PDA

You are viewing a trimmed-down version of the SkyscraperPage.com discussion forum.  For the full version follow the link below.

View Full Version : Calgary Public Transit II



Pages : 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90

frinkprof
Mar 19, 2010, 2:13 AM
Nevermind.

mersar
Mar 19, 2010, 2:33 AM
Well the one rumor over on cptdb from someone from CT is that it may be closed for a bit this summer. I guess a lot of it will depend on the scope of what needs to be done to the platform, the one advantage most of the stations outside the core have is that they've weathered far better compared to the ones downtown, especially the newer ones (even going back as far the original NE line stations), and won't need as drastic of work as tearing it all down.

I'd love to go to the open house that night but its the night prior to the launch of the new faculty at the U of C so I'll be stuck on campus all night doing the last minute work on the new web site. So hopefully someone else can make it there.

frinkprof
Mar 19, 2010, 2:37 AM
Nevermind.

frinkprof
Mar 19, 2010, 3:04 AM
Nevermind.

fusili
Mar 19, 2010, 5:00 AM
I agree with Ferreth. Why are we extending the system when it is at capacity? It seems counter-intuitive to me. By building Tuscany and Saddleridge, you are just pushing out further the stations where you cannot get on. Why live in Bridgeland if the train is full when it gets there? When will it be Marlborough, or even Brentwood, where the train is full as it arrives. Once the LRT started to hit capacity, they should have stopped all plans for expansion, worked on new lines and upgrading to 4 car trains. Otherwise you just end up displacing riders, which is what I believe Tuscany and Saddleridge will do.

Ferreth
Mar 19, 2010, 5:07 AM
Well just let me disagree with your opinion for a bit ;)

The NW line doesn't really encourage any more sprawl, as there's really no where left to sprawl that wouldn't be developed anyways (there won't be another subdivision build anywhere west of Sarcee for many many years, Rocky Ridge/Royal Oak and Tuscany are all bounded by what will be an impenetrable (to developers) sea of acreages that already exist. Even the current stations in the NE aren't exactly encouraging more development, they're going into already developed areas. If they were to start pushing the line past Saddle Ridge then I would buy into the argument for that area. And in the south most of the area surrounding the south line was already well underway when the extension was built. While some of the new communities further south of the terminus do contribute some ridership, the LRT alone has little influence on their development (I've never seen anyone say they moved to Silverado due to the proximity of the LRT, for that matter the two people I know who live in Silverado drive to downtown daily)

And in terms of suggesting the other extensions should be on a 20 year drawing board, really we're at that point. The extension to Crowfoot according to the city's original plans should have been built in 1982. Not 2009. If it had gone through back in the 80's then it would be more akin to if they decided to start building past Saddle Ridge, but building the line past there to the middle of three established communities with a total population of nearly 5% of the city, isn't encouraging anything. Its reacting to something.

The SE LRT will likely have an initial terminus around Quarry Park from the various plans and discussions people have had at events with the city, mainly as thats the likely minimum distance from downtown as its the only real place they could build the maintenance facilities for the line. There will be a decent amount of TOD like development there, the current component thats been built is essentially offices and retail, the southern half of the project is where the residential components will be and I wouldn't be too surprised to see at least some of those in the next couple years now that the rest is there and open. In some ways QP has actually turned into what was originally envisioned for Crowfoot with a mass of both jobs and retail, and will surpass it when the residential starts.

I agree that the NW isn't likely to sprawl so fast anymore due to the acreage road bumps. I'd say close LRT is going to encourage development along the 1A, outside of the current acreage belt, which certainly does not extend to Cochrane right now. Even now, people in Cochrane take advantage of the LRT to go downtown; only going to be more so if the LRT is further out.

As far as the NE goes, yes, LRT is going into developed (mostly) areas now. I'm arguing that the areas within 5 minutes drive to the LRT are going to develop faster due to LRT being there, with a lesser effect extending out to 10 minutes. That's a lot of territory. I did a quick check with Google Maps, a 5 minute drive right now from McKnight - Westwinds gets you to the middle of Saddletown circle, couple of more minutes to the furthest edge of town. Once the LRT extends out to Saddletown circle, most of the remaining greenfield inside the ring road will be within 10 minutes drive of the LRT.

When I say 20 year drawing board, I'm thinking of the plans as of 2005ish. I'm still peeved Bronco decided to move up the current NE / NW extensions as part of his election campaign when his own planners were thinking 10-15 (which is reasonable, I just extend it out a bit more). I think it would've mean the current extensions under construction would've been started around 2015-2020. It's all good stuff, but you always have to balance that with what else we could have been building.

I'm somewhat encouraged by what you have to say about Quarry Park. I've been unclear about what they exactly planned for that space. I think the initial terminus of a SE LRT is currently planned for Douglas Glen, where the new Park n Ride is going to be built. It's not the worst location in the world, but not the greatest transit hub in my opinion. Quarry park in contrast could (is?) going to be developed from scratch with a transit node in mind. I suppose you could have both since they will serve different functions.

frinkprof
Mar 19, 2010, 5:30 AM
Nevermind.

Bassic Lab
Mar 19, 2010, 7:49 AM
There is something to be said about establishing use of transit from a communities inception. The complaints against extending the lines to the edge of the city do have some merit but are also problematic. Yes, commuter rail systems do tend to encourage sprawl. They serve riders who own automobiles as a matter of course so the neighbourhoods are autocentric. The people still drive every where, including to the train station, so it doesn't change development patterns. On the other hand, a transit system that functions as a primary mode of transportation does not contribute to sprawl. It instead leads to increased density. The problem is that the C-Train operates as something of a hybrid between the two, especially with some of the massive station gaps existing in the far NW.

Riise
Mar 19, 2010, 12:07 PM
I'm going to have to agree with Ferreth for the most part. However, I don't think the expansion of the CTrain is inducing sprawl but is rather enabling it. The CTrain is helping urban sprawl, which is an unsustainable form of urban development, sustain itself in the short-term. Instead of being used as a tool that can help channel and shape development/growth into sustainable patterns, it is helping to make sprawl slightly more feasible.

Developers are not building suburbia around CTrain stations but they are benefiting from their proximity to them as the CTrain helps shorten the commute. It basically increases the efficiency of a bedroom suburb.

freeweed
Mar 19, 2010, 2:05 PM
Just to be the fly in the ointment, is there any infrastructure development that you guys DON'T think encourages sprawl?

