I work for Mayor Nenshi, ask me anything!

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by kermitology

Why did council vote to allow developers to subsidize ASP applications, especially for the SE, and not determine that this is a conflict of interest? Developers paying for the resources to review and approve their plans? Come on.

Also, why does transit infrastructure suck so much for the inner city? I had a Route 17 go out of service at 5:50 on Thursday while still in downtown with no replacement. Transit is such a bloody mess.

Developers currently pay for Outline Plans, Development Permits, Building Permits, etc. Planning and Development is primarily self-sustained from fees. Council decided to allow them to pay for ASPs too because they were willing to. City still hires the staff, executes and approves the plan, so it won't really be any different from today, but taxpayers won't be footing the bill. ASPs are also not anymore going to be the "gateway" to open of land for new development as they have up until now. The Growth Management Framework's prioritization criteria will be the new mechanism.

What developer-funded ASPs will do is free up more resources to try and catch up with the massive backlog of ARP work that is needed in inner city communities.

Transit of course is a big priority for the Mayor - have a read through the RouteAhead Plan - as it's implemenented everyone will have much, much better transit service, including the inner city.

www.routeahead.ca

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Addick

Considering that the CTrain is basically a commuter rail system focused on getting people from the suburbs into the core and vice versa, yes the City can justify those prices.

Yes, although it does serve much more "reverse commute" trips (25%) and non-peak trips than it ever has.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Clarkey

Why is the city implementing this same 1960's policy in the suburban outreaches in 2013? Don't you agree that it makes sense to provide an adequate supply of accessible parking in the burbs so that chimps like me only drive 5 minutes and jump on public transit vs. driving closer in or even biting the bullet and parking downtown?

I get that the city wants to squeeze people into taking the feeder buses to the ctrain stations but the reality is that the bulk of the morning commuters will never bother with the buses. It's an extra 15-30 minutes each way, that's 30-60 minutes of family or leisure time lost.

I think most would agree that if you provide adequate parking on the perimeter the rest of the city's infrastructure will benefit. It is myopic to look at each parking lot's operating costs in isolation. The city should be overbuilding suburb parking lot infrastructure to make huge gains in the core and outer core's fluidity. This is an opportunity that is hampered by the 'cars are bad' perception held by so many in planning and policy roles. Cars are actually an excellent compliment to the city's transportation strategy if leveraged properly and used sparingly (2-5 minute commutes to the train hubs).

I agree - that's why the outermost LRT stations generally have the most parking. But how much is enough? There's only so much land available. If you start to move into structured parking to accommodate more cars it begins to cost about $40,000-$50,000 in capital costs per stall to construct that parking. Operating costs are also high.

The real solution on the edge is to begin designing our newest suburbs such that walking or taking the bus to the station is actually the most convenient and cheapest option. That means things like clustering density near the station, and building road networks that are not a labyrinth of windy roads, dead ends and cul-de-sacs. That's happened in the first post- Plan-It community designs such as Keystone in the far-north. No more cul-de-sacs in that community and a basic grid pattern of roads that will make transit far more efficient.

[Kybosh]

I drive to the core because I need a vehicle to get around to client sites, but the BRT (which has a stop almost right in front of my house) drives me nuts. When I do take it, I often see about 4-5 full buses blow right by us before one stops which still has space.

I also do have a problem with the parking rates downtown as well. The cost is astronomically high. Every 3 months or so, my parking rate goes up (and I park in a cheap ass, fringe spot). It has more than doubled in cost over 1.5 years.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by TurnedTheCorner

Table 5 is right on the money. CT and the parking authority never really try to improve things, they just strive to be the lesser of two evils.

That's not true, at least not anymore.

Since the new General Manager of the Calgary Parking Authority took over about 18 months ago, things are far, far more customer-centred. They've implemented a bunch of new good customer programs like $5 fridays ($5 flat rate after 11am Friday), ParkAid, Extend Your Stay (grace period overnight on weekends to reduce drunk driving) etc.

They're also examining cheaper flat rates for lunch hours in the core, and moving forward with the construction (finally) of some more structured parking lots downtown (next one will be near the new Central Library).

As for Transit, I think RouteAhead will be a big turning point for that service. I think in the past they viewed themselves as a no-frills, very basic service, but this is definitely changing. They've already made a lot of strides in better communicating with riders (for instance their use of their Twitter account has been really positive) and other changes.

