Arena Negotiation Discussion v2

[Incogneto]

Originally Posted by sleepingmoose

I’m assuming the Saddledome would still be used for the Olympics even if a new rink is built - wouldn’t it still need upgrades?

I don't believe this to be the case. The way I read it is that Curling would be in the Corral, at that point.

[Tyler]

Originally Posted by Incogneto

I don't believe this to be the case. The way I read it is that Curling would be in the Corral, at that point.

Curling will be held at the Fieldhouse I think. That's why they're building an ice plant with it.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Tyler

Curling will be held at the Fieldhouse I think. That's why they're building an ice plant with it.

They don't know where curling will be held. Moran said as much on the radio 40 mins ago.

[DiracSpike]

It'll probably go in the 5000 seat arena nobody in the City needs nor wants.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

The train to downtown Vancouver from the airport is the easiest, fastest and cheapest way to go. Super convenient.

Vancouver =\= Calgary.

You don’t need (or want) a car to visit Vancouver. The train is faster than a car.

You need a car for Calgary (unless only here for a conference...which means work is paying...which means you’re taking a cab, because it’s almost guaranteed to be faster than the train. There is a short window of time where the LRT time might be comparable to a car, assuming your destination is on the blue line (also assuming the line does not require a transfer).

Rail from YYC to Banff including a stop in downtown is a far superior option (also far more expensive, of course).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tyler]

Calgarian's greatly overestimate the need of downtown to airport rail in a city our size.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Vancouver =\= Calgary.

You don’t need (or want) a car to visit Vancouver. The train is faster than a car.

You need a car for Calgary (unless only here for a conference...which means work is paying...which means you’re taking a cab, because it’s almost guaranteed to be faster than the train. There is a short window of time where the LRT time might be comparable to a car, assuming your destination is on the blue line (also assuming the line does not require a transfer).

Rail from YYC to Banff including a stop in downtown is a far superior option (also far more expensive, of course).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You don't need a car for Calgary if you're a tourist, especially for Stampede. And for normal citizens, the cost and time savings of the train would be worth it for me. Calgary has plenty of business flyers who have to leave downtown in a cab or Uber, worry about traffic on the Deerfoot and their flight time, and pay $50 one way. Or else they have to park at the Park and Jet.

You need a car in Vancouver every much as in Calgary, unless you are sticking to downtown, where no one actually lives.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

You need a car in Vancouver every much as in Calgary, unless you are sticking to downtown, where no one actually lives.

Vancouver's transit is light years ahead of Calgary's. And get this, they have transit that still goes after the bars let out! Yeah thats right instead of encouraging drinking and driving you can take a Night Bus home.

Just visited Vancouver and my friend and I were talking about this. He said when he lived in VAN for a few months there was a 3 week period he didn't even use his car.

Calgary is definitely a city where you need a car. I've recently gone car free here after having one for a long time and it only works because I live and work very central and in some ways it doesn't really work very well. I'd be much more comfortable being car free in Vancouver after having lived in both cities.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Vancouver's transit is light years ahead of Calgary's. And get this, they have transit that still goes after the bars let out! Yeah thats right instead of encouraging drinking and driving you can take a Night Bus home.

Just visited Vancouver and my friend and I were talking about this. He said when he lived in VAN for a few months there was a 3 week period he didn't even use his car.

Calgary is definitely a city where you need a car. I've recently gone car free here after having one for a long time and it only works because I live and work very central and in some ways it doesn't really work very well. I'd be much more comfortable being car free in Vancouver after having lived in both cities.

Hence the need for an upgrade.

I haven't tried transit in Vancouver if you live in West Van, North Van, Burnaby, etc, so I don't know how efficient it is to the suburbs.

I have driven there and it's a nightmare.

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Hence the need for an upgrade.

I haven't tried transit in Vancouver if you live in West Van, North Van, Burnaby, etc, so I don't know how efficient it is to the suburbs.

I have driven there and it's a nightmare.

It’s easy to get from central Surrey to downtown Vancouver. Anything east of surrey or south of Richmond is a nightmare though.

[The Boy Wonder]

Calgary can't become a modern city if we don't try to make it one.

Everyone complains that "you need a car in calgary" and while thats true right now for a large number of people in the suburbs, its also due to the lack of any feasible or efficient alternative. If the olympics can get us that alternative built and it's not just more ####ty bike lanes then I bet you we will see more people utilizing transit.