Roads? Sprawl. Transit? Sprawl. New housing? Sprawl.

I seriously think many of you confuse "growth" with "sprawl" most of the time.

Just look at where Calgary is acgtually going to grow the most in the next 20 years. Most new suburban development that I see is very far from the LRT. North of the city (Symons Valley/"Hills" area), the eventual growth out towards Chestermere, all the stuff down Hwy 2...

Yes, if we want to be pedantic, LRT can enable sprawl. So can electricity, telecommunications, and fuel efficient/electric cars. ANYTHING can "enable" sprawl if you look at things that way. :rolleyes:

MalcolmTucker
Mar 19, 2010, 2:19 PM
^ Same with sustainability. Hybrid cars since they enable people to drive further on less gas are the worst enablers of sprawl. Conversely, Hummers encourage urban form :p

Riise
Mar 19, 2010, 2:59 PM
Yes, if we want to be pedantic, LRT can enable sprawl. So can electricity, telecommunications, and fuel efficient/electric cars. ANYTHING can "enable" sprawl if you look at things that way. :rolleyes:

I don't think it is a matter of being pedantic but rather cautious. Like you pointed out, almost anything could be used for good or evil. As such, the CTrain could be used as a tool to help curb sprawl or enable it. What some people on this forum would like to see are more transit developments/projects that help channel growth more intelligently, i.e. tram lines in the inner-city and crosstown rapid transit.

I seriously think many of you confuse "growth" with "sprawl" most of the time.

Please explain.

Surrealplaces
Mar 19, 2010, 3:17 PM
A shot taken by me, of the new LRT platform at TD Centre. (click on image for large)

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2750/4445753162_0650f03ede_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/kevincappis/4445753162/sizes/o/)

mooky
Mar 19, 2010, 3:28 PM
I love these new platforms, they sure make the block feel more pedestrian friendly. 3rd ties in awesomely with the mall. :tup:

It's a shame that 7th in general isn't a more pedestrian friendly mall with shops and services, though i won't say it hasn't improved in the past few years. And it will get even better if they ever get that strip of old buildings by The Bay going with renovations. Are they still working on getting zoning for the automatic jukebox-style parkade the developer wanted or what?

fusili
Mar 19, 2010, 5:17 PM
Transit in the existing inner city doesn't encourage sprawl. A streetcar to Marda Loop, or up Centre Street or Edmonton Trail wouldn't encourage sprawl, it would encourage densification of the inner city. The West LRT, up until about 45th street station wouldn't encourage sprawl either.

And I don't think we confuse "growth" and "sprawl" at all. I think we have a fairly good understanding that "sprawl" is a type of growth, characterized by low-density, single use, automobile dependence land use patterns, as opposed to more "urban" growth, which would constitute higher-density, mixed use and transit-supportive land use patterns. My issue with the LRT extensions is that they do nothing to promote the latter and do everything to enable the former.

Just to be the fly in the ointment, is there any infrastructure development that you guys DON'T think encourages sprawl?

Roads? Sprawl. Transit? Sprawl. New housing? Sprawl.

I seriously think many of you confuse "growth" with "sprawl" most of the time.

Just look at where Calgary is acgtually going to grow the most in the next 20 years. Most new suburban development that I see is very far from the LRT. North of the city (Symons Valley/"Hills" area), the eventual growth out towards Chestermere, all the stuff down Hwy 2...

Yes, if we want to be pedantic, LRT can enable sprawl. So can electricity, telecommunications, and fuel efficient/electric cars. ANYTHING can "enable" sprawl if you look at things that way. :rolleyes:

Dado
Mar 19, 2010, 10:18 PM
Please explain.

I remember one planner or official from the City of Calgary did a presentation in which the claim was made that "Calgary doesn't sprawl".

It sounds preposterous at first but he made the point that by many of the usual definitions what Calgary was doing was growing, not sprawling.

New residential development wasn't unplanned and unserviced, it didn't escape development charges, it didn't "leap frog" (apparently this is evil), it was no longer low-density, etc.


To the extent that Calgary's growth is sprawly, it's more the commercial and even the schools than it is the residential development that is responsible. The difference between Garrison Woods and many new subdivisions can be little more than the lack of a commercial mainstreet in the latter.

Which is not to say that all new residential development is great. Dwelling design often leaves little to be desired and, frankly, I don't see the point of building single detached houses on 25' lots. A bunch of them all together just look stupid; they'd look far better as taller townhouses on the same sized lots. The exact same density (as measured in units) can look more or less sprawly just depending on what the housing looks like.


One definitely does need to define sprawl and how it differs from growth. I've heard people in exurban subdivisions complain about the "sprawl" of a city and what they mean is the growth of tightly-packed houses coming towards them, even though by any rational measure they themselves are far more sprawly than the approaching tide of small houses on the horizon. To them, if those little houses were acreages they might not even think of it as sprawl.

Riise
Mar 19, 2010, 10:49 PM
I remember one planner or official from the City of Calgary did a presentation in which the claim was made that "Calgary doesn't sprawl".

[...]

One definitely does need to define sprawl and how it differs from growth.

Yup, I remember Bronconnier saying that a few years ago. Technically, it would be correct but it is a cop-out that fails to address the real problem a lot of people are trying to point out; unsustainable growth/development. I think sprawl has become synonymous with unsustainable development/growth for a lot of people, including academics and theorists. We're probably getting OT here, but the other week I was reading an article that suggested growth is inherently unsustainable and we should be attempting to just develop, which is a human right.

fusili
Mar 19, 2010, 10:52 PM
I remember one planner or official from the City of Calgary did a presentation in which the claim was made that "Calgary doesn't sprawl".

It sounds preposterous at first but he made the point that by many of the usual definitions what Calgary was doing was growing, not sprawling.


This is just the City of Calgary playing semantics to try and seem like they are doing the "right thing." Much like greenwashing. But the fact that for decades growth in the inner city of Calgary was in the negative percentages, shows that Calgary wasn't just growing, it was growing in a very particular way. A way I would describe as sprawl.

And Calgary was leapfrogging, as long as you conceive of things like Airdrie, Okotoks and Cochrane as part of the metro area. That is definitely leapfrogging. Leap frogging hardly ever occurs in a unitary municipal area, because the municipality would rather contiguous development occur in order to make efficient use of resources. Rather, it happens a lot in multi-jurisdictional metropolitan areas as the different jurisdictions compete for tax dollars, especially for commercial development (cheap to service and brings in lots of tax revenue).