A big focus of the RouteAhead is customer experience, not just an expanded network. Take a look at the extensive customer experience section of the plan.

http://www.routeahead.ca/wp-content/...-Section-3.pdf

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by GGG

I think one thing that Calgary could do is tax private parking lots more. The restricted supply is what makes them valuable, this supply is effectively limited by our road capacity and policy both things that the cities control. Therefore the city should be making the profit of the parking resource rather than a private company who owns valuable land. So the city should tax parking excessively say 50% of the value of the spot.

Essentially this is a user fee for using roads when they are busiest. This money can then be allocated to other forms of transit which don't intensify road use. Some sort of density based pricing of resources should be applied to subsidize transit.

Would encourage redevelopment of surface parking lots quicker too.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Kybosh

I drive to the core because I need a vehicle to get around to client sites, but the BRT (which has a stop almost right in front of my house) drives me nuts. When I do take it, I often see about 4-5 full buses blow right by us before one stops which still has space.

I also do have a problem with the parking rates downtown as well. The cost is astronomically high. Every 3 months or so, my parking rate goes up (and I park in a cheap ass, fringe spot). It has more than doubled in cost over 1.5 years.

I'm guessing North Central Calgary? Good argument for why an LRT is needed - expand capacity. Buses have relatively limited capacity - so do the streets that are trying to carry all these buses.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Wormius

I think if inner city or downtown living were more affordable some traffic issues would be resolved. If you want to reduce traffic and parking issues, how about encouraging the building of 3 bedroom condominiums around downtown that are viable options for families to be able to live and work downtown.

There's absolutely nothing stopping developers from building 3 bedroom units as part of any development. What they tell you is that no one buys them. If the demand was there, they would build them.

I happen to live in one of the few 3 bedrrom condos near downtown. It's fantastic - and will allow me to live in a very urban community for several more years (probably until a second child is a couple years old). I do wish more were available near the core.

[surferguy]

Originally Posted by surferguy

How do we go about getting a once a week food truck convention in the belt line on say Wednesday nights? I've talked to food truck owners and they stated the city places limitations on such things.

I feel that it would greatly add to the vibrancy of the streets. Every Wednesday all year, my suggestion Rouleauville Square on 17th ave and 1st.

Was hoping to get my question answered, here it is again.

[Kybosh]

Originally Posted by Bunk

I'm guessing North Central Calgary? Good argument for why an LRT is needed - expand capacity. Buses have relatively limited capacity - so do the streets that are trying to carry all these buses.

Bingo. I'm hoping for the LRT to come up at some point, but I believe I'll be moving closer to the core before that happens.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by surferguy

Was hoping to get my question answered, here it is again.

I don't think there are any rules in the Food Truck guidelines that would stop operaters from gathering in a location like Rouleauville Square. It's outside the 17th Ave BRZ, which has restrictions (maybe they think it's within that zone - which ends at 2nd St). There are some clustering limitations at some locations within the core, but this location I don't think would apply. It falls within the Victoria Park BRZ so some consultation might need to be done with them, but they are a very pro-food-truck BRZ.

Here's the food truck guidlines.

http://www.calgary.ca/PDA/DBA/Docume...-phase-III.pdf

[surferguy]

thanks Bunk!

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Kybosh

Bingo. I'm hoping for the LRT to come up at some point, but I believe I'll be moving closer to the core before that happens.

The most heavily used bus corridor in the city - by a significant margin. LRT will be needed sooner rather than later to accommodate the huge demand there. If the City's able to secure a long term funding agreement with the Province this year in its discussions, hopefully that will allow us to move forward with the Green Line (North Central to South East line) soon! No higher transportation priority.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Bunk

Wait a sec - but where are we talking about? Parking is only expensive in the downtown core - during the day, during the week.

So basically parking is high only during the times and days when people actually need to do stuff. Excellent.

My main contention is not that prices are high (I can understand the reasoning), it's that they are ridiculously high considering the circumstances and alternatives. Even during peak times, how can you really justify parking in Calgary costing more than San Francisco, Boston or Toronto, and barely behind NY? Cities that are more densely populated, and have more forces working to raise prices. A lot of those place are forced up by a combination of scarcity, geographic barriers and economic forces. Calgary's high prices seem much more self-imposed by the city (it's still easy to find parking here, as long as you are willing to pay). I don't necessarily disagree with the philosophy, I just think they went a too ape####, too fast. What happens when we actually reach the density of those cities? Are we going to make London look cheap?

The problem we have with transit is that other kinds of trips - non-peak times, points from outside the core to other places outside the core.

Yeah, thats definitely a big issue. The Train/Bus network is relatively good if you work downtown and live in the suburbs. But if you live in the inner city, and have to do 3 separate things in the downtown area and need to hop around, things do still blow. I often have to run errands around the inner city, and while I prefer to walk, most of the time it's just not efficient if you have multiple destinations to hit, so you pretty much have to drive.

