs to photoshop Osama Bin Laden into these photos.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

yikes all those cities with 10 million +
that means 10X more money quite possibly
with a construction cost that should roughly be the same or equivalent. Assuming those cities would be looking at the same type of project today.
Sorry Calgary isnt in that class.
Also most of those cities transit systems are run by public benefit corporations, whereas Calgary Transit is run by the city. Not sure if that makes a difference...

Meh, the concept is the same. I'm just using those examples of how efficient subway systems work. Calgary should have made grassroot movements for this investment a long time ago, and they didn't.

Granted, Calgary has the space for at-grade train systems, but I'm just a huge proponent of putting things underground - especially in our climate. It would encourage greater public transportation usage.

I pulled this off of Wikipedia, but it is sourced:

"A lot of cities, faced with congestion problems, are investing large amounts of money in public transport to decrease car use, and are faced with problems encouraging increased use of rapid transit without large capital investment or operating costs. By using relatively small amounts on grand architecture, art, cleanliness, accessibility, lighting and a feeling of safety, metros can get larger amounts of passengers; usually the extra investments in aesthetics are profitable for the metros.[27] An example of this is in Los Angeles where 0.5% of investments were used on art while in Stockholm the authorities publish a guide to the art in the stations.[26]"

Seems to me that if you can make the investment, it will pay itself off ten-fold, especially if it's done right (ie. not Edmonton?). And on a similar note, elevated tracks don't have to be an eyesore - again, if done right, they can look very beautiful.

Public transportation is always a feasible option if done right. The key is, well... doing it right.

[metal_geek]

If they are gonna go through that much trouble to do an awful job making that picture look bad, they may as well go all out. They could put a fiery C-train wreck, after plowing through a bus stop full of children and protitutes.. Maybe the hobo stealing some injured kids lunch money...
________
Cheap herb grinders

[McMack]

With Calgary being so spread out and also having such a huge backlog of LRT construction that needs to be completed, burying lines is really a non-starter. What the city needs to do is take that $100 mil that these groups are demanding and instead use it as a down payment on the SE line.

I just got my property tax bill. It is over $3000. There is really no more money to be raised on the property tax front; I can afford no more money to donate to this cause.

[Claeren]

Calgary property taxes are actually quite low compared to a lot of places, in absolute dollars not to mention as a percentage of property value or as a percentage of average income. Then on top of that the province takes half which further reduces the total money available. Yet people still mindlessly rant against small tax increases just to keep up with inflation....


The bigger issue though is that property taxes are basically the only way the city has, outside of user fees, to raise money. So it should be the province that people are going after to make LRT a big big priority.

Especially now with the core of the provincial conservatives being either farmers or wealthy (non-LRT taking) Calgarians, it really may not be on their radar like it should.


What is funny is that i look at transit as a relatively conservative measure in the future (despite its liberal minded roots). It is one of the most efficient ways there is dollar for dollar to cut emissions, reduce gridlock, maximize transportation spending, enable the poor to get to work on their own ('hand up' not a 'hand out'), allow consumer choice relative to the car/gas and increases porperty values (which in turn should indicate just how valuable it is to people).



The one good thing Calgary did was getting the LRT as built-out as they have with as few dollars allocated by the province as they had. A tunnel up-front would have hamstrung the entire system for its first 20 years, and only now would we be getting out to Brentwood or Anderson (if even that far?). I think everyone would have loved a tunnel but it is just not that simple.

That being said, it is sad that 'route EXTENSIONS' have been confused with 'capacity EXPANSIONS' the last decade. Extending to Crowfoot and Rocky Ridge (the same applies on all routes) has done nothing to address the actual capacity of the line. In fact it actually spreads cars out over more line which would reduce the capacity in any given peak hour. All for what? To help people in Cochrane or Okotoks (who don't pay city taxes) get to work more easily? A few city commuters save 2 kms in their commute, going to Crowfoot instead of Dalhousie or Brentwood which are still before the true downtown bottlenecks?

Stations need 4 (and really 5) car trains and more cars (they have started receiving some) more than they need extensions - and those should be affordable (but less politically flashy) options! And then they need new roots to out beyond the inner-city bottlenecks before they need FAR suburban extensions. Then a tunnel, and only then does it make sense to have all these politically flashy suburban extensions.

Of course I am stuck acknowledging that the NW extentions, for example, have as much to do with piggy-backing on the road expansion of Crowchild as they do a political desire for LRT transit. But it is still frustrating to see the ring road (which is still awesome, but not nearly as important comparatively in my mind) getting so much provincial attention while hundreds of thousands of trips PER DAY on LRT are looked at as some sort of accident!

I wonder what ring road traffic numbers will look like compared to any of the LRT line's traffic numbers?




Claeren.