So, be careful how people define issues with regard to jurisdictions and defined areas. Which is why I hate it when people from Toronto say things like "Toronto isn't sprawling." Toronto may not be sprawling, but when you look at the GTA, that place is a massive sprawling mess. It would be like me saying "Calgary Centre City isn't sprawling." Of course it isn't, it's just all the stuff around it that is. Be careful how people frame arguments and what they present as facts.

I will say it again, and again and again, growth does not mean sprawl. Calgary grew a tremendous amount in the last 10 years, and all of that growth was in new suburban areas. The inner city lost population. That, in anybodies books, is sprawl. Densifying the existing city, building TODs and places like the East Village, while rapidly increasing population in places like the Beltline, that constitutes growth without sprawl. And for decades, and even recently, this City has been pretty hostile to inner city development. The City of Calgary does one thing well, and that is greenfield development. When it comes to anything else, they are completely lost.

Sorry for the rant.

Ferreth
Mar 20, 2010, 3:39 AM
Sprawl in my books is simply inefficient growth, where population growth happens using far more land than necessary. If we had a top-notch transit system in the inner city such that you don't need a car (gasp!) people might be more willing to try the apartment lifestyle rather than the suburban lifestyle. I'm thinking a nice under half hour transit ride to work, and a 10 minute walk to the local market, nip at the local pub, restaurant, park. I'm a realist: in Calgary I don't expect many people to give up their cars, but if the typical couple went from cars to car it would make a big difference.

A intensified core with good transit will come naturally over time. Traffic will only get worse no matter how many lanes we add to the Deerfoot - multiplied by further and further commutes from new 'burbs. People will eventually draw a line at 1, 1.5, 2 hour commutes and give up the back yard for a couple of hours back in their day not sitting in a car. I'd rather see the city plan for it and encourage it so the traffic doesn't get so bad.

freeweed
Mar 20, 2010, 4:00 AM
And Calgary was leapfrogging, as long as you conceive of things like Airdrie, Okotoks and Cochrane as part of the metro area. That is definitely leapfrogging. Leap frogging hardly ever occurs in a unitary municipal area, because the municipality would rather contiguous development occur in order to make efficient use of resources. Rather, it happens a lot in multi-jurisdictional metropolitan areas as the different jurisdictions compete for tax dollars, especially for commercial development (cheap to service and brings in lots of tax revenue).

So, be careful how people define issues with regard to jurisdictions and defined areas. Which is why I hate it when people from Toronto say things like "Toronto isn't sprawling." Toronto may not be sprawling, but when you look at the GTA, that place is a massive sprawling mess. It would be like me saying "Calgary Centre City isn't sprawling." Of course it isn't, it's just all the stuff around it that is. Be careful how people frame arguments and what they present as facts.

And this is exactly why I said that the LRT in Calgary is not really contributing to sprawl. It's contributing to outwards GROWTH and there's a huge difference. The recent LRT extensions are not out to Airdrie, or Okotoks, or Cochrane, or Chestermere, or any of the bedroom communities that are truly sprawl. Every new LRT station is built into some of the densest communities in Calgary (short of the Beltline).

When you guys blindly attack any new suburban community as sprawl, and claim that every service provided to that community just encourages/enables sprawl, that's what I mean when I say you don't really distinguish between growth and sprawl.

There's a metric assload of difference between the GTA and Calgary growing radially out by 1km or so.

Do these new communities primarily consist of people who drive cars? Yes, just like EVERY OTHER NEIGHBOURHOOD IN CALGARY (go ahead, find me a large area of Calgary where car owners are in the minority). Are these new communities more car-dependent than inner city neighbourhoods? Yes, just like every single new community in the western world. The further out you go from things, the more likely people need a car to get to things.

When someone makes commuter rail to Cochrane, THAT is most definitely encouraging sprawl. Extending the LRT another km along an existing line into an even denser community encourages more LRT use, and nothing more. On that note, I will somewhat agree with the folks who say we should have gone 4 car first - when Tuscany station opens, the NW train is going to be packed in the mornings by the time it hits Dalhousie.

freeweed
Mar 20, 2010, 4:04 AM
Sprawl in my books is simply inefficient growth, where population growth happens using far more land than necessary. If we had a top-notch transit system in the inner city such that you don't need a car (gasp!) people might be more willing to try the apartment lifestyle rather than the suburban lifestyle. I'm thinking a nice under half hour transit ride to work, and a 10 minute walk to the local market, nip at the local pub, restaurant, park.

Irony: out at the extreme edge of the city, once the new Tuscany station is built, I'll be under a half hour transit ride to my work downtown, and I'm already a 10 minute walk to the local market (if Sobey's counts), pub, restaurants, and several parks.

Most of the inner city should already be like this though, so I may have read your comment wrong.

SmokWawelski
Mar 20, 2010, 4:39 AM
Hey Freeweed, I'm with you on this one :) :)

It's growth and not sprawl when we talk about the NW end of the city. A lot of the subdivisions that have been built in recent years have a higher density then the subdivisions of the 60's, 70'sand 80's. Take a look a University Heights and the lots there. I think the lots are 50 or 60 feet wide and well into the 120 or more in length, bungalows..... but because they are only a 15 minute drive from downtown, no one complains about the "sprawl". Yet you take a look at Rocky Ridge, Tuscany or Royal Oak, and you see condo's townhouses and homes blended in between each other but it's farther away and it's "sprawl". I would like to know how many people live per square meter between the older communities and newer, excluding parks, playgrounds and schools.

We want public transit there :):):):)

Oh, and another thing... I work hard for my money, if I could afford to live a walking distance to downtown I would, but since the downtown scene is a 900sqf two bedroom condo at $500,000 plus condo fees, me and my family of four can not afford it.

Ok I'm done my Friday rant :):):)



Just to add to another come

Riise
Mar 20, 2010, 12:22 PM
And this is exactly why I said that the LRT in Calgary is not really contributing to sprawl. It's contributing to outwards GROWTH and there's a huge difference.

While this outwards growth is more efficient than the City's historical suburban development and neighbouring municipalities' current growth patterns, it is still inefficient and not up to an acceptable level*, which is why it is still referred to as sprawl. Since CTrain service to these neighbourhoods marginally increases their efficiency and sustainability but doesn't assist in fixing their inherent design and sustainability problems, it helps enable further sprawl type growth.