I'm also looking forward to the day when the city starts rewarding people who live in the inner city a little more. I know it always comes down to money, but at some point, I'd love for neighborhoods to get a more reasonable share of what they put in to the coffers (kind of like how Albertans always say they put in more than they get back nationally). If we're paying higher property taxes (mine went up by about 20%), I'd like to think it's not just going towards placating some schmuck in Silverado who want his street cleared of snow every 30 minutes. Mo bike paths, mo street cars, mo frequent busses!

[Bunk]

^ Yep, that's why improving transit, improving walkability and cycleability are such big priorities. Things that will also happen to benefit the inner city a lot.

There are in fact significant geographic and economic factors that have led to high parking prices. Calgary does have one of the most concentrated workforces of any city - the energy sector likes to cluster like no other. As a result Calgary's downtown core is just as dense as the cities you list. Even with the restricted parking policy, if we had half the office space we did downtown, parking would be much less expensive. In addition, there are limited roadway links in and out of the core, because of the intact communities around it as well as the river.

Even if we did build way, way more parking, we would have to expand our road capacity to actually bring more people in and out of the core. That would involve bulldozing existing inner city communities. Lots of US cities went that route, but I don't think that results in a better city. At one point, where you live was proposed to be an elevated expressway in Calgary called the "south sowntown by-pass". Other expressways like the "downtown penetrator" along the Bow River were also proposed. Instead, the City chose the alternative which was to get more people (in a spread out city) to take transit - one of the only ways to do this is to restrict parking.

[Thor]

So you are declining to comment on Reykjavik as a sister city, does this mean you are by your silence declaring war?

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by Bunk

Developers currently pay for Outline Plans, Development Permits, Building Permits, etc. Planning and Development is primarily self-sustained from fees. Council decided to allow them to pay for ASPs too because they were willing to. City still hires the staff, executes and approves the plan, so it won't really be any different from today, but taxpayers won't be footing the bill. ASPs are also not anymore going to be the "gateway" to open of land for new development as they have up until now. The Growth Management Framework's prioritization criteria will be the new mechanism.

What developer-funded ASPs will do is free up more resources to try and catch up with the massive backlog of ARP work that is needed in inner city communities.

Transit of course is a big priority for the Mayor - have a read through the RouteAhead Plan - as it's implemenented everyone will have much, much better transit service, including the inner city.

www.routeahead.ca

I'll believe it when I see it. This city is always trying to plan for the next 30 years even though we have no idea what the city needs in the next 5 years. Planners already have a hard enough time standing up to developers, and most of those funds are related to application fees are they not?

My worry is that the developers will use this as a hook to steamroll proper planning and city design. The existing planners definitely see it that way.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Thor

So you are declining to comment on Reykjavik as a sister city, does this mean you are by your silence declaring war?

I think it means the war thing. Your move

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by Thor

So you are declining to comment on Reykjavik as a sister city, does this mean you are by your silence declaring war?

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

I think it means the war thing. Your move

"War were declared."

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by kermitology

I'll believe it when I see it. This city is always trying to plan for the next 30 years even though we have no idea what the city needs in the next 5 years. Planners already have a hard enough time standing up to developers, and most of those funds are related to application fees are they not?

My worry is that the developers will use this as a hook to steamroll proper planning and city design. The existing planners definitely see it that way.

Fair enough, when the idea came forward for developer-funded ASPs, there was a lot of concern about the implications.

The planning system is undergoing a complete overhaul right now. So we have to see this change in the context of what will be, not the way things have been done in the past. If nothing in our planning system changed - yes this could be a problematic shift in policy.

Transforming Planning is probably the single biggest change happening at the City right now - and one of the Mayor's top 3 priorities. We've been doing a lot of work through ImagineCalgary talking about why we needed to grow differently. Plan It was about what our city should look like. Growth Management was about when and where we should grow. Transforming Planning is the how. How do our processes, our regulations, our structure, our culture function to ensure we get the outcomes we're looking for.

http://www.calgary.ca/PDA/Pages/Tran...0Planning.aspx

The hope is that it will be a system that functions much better for everyone - particularly the planning staff at the City, who currently work in a pretty stifling and adversarial system. Just look at the term you used - "standing up to developers". That's not what it should be about -an us vs. them mentality. It needs to become far more collaborative and productive. The system evolved to the way it is now for a lot of different and valid reasons, but now's the time to step back and rethink it given our new goals as a city. The people who work in the planning department are great - but we need to re-invent the system they work in - and that's happening right now.