Its chicken and egg and really you can't get people using alternative means of transportation without having them in place.

Would I love a YYC to Banff train? yes, in fact it already exists with rocky mountaineer, but would it be even better if people could take a train all the way from the airport to banff??? imagine the tourism boost to the area that would create...

[Hockey Fan #751]

Originally Posted by The Boy Wonder

Calgary can't become a modern city if we don't try to make it one.

Everyone complains that "you need a car in calgary" and while thats true right now for a large number of people in the suburbs, its also due to the lack of any feasible or efficient alternative. If the olympics can get us that alternative built and it's not just more ####ty bike lanes then I bet you we will see more people utilizing transit.

Its chicken and egg and really you can't get people using alternative means of transportation without having them in place.

Would I love a YYC to Banff train? yes, in fact it already exists with rocky mountaineer, but would it be even better if people could take a train all the way from the airport to banff??? imagine the tourism boost to the area that would create...

But then Banff can't really handle more tourists, can it?

[The Boy Wonder]

Originally Posted by Hockey Fan #751

But then Banff can't really handle more tourists, can it?

Well I mean I certainly avoid it, because I can't park there with all the vehicles and full lots. Other benefit of the olympics would be finally tripling that entire highway which would be awesome for all the people who like to enjoy the mountains.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

You don't need a car for Calgary if you're a tourist, especially for Stampede. And for normal citizens, the cost and time savings of the train would be worth it for me. Calgary has plenty of business flyers who have to leave downtown in a cab or Uber, worry about traffic on the Deerfoot and their flight time, and pay $50 one way. Or else they have to park at the Park and Jet.



You need a car in Vancouver every much as in Calgary, unless you are sticking to downtown, where no one actually lives.

How many people fly into Calgary, stay for 3-7 days of Stampede, and fly back out?

Not many. Almost everyone visits Banff...many visit Jasper and then out of Edmonton or through to Vancouver and out from there...most likely in a rental car. Airport LRT alone does not put a dent into the equation.

Flying for business: google maps tells you: 1 hour from DT to airport in a cab at rush hour, or, 49 mins including 2 block walk to LRT station. I only carry a small rolling tote, but I’m still taking the cab 10/10 times. If I’m footing the bill myself and I’m alone and it’s summer, I might take the train.


I think around a million people live in or within a 5 min walk of a bridge to island...(total guess, but tons of people live in downtown). Parking is a nightmare, transit/walking are a breeze. That statement is true for several sq kms in Vancouver, and maybe 1 sq km in Calgary (maybe geographical size isn’t the right metric...it’s true for hundreds of hotels and attractions in YVR, but only a dozen in YYC)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

How many people fly into Calgary, stay for 3-7 days of Stampede, and fly back out?

Not many. Almost everyone visits Banff...many visit Jasper and then out of Edmonton or through to Vancouver and out from there...most likely in a rental car. Airport LRT alone does not put a dent into the equation.

Flying for business: google maps tells you: 1 hour from DT to airport in a cab at rush hour, or, 49 mins including 2 block walk to LRT station. I only carry a small rolling tote, but I’m still taking the cab 10/10 times. If I’m footing the bill myself and I’m alone and it’s summer, I might take the train.


I think around a million people live in or within a 5 min walk of a bridge to island...(total guess, but tons of people live in downtown). Parking is a nightmare, transit/walking are a breeze. That statement is true for several sq kms in Vancouver, and maybe 1 sq km in Calgary (maybe geographical size isn’t the right metric...it’s true for hundreds of hotels and attractions in YVR, but only a dozen in YYC)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My former thesis supervisor and program director of Urban and Regional Planning, David Gordon, has done a crapload of work breaking down the data that is a pretty decent illustration of places in cities one can (and does) reasonably exist without car dependency.

Here is the picture of Calgary and Vancouver (not the same scale of the image). He suggests the difference in the "active core" whereby a lot of people walk and take transit and that car-dependent lifestyles are avoidable. There is certainly a bigger area in Vancouver, but not way, way bigger as a proportion of the metro region. We are however, way, way better than Vancouver was when it was our size in the late 80s or early 90s. Continued densification, transit system expansion (Green line and MAX BRT), pedestrian and cycling upgrades will catch us up in time.