*Both in terms of density AND design.


Take a look a University Heights and the lots there. I think the lots are 50 or 60 feet wide and well into the 120 or more in length, bungalows..... but because they are only a 15 minute drive from downtown, no one complains about the "sprawl".

We want public transit there :):):):)


Nobody complains about those areas because although they are some of the worst offenders when it comes to sprawl, they were built a long time ago and you can't change the future by fighting in the past.

We want rapid public transit in the Beltline and along growth corridors like Centre Street and Edmonton Trail.

SmokWawelski
Mar 20, 2010, 11:28 PM
Riise,

I know that we can not turn back time, but we certainly can take old(er) neighbourhoods and redevelop them. I'm just tired that it's always the new "growth" neighbourhoods that get crapped on. While the NIMBY's in the older "sprawlers" bitch and complain about redevelopment. They complain about infills, they complain about apartments being too tall, they complain about a new bus stop in front of their house (keeping the subject on transit :):):) )

Ferreth
Mar 21, 2010, 4:11 AM
Riise,

I know that we can not turn back time, but we certainly can take old(er) neighbourhoods and redevelop them. I'm just tired that it's always the new "growth" neighbourhoods that get crapped on. While the NIMBY's in the older "sprawlers" bitch and complain about redevelopment. They complain about infills, they complain about apartments being too tall, they complain about a new bus stop in front of their house (keeping the subject on transit :):):) )
If the city tried to expropriate an area in an older community to build houses, it would make the "crap" new growth neighborhoods get look like a tea party. Fortunately, we still have some poorly used low density retail/light industrial (that most importantly does not have the vote) for redevelopment. I'd argue that part of the reason the city is building LRT out to the edge of the city along the current corridors is it's cheap per km compared to any new lines, so it looks good for the $ spent. Any new lines are going to face NIMBY issues of varying degrees (more so if we go cheap surface route, less so if we go subway), and the to take full advantage, we are going to want to have high density development along as much of the line as possible, with more NIMBY issues.

Ferreth
Mar 21, 2010, 4:18 AM
Irony: out at the extreme edge of the city, once the new Tuscany station is built, I'll be under a half hour transit ride to my work downtown, and I'm already a 10 minute walk to the local market (if Sobey's counts), pub, restaurants, and several parks.

Most of the inner city should already be like this though, so I may have read your comment wrong.

Yeah, I didn't word that quite right - I was thinking 1/2 transit ride as being 1/2 hour, door to door. Even from Mayland heights, I was looking at close to an hour between walking to the bus, bus ride, walking to the train, train ride, walking to the office. Tuscany seems like one of the better builds in town - smaller retail area in the center that people can walk to.

fusili
Mar 21, 2010, 3:46 PM
Maybe I should have been more clear. I have no problem with extensions to Tuscany and Saddleridge, provided they are completed after 4 car train upgrades, and possibly before the SE LRT to Quarry Park, the West LRT to Westbrook and a North Central LRT to Mcknight or so. I really do believe those extensions are needed, but I feel the priorities are all backwards. We are building a commuter transit system without an inner city system in place. Essentially we are building the complements to a system that doesn't exist. It would be like have commuter rail in NYC without the subway, or the Renfe and FGC in Barcelona without the metro.

And I totally agree about NIMBYs in the inner city. Only a few communities welcome a development, Beltline being the biggest exception. Developers and people at the city are continually surprised when Beltline pushes for more density in projects rather than less and fights for increased height. Other communities, not so much. The 1960s and 1970s suburbs are the worst to blame for sprawl, because they have been so resistant to densification.

In my opinion, new suburban growth in Calgary is doing more or less what it needs to do in terms of density, but definitely not in terms of lot and road structure, as it will be difficult to densify in the future. The real problem, IMHO, is the lack of meaningful infill in many inner city communities.

Aegis
Mar 21, 2010, 7:19 PM
Been skimming over the debate in recent pages.. but what most of the arguments lack is an acknowledgement that we have the benefit of hindsight now.

There was no money in the 1990s for much of anything, let alone LRT expansion.

It's a shame we have to play catch up, but what's the alternative? Many cities have built projects that turned out to be white elephants under the guise of planning for growth.

Take for example, Montreal's airport authority. When Mirabel was planned and built, Montreal was expected to become a major hub because jet aircraft from Europe needed to stop and re-fuel. So, billions of the dollars of debt were incurred to build a new airport to meet the expected demand. Debt that is still outstanding, now.

What looked like logical planning then turned out to be a major mistake because of a failure to anticipate change. (Aircraft being designed with longer range).

A parallel can be found in LRT development/planning. Why would we build out the LRT to sparsely populated areas now, when we don't know what future demand for housing will be in the future? Expanding to Crowfoot in 1982 may have been pre-mature because there wasn't much past Ranchlands at the time. Could have been built in the 1990s, if there had been money.

The most urgent need now is the SE LRT. Building a subway under 8th ave is a complete and unnecessary waste of money. Keep it above ground to save cost.

LFRENCH
Mar 21, 2010, 8:24 PM
Been skimming over the debate in recent pages.. but what most of the arguments lack is an acknowledgement that we have the benefit of hindsight now.

There was no money in the 1990s for much of anything, let alone LRT expansion.

It's a shame we have to play catch up, but what's the alternative? Many cities have built projects that turned out to be white elephants under the guise of planning for growth.

Take for example, Montreal's airport authority. When Mirabel was planned and built, Montreal was expected to become a major hub because jet aircraft from Europe needed to stop and re-fuel. So, billions of the dollars of debt were incurred to build a new airport to meet the expected demand. Debt that is still outstanding, now.

What looked like logical planning then turned out to be a major mistake because of a failure to anticipate change. (Aircraft being designed with longer range).

A parallel can be found in LRT development/planning. Why would we build out the LRT to sparsely populated areas now, when we don't know what future demand for housing will be in the future? Expanding to Crowfoot in 1982 may have been pre-mature because there wasn't much past Ranchlands at the time. Could have been built in the 1990s, if there had been money.

The most urgent need now is the SE LRT. Building a subway under 8th ave is a complete and unnecessary waste of money. Keep it above ground to save cost.

What about Edmonton's LRT, I only lived there briefly but there really didn't seem to be much up near Claireview that was built in the early part of the 1980's :shrug:

Aegis
Mar 21, 2010, 8:33 PM
What about Edmonton's LRT, I only lived there briefly but there really didn't seem to be much up near Claireview that was built in the early part of the 1980's :shrug:

I know nothing about Edmonton's transit system ; I wasn't extending my analysis to all cases of lack of transit expansion in any city, merely pointing out that we have the benefit of hindsight now, and fundamental factors that could influence the decision can change dramatically over time.

DarkKeyo
Mar 21, 2010, 8:53 PM
Building a subway under 8th ave is a complete and unnecessary waste of money. Keep it above ground to save cost.

Stop and think about this for a minute. Think about how many people use the trains downtown at rush hour. The system is at capacity now, and it's only going to grow, especially with the new extensions we are already building (and TOD). Route 201 and 202 will have more riders than the SE LRT, which will be getting a subway itself. If we want to have a chance of keeping up with how many people will use the train, we need 4-car trains, at 2-3 minute headways, on separate lines (which are needed for those headways anyways). Three separate routes downtown, only one of which interacts with traffic, will just be able to keep up with demand.

jeffwhit
Mar 21, 2010, 9:26 PM
The most urgent need now is the SE LRT. Building a subway under 8th ave is a complete and unnecessary waste of money. Keep it above ground to save cost.

Where do yo propose we run these trains? 7th Ave can't accommodate a new line.

srperrycgy
Mar 21, 2010, 10:40 PM
Comparing our successful LRT system to Mirabel Airport is unbelievable. :koko:

Aegis
Mar 21, 2010, 11:18 PM
Where do yo propose we run these trains? 7th Ave can't accommodate a new line.

Make 6th ave an LRT right of way, just like 7th ave.

Aegis
Mar 21, 2010, 11:19 PM
Comparing our successful LRT system to Mirabel Airport is unbelievable. :koko:

Was comparing the planning concepts, not the actual pieces of infrastructure themselves.

srperrycgy
Mar 21, 2010, 11:25 PM
Make 6th ave an LRT right of way, just like 7th ave.

:haha: Seriously? Why 6th and not 8th? As much as I support transit, that would be disastrous.

Aegis
Mar 21, 2010, 11:36 PM
:haha: Seriously? Why 6th and not 8th? As much as I support transit, that would be disastrous.

Why would it be disastrous?

Riise
Mar 21, 2010, 11:43 PM
I'm just tired that it's always the new "growth" neighbourhoods that get crapped on. While the NIMBY's in the older "sprawlers" bitch and complain about redevelopment.

Okay, that's understandable. One of the reasons why critics of sprawl harp on new suburbs and kind of let inner-city NIMBYs off easy is due to the fact that making greenfield growth sustainable is perceived as an easier task than urban regeneration. In other words, it's easier to change what is about to come than what is already there and, as such, the former is where people have chosen to start.


In my opinion, new suburban growth in Calgary is doing more or less what it needs to do in terms of density, but definitely not in terms of lot and road structure...

As weak sustainability is better than no sustainability I have to agree with you that we should extend the LRT after other projects have been completed, however, I have to disagree with you about the density of new suburbs. Although it has been increasing, it still isn't high enough and we need to squeeze out a bit more.


Many cities have built projects that turned out to be white elephants under the guise of planning for growth.

...

What looked like logical planning then turned out to be a major mistake because of a failure to anticipate change. (Aircraft being designed with longer range).

A parallel can be found in LRT development/planning. Why would we build out the LRT to sparsely populated areas now, when we don't know what future demand for housing will be in the future? Expanding to Crowfoot in 1982 may have been pre-mature because there wasn't much past Ranchlands at the time. Could have been built in the 1990s, if there had been money.

I won't lie, it is a bit of a risk. However, I think Mirabel and the CTrain are two vastly different creatures. With the LRT the risk isn't as high and could be mitigated.

srperrycgy
Mar 21, 2010, 11:48 PM
Why would it be disastrous?

An already constrained road network would be even more stressed by removing another E-W road. Just bury it on 8th already. :shrug:

Aegis
Mar 21, 2010, 11:59 PM
An already constrained road network would be even more stressed by removing another E-W road. Just bury it on 8th already. :shrug:

But the same argument could have been made when 7th ave was designated as an ROW. Burying the line under 8th, or building it above ground on 6th, provides the same utility to the end-user, but the above-ground option the cost is reduced. The extra cost of burying (and maintaining) and underground line would be better invested in more LRT expansion elsewhere.. that's all I'm saying.

fusili
Mar 22, 2010, 12:44 AM
But the same argument could have been made when 7th ave was designated as an ROW. Burying the line under 8th, or building it above ground on 6th, provides the same utility to the end-user, but the above-ground option the cost is reduced. The extra cost of burying (and maintaining) and underground line would be better invested in more LRT expansion elsewhere.. that's all I'm saying.

That's if the expansion would actually be achievable considering 7th avenue is at capacity. What's the point of an expansion if we can't run the trains in the downtown? The 8th Avenue subway is not some kind of "oh wouldn't it be nice if people could wait inside for the train" or "oh I hate the noise of the train, let's move it underground" kind of thing. The 8th avenue subway is necessary because without it, we cannot add any more expansion elsewhere. Where will the extra trains go?

shogged
Mar 22, 2010, 1:10 AM
But the same argument could have been made when 7th ave was designated as an ROW. Burying the line under 8th, or building it above ground on 6th, provides the same utility to the end-user, but the above-ground option the cost is reduced. The extra cost of burying (and maintaining) and underground line would be better invested in more LRT expansion elsewhere.. that's all I'm saying.

technically speaking an underground line would have more capacity than a line like 7th ave. 7th ave trains have to share the road with traffic, and while cars don't run on 7th ave itself, they do still have to cross it.

subway line through downtown doesn't have to wait for traffic lights, and could have a higher rate of speed because there aren't the same kind of hazards like 7th ave (peds, running red lights etc)

so not the same utility to the user! and therefore its going to be needed eventually because 7th ave is going to reach a capacity to the point where the system no longer operates at its peak efficiency, therefore losing utility. The cost of burying a line eventually evens out imo.

frinkprof
Mar 22, 2010, 4:11 AM
Nevermind.