Note - he was missing the WLRT in his image

[Cambardi]

Originally Posted by Tyler

Calgarian's greatly overestimate the need of downtown to airport rail in a city our size.

That’s a very “matter of fact quote”. At what size of a city does it become valuable? Is it based on population or urban sprawl? I’d suggest that it was probably prudent for Calgary to have put our city’s rail system below ground. You build for the future and not the current state.

[krazycanuck]

Originally Posted by Cambardi

I’d suggest that it was probably prudent for Calgary to have put our city’s rail system below ground. You build for the future and not the current state.

I disagree. Look at Edmonton’s LRT System. Built it primarily underground and that extra cost didn’t allow them to build out. For years the system was basically 10 stations. Even today it’s only 18 stations in the whole system.

Calgary is overdue to bury one of the lines under 8th avenue, but I don’t think it was the wrong decision for early 80s Calgary yo built at grade through downtown.

[Barnet Flame]

Originally Posted by Hockey Fan #751

But then Banff can't really handle more tourists, can it?

No.

It can’t really handle more vehicles.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Bunk

My former thesis supervisor and program director of Urban and Regional Planning, David Gordon, has done a crapload of work breaking down the data that is a pretty decent illustration of places in cities one can (and does) reasonably exist without car dependency.



Here is the picture of Calgary and Vancouver (not the same scale of the image). He suggests the difference in the "active core" whereby a lot of people walk and take transit and that car-dependent lifestyles are avoidable. There is certainly a bigger area in Vancouver, but not way, way bigger as a proportion of the metro region. We are however, way, way better than Vancouver was when it was our size in the late 80s or early 90s. Continued densification, transit system expansion (Green line and MAX BRT), pedestrian and cycling upgrades will catch us up in time.



Note - he was missing the WLRT in his image

It’s a really interesting topic - I’m an advocate of driving less and not necessarily owning a car. I’m sure there’s a good vent diagram to be made of ‘needing’ a car vs. ‘wanting’ a car vs. ‘Not wanting’ (parking, $$, etc). The trade offs are unique to each individual situation (you can live somewhere where a car is completely unnecessary for almost everything, but if you happen to work somewhere else that is difficult to reach without a car, you’re still hooped).

As for the discussion of airport LRT, I still think the biggest benefit will be to the many employees at the airport. Usage by average travellers (be it Calgarians or otherwise) will not add much convenience for very many and therefore will not be used a ton (possibly leading to low frequency of trains, exacerbating inconvenience)

A question I’ve asked many times but never found an answer for: where would the airport station be? Armchair QB using google maps, I don’t see an easy way to get it close to the terminal(s) - anything more than a 5 minute indoor walk to get to the auto drop-off/pick-up areas would be another big negative...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Maritime Q-Scout]

I'm not a Calgarian but here are my two cents on airport LRT.

1. You can't say you want to be a world class city but not build the infrastructure for one. Look at Halifax. They want to be world class (rightfully so) but don't want to invest in transportation infrastructure. The city needs an LRT but the closest to rail transport they've come to is a proposal to use the old freight rail lines (because everyone lives by freight rail tracks). If you're going to do it, don't cheap out.

2. Airports are vital to economic success. To make them more accessible is a good thing. Parking at the airport sucks. Doesn't matter which airport. I don't want to get off a plane at 11:30pm or 2:00am ar YQY and drive home. I don't want to have to dig my car out from 3 feet of snow at YHZ (I've done it, I'm still angry and hold a grudge Quality Inn Halifax Airport), and I don't want to get into a cab in an unknown city, paying a premium because I'm at the airport (every airport on earth). I also don't like to bum rides to the airport (but totally do). LRT makes life so much easier and smoother. I adore the UP in Toronto (it's not light rail but same principle).

3. Sure LRT to the airport helps tourists and business travelers. But it really helps locals. It makes better use of the airport for you fine folks. You'd likely get to the airport a bit earlier, meaning an extra coffee or beer at the airport before you depart which is a good thing.

If you want my two cents (which obviously you do, because no one asked me) if you want to be world class build for the future not today. You don't build a hockey team saying "why sign a superstar if we are middle of the road today?" You sign a superstar to make you a contender in June.