DizzyEdge
Mar 22, 2010, 7:57 AM
Does anyone have the knowledge to come up with even a ball park figure of the cost of say 6th ave surface vs 8th ave tunnel? Just curious what the savings vs annoyance of 6th ave might be.

Surrealplaces
Mar 22, 2010, 6:40 PM
A couple of shot of LRT Platforms

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4069/4453518204_505ca73e60_b.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2706/4452741325_4ce374467e_b.jpg

MalcolmTucker
Mar 22, 2010, 6:41 PM
Running both existing lines above ground but on separate streets requires a fair bit of infrastructure to be built, namely the Bow Trail connector to free up 6th St.

You would run the lines connected like this to prevent any train vs train crossings: NW-NE and W - S with the W-S running on 7th and the NW-NE running on 6th.

I would bet all the road improvements you need to only double capacity would be in the range of $200-$250 million, plus line construction/ reconstruction in the $120 million dollar range (tracks and stations). This is assuming that the 6th Ave road bridge over the Encana parkade being strong enough for LRT.

6th has lots of parkade access off of it aswell that would have to be relocated.

Considering that without land and relocation requirements the project would be in the range of the 8th ave subway, with only doubling capacity the subway seems the better choice. (and it helps protect the river front from the Bow Trail connector.)

So I guess the answer to your question is: how do you scope the project? If you don't care about replacing road capacity it is much cheaper, if you do it is only a tad cheaper.

Eventually you would need to build the subway anyways and in the mean time you need to buy more LRVs, possibly two since the setup unbalanced the system by connecting less busy branches with high demand branches.

Aegis
Mar 22, 2010, 6:54 PM
Building white elephants isn't the only alternative to playing catch up. As mentioned earlier, WestLRT was on the board in the 1990s in basically the same alignment that is being built today. So were many of the extensions to existing lines that didn't end up being done until the 2000s (Dalhousie, Crowfoot, Fish Creek, Somerset). None of these would have turned out to be white elephants had they been built as originally planned in the '90s

Yes, but, we didn't necessarily know that in 1991. Plus, there was NO MONEY BACK THEN.

My only point was that cities have constraints on them that prevent "the right projects" from a 2010 perspective from moving ahead 20 years before.

Surrealplaces
Mar 22, 2010, 7:00 PM
Any idea when the subway study is going to be completed?


Seems we already went over this a few months ago (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=118079&page=485). No need to rehash those points again. We'll just have to wait for the subway study to finish.

frinkprof
Mar 22, 2010, 10:19 PM
Nevermind.

frinkprof
Mar 22, 2010, 10:26 PM
Nevermind.

Aegis
Mar 23, 2010, 12:20 AM
Fair enough. I am aware there was no money from any level of government.

Yes, we do have the benefit of hindsight, but I think there's something to be said for the fact that every project that was on the board in the 1990s (and would have been built had there been money) was exactly everything that is being built today. There's no "man, glad we didn't build that," going on here, which was basically what you're saying Montreal would have liked to have been saying about Mirabel when you gave that example. At least that's how I interpreted your post. About the '90s, hindsight has proven that the planning of the era was pretty sound, whereas financing those plans was not. You say that we have the benefit of hindsight now, but the hindsight now matches the foresight of 20 years ago.

The only thing that comes to mind that I'm glad never got built was a notion that never really got fully planned-out in the late '90s and early 2000s. That is the spur line off the South LRT that would have gone east down 22X and either delayed or replaced the SELRT.

Good points. We have been fortunate that our infrastructure planning, while extremely slow, has been fairly well thought-out. We don't have the white elephants that some other cities have.

srperrycgy
Mar 23, 2010, 12:36 AM
Good points. We have been fortunate that our infrastructure planning, while extremely slow, has been fairly well thought-out. We don't have the white elephants that some other cities have.

I don't think the infrastructure planning process itself was slow, but the building process was. :cool:

frinkprof
Mar 23, 2010, 4:20 AM
Nevermind.

mersar
Mar 23, 2010, 6:48 AM
Was mentioned on cptdb that former LRT cars 2019 and 2027 have been cut in half and the undamaged side of each bolted together, and were out this afternoon doing testing. With a new number of "2090" on the body.

srperrycgy
Mar 24, 2010, 3:35 AM
Was mentioned on cptdb that former LRT cars 2019 and 2027 have been cut in half and the undamaged side of each bolted together, and were out this afternoon doing testing. With a new number of "2090" on the body.

2090 was out this morning as well. I was waiting at 3rd St W, and there it was. I grabbed a pic w/ my phone, but didn't turn out.

Policy Wonk
Mar 24, 2010, 3:53 AM
Link (http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Calgary+find+more+money+hire+more+transit+police/2713602/story.html)

Is Epic Beard Man available?

frinkprof
Mar 24, 2010, 5:54 AM
Nevermind.

DizzyEdge
Mar 24, 2010, 4:53 PM
Is Epic Beard Man available?

He had to take an Amber Lamps.

Surrealplaces
Mar 25, 2010, 3:36 PM
Sorry if this has been asked before, but does anyone know the ridership stats of Calgary's LRT system? Wikipedia, says it's 266,000 daily, but looking around the web i see varying numbers. I can't seem to find recent numbers, even on CT's website.

Surrealplaces
Mar 25, 2010, 3:38 PM
This is the response I got via e-mail in late December from a transit representative after I inquired about it:

Thanks Frink!

I do see the advantages of having the South/NW line buried under eighth, especially for moving trains through the core quicker and increasing capacity. One thing I've noticed recently is that the 7th ave is really quite busy with people and pedestrian traffic due to the LRT. There's alot of potential to leverage that traffic and build a nice retail corridor. It's already getting better with the new station at TD square having retail access right off the platform, and the new proposed Century Park tower having retail fronting the LRT platform.

frinkprof
Mar 25, 2010, 3:44 PM
Nevermind.

Wooster
Mar 25, 2010, 4:00 PM
Edit: Dah!!! beaten by the Frink.

MalcolmTucker
Mar 25, 2010, 4:34 PM
^ I think the discrepancy might be due to the difference between revenue linked trips (if you transfer lines you don't count a second time) and non-revenue unlinked trips (even people just heading up and down 7th Ave count).

Surrealplaces
Mar 25, 2010, 6:08 PM
Thanks guys, I figured those numbers were probably the most accurate. I found a few other sites that quote 300k, and some other higher numbers. I wanted to make sure the APTA numbers were an apples to apples comparison.

Aegis
Mar 27, 2010, 2:46 AM
If Ric McIvor became Mayor, would the probabilityof the SE LRT being built in a reasonable time-frame increase?

srperrycgy
Mar 27, 2010, 3:19 AM
If Ric McIvor became Mayor, would the probabilityof the SE LRT being built in a reasonable time-frame increase?

Let's not think of Blinky as mayor yet huh? (I don't sleep well as it is) :cool: If SELRT was done as a P3, it would be done much faster, but money is the issue. I would say 4 years for construction. Just a guess.

frinkprof
Mar 27, 2010, 8:28 AM
Nevermind.

Aegis
Mar 27, 2010, 9:52 PM
Let's not think of Blinky as mayor yet huh? (I don't sleep well as it is) :cool: If SELRT was done as a P3, it would be done much faster, but money is the issue. I would say 4 years for construction. Just a guess.

Well, I'm not asking how long it will take for the SE LRT to be built under ideal funding circumstances.

The question is more focused around the following premise:

Bronconnier picked the WLRT as his legacy. Coincidently, he lives in the general area that would benefit from the line. Politicians don't take risks on "golden projects" (projects that carry extra prestige) unless there's a payoff. As for what the payoff is for Bronco, it could be to help ground the next stage of his career. Klein also made the NW and South LRT his legacy, when he was mayor. The majority of Calgary's original LRT infrastructure was constructed during a recession.

If McIver became mayor, would the SE LRT be completed quicker because he would make it his main accomplishment/priority, for political reasons? (His fiscal conservatism should be discounted, since he really doesn't have the ability to affect most of the decisions he rails about, other than his one vote). As mayor he would have more clout and could find a payoff in completing the project.

SubwayRev
Mar 28, 2010, 1:54 AM
Well, I'm not asking how long it will take for the SE LRT to be built under ideal funding circumstances.

The question is more focused around the following premise:

Bronconnier picked the WLRT as his legacy. Coincidently, he lives in the general area that would benefit from the line. Politicians don't take risks on "golden projects" (projects that carry extra prestige) unless there's a payoff. As for what the payoff is for Bronco, it could be to help ground the next stage of his career. Klein also made the NW and South LRT his legacy, when he was mayor. The majority of Calgary's original LRT infrastructure was constructed during a recession.

If McIver became mayor, would the SE LRT be completed quicker because he would make it his main accomplishment/priority, for political reasons? (His fiscal conservatism should be discounted, since he really doesn't have the ability to affect most of the decisions he rails about, other than his one vote). As mayor he would have more clout and could find a payoff in completing the project.

I would think he would try and accelerate that project, for political reasons, but I'm not so sure it would be a "legacy" project. I think it would be more of a "look, I get things done" porject.

I think Bronconnier pushed for the West LRT because it had been in the planning stages for the longest. The fact that he happened to live in that area is more coincidence. An area of the city can't be excluded from infrastructure development for the simple fact the mayor lives there.

As an aside, I wouldn't call the South LRT legacy projects for Klein either. The South line opened five months after he became mayor. He didn't have anything to do with it, other than probably being on hand for the opening.

Ferreth
Mar 28, 2010, 2:55 AM
I would think he would try and accelerate that project, for political reasons, but I'm not so sure it would be a "legacy" project. I think it would be more of a "look, I get things done" porject.

I think Bronconnier pushed for the West LRT because it had been in the planning stages for the longest. The fact that he happened to live in that area is more coincidence. An area of the city can't be excluded from infrastructure development for the simple fact the mayor lives there.

As an aside, I wouldn't call the South LRT legacy projects for Klein either. The South line opened five months after he became mayor. He didn't have anything to do with it, other than probably being on hand for the opening.

The NE line was Klein's legacy project, as in he moved ahead with building it during a Calgary downturn that makes this look like a cakewalk in comparison. I remember my dad talking about how that was the only game in town for a while during the worst of the mid-80's recession.

MalcolmTucker
Mar 28, 2010, 3:34 AM
The NE LRT, the two leisure centres (which Ralph did try to stop but failed, shows how Mayors don't have absolute power) and the new city hall (and later the NW LRT). They cut police, transit, and fire personal (not to mention all other city non-uniformed) to pay for these projects. Really set up the city for success however - a trim civil service, low taxes, and infrastructure.

TETT2
Mar 29, 2010, 2:27 AM
The NE LRT, the two leisure centres (which Ralph did try to stop but failed, shows how Mayors don't have absolute power) and the new city hall (and later the NW LRT). They cut police, transit, and fire personal (not to mention all other city non-uniformed) to pay for these projects. Really set up the city for success however - a trim civil service, low taxes, and infrastructure.

Right. When it comes down to it, the Mayor is one vote like the other Alderman. It just depends what they can do behind the scenes.

SubwayRev
Mar 29, 2010, 3:04 PM
The NE line was Klein's legacy project, as in he moved ahead with building it during a Calgary downturn that makes this look like a cakewalk in comparison. I remember my dad talking about how that was the only game in town for a while during the worst of the mid-80's recession.

I'd say that's good business, not necessarily a "legacy" project. Recessions are the best times to ramp up spending, when costs tend to be lower.

MalcolmTucker
Mar 29, 2010, 3:28 PM
Pushing NE before the NW or W was the legacy part, as it seems Klein pushed it to the front of the line.

frinkprof
Mar 29, 2010, 3:35 PM
Nevermind.

MalcolmTucker
Mar 29, 2010, 3:49 PM
The impression it left on me was the switch was almost out of malice - to teach the NW a lesson that you don't get a toy if you won't play with city hall. At the time I think the impetus of the west line fell out as well since the hill communities had stagnated and there was more than enough road capacity.

frinkprof
Mar 29, 2010, 3:52 PM
Nevermind.

SubwayRev
Mar 29, 2010, 4:51 PM
I don't really understand this 'legacy' talk. Maybe I'm reading people's comments out of context, but I feel that when people say "that was his legacy project," they are implying it was being done more for the Mayor's personal vanity, and less because it was needed for the people of Calgary. Is the NE line more of a feather in one's cap than any other line? Would the NW have been Klein's legacy if that had been built first? I mean, both were built during Klein's tenure as Mayor, so I don't see how one is a 'legacy' and the other is just another infrastructure project.

As for Bronconnier, if he had spearheaded the SE line instead of the WLRT, would it be his 'legacy' project?

frinkprof
Mar 29, 2010, 5:17 PM
Nevermind.

MalcolmTucker
Mar 29, 2010, 5:20 PM
^ I think some people talk of WLRT as taking the route it does instead of going to Mount Royal University as an example of a politician on the take, which is totally bogus. They then used 'legacy' in a facetious sense imply that the project is also for personal aggrandizement.

I am not sure where Klein came into this really...

I would ask people: would we ever get any project done if it wasn't for personal aggrandizement for politicians?

frinkprof
Mar 29, 2010, 5:31 PM
^ I think some people talk of WLRT as taking the route it does instead of going to Mount Royal University as an example of a politician on the take, which is totally bogus. They then used 'legacy' in a facetious sense imply that the project is also for personal aggrandizement.

I am not sure where Klein came into this really...

I would ask people: would we ever get any project done if it wasn't for personal aggrandizement for politicians?Right here:

Pushing NE before the NW or W was the legacy part, as it seems Klein pushed it to the front of the line.

Are you saying the NE LRT was a "legacy project" for Klein? If so, what do you mean by the term "legacy project" in that context?

MalcolmTucker
Mar 29, 2010, 6:10 PM
Right here:



Are you saying the NE LRT was a "legacy project" for Klein? If so, what do you mean by the term "legacy project" in that context?

I was responding to something above I believe, perhaps interpreted in from another concurrent thread, and Aegis and ferreths exchange

frinkprof
Mar 29, 2010, 6:28 PM
^Ah yeah, I think I missed a step in the conversation or misattributed someone else's words to you.

fusili
Mar 29, 2010, 6:38 PM
From what I heard, the NW line was delayed because the City thought they could get federal funding for it for the Olympics and therefore built the NE first. Kind of a sneaky move, but it makes sense. If the NW line was complete before the Olympic bid was won, the feds would not fund the NE line because it wouldn't have any benefit for the Olympics. Don't remember who I heard it from though.

Deepstar
Mar 29, 2010, 6:43 PM
From what I heard, the NW line was delayed because the City thought they could get federal funding for it for the Olympics and therefore built the NE first. Kind of a sneaky move, but it makes sense. If the NW line was complete before the Olympic bid was won, the feds would not fund the NE line because it wouldn't have any benefit for the Olympics. Don't remember who I heard it from though.

Did the city end up getting any money from the Feds for the NW line?

frinkprof
Mar 29, 2010, 6:46 PM
^In an economics class I took a few years ago, as an in-class exercise, we did a benefit/cost analysis on either the NE or NW LRT line, on the assumptions that were in place before it was built (I can't remember 100% whether it was the NE or the NW since it was some time ago, but I'm pretty sure it was the NE). At any rate, the benefits, excluding one were outweighed by the costs and the line was deemed unfeasible based on that. However, what tilted the scales the other way was the benefit of having the line in place for the Olympics. Remember, the Olympics were awarded in '81, so both the NE and NW lines were approved and started construction after this decision. Also, while the NW line was obviously more important for the Olympics (Athletes Village, Oval), the NE was also important (Max Bell Arena).

Of course, the instructor went on to say that the line and the LRT as a whole had since paid itself back because the benefits had outpaced their assumptions and estimates. Basically it has ended up as a bigger success than they had originally imagined.

SubwayRev
Mar 29, 2010, 7:49 PM
^I think we are getting hung up on what is meant by "legacy" and "vanity" projects, and mistaking one for the other. I think what SHA means is that the LRT built in the '80s (particularly NE LRT) is, in retrospect, Klein's legacy. I don't think at the time nor now, that the NE LRT was a vanity project though.

I think your right. I was reading into people's comments, although they didn't necessarily mean what I was reading. But, I think 'legacy' is the completely wrong word for this discussion. When I think legacy, I think of something closely associated with that person. Nobody thinks of Ralph Klein when they think of NE LRT or vice versa.

I would ask people: would we ever get any project done if it wasn't for personal aggrandizement for politicians?

So true.

CTrainDude
Mar 29, 2010, 9:02 PM
From what I heard, the NW line was delayed because the City thought they could get federal funding for it for the Olympics and therefore built the NE first. Kind of a sneaky move, but it makes sense. If the NW line was complete before the Olympic bid was won, the feds would not fund the NE line because it wouldn't have any benefit for the Olympics. Don't remember who I heard it from though.

I always thought that the NW was going to be built first, but the NIMBYs in Sunnyside convinced the City to do the NE first - hoping the people in other areas who wanted the line would put pressure on the people in Sunnyside when they saw the City was willing to move on.

You Need A Thneed
Mar 30, 2010, 2:53 PM
Whitehorn Station Upgrade link. (http://www.calgarytransit.com/html/whitehorn_stn_2010.html)

From calgarytransit.com.

I would stop in myself, but I'm busy wednesday evenings. Is anyone going that can collect information/brochures, and post it here?

You Need A Thneed
Mar 31, 2010, 5:33 PM
Whitehorn Station Upgrade link. (http://www.calgarytransit.com/html/whitehorn_stn_2010.html)

From calgarytransit.com.

I would stop in myself, but I'm busy wednesday evenings. Is anyone going that can collect information/brochures, and post it here?

Anyone going? The presentation is from 7- 7:30.

faxri
Mar 31, 2010, 6:25 PM
What is the current timeline for the south stations to be changed to 4 car lengths?

MalcolmTucker
Mar 31, 2010, 6:42 PM
It is a stimulus project no? If so, it has to be done 1 year from today. (or at least all the money has to be out the door)

frinkprof
Mar 31, 2010, 6:47 PM
Well the South and Northwest lines are scheduled to be done by 2014.

mersar
Mar 31, 2010, 7:34 PM
It is a stimulus project no? If so, it has to be done 1 year from today. (or at least all the money has to be out the door)

Part of it is. It was a $90M/$90M/$90M split between the 3 levels of gov't that funded the whole CT 'package'. So in my mind its possible they used the federal part for stuff underway already (SE BRT, 7th ave upgrades, GPS system, etc) while the rest will be used for later parts (11th street station, 4 car expansions, traction power upgrades, etc)

faxri
Mar 31, 2010, 7:36 PM
Well the South and Northwest lines are scheduled to be done by 2014.


Maybe they should just start on 5 car platforms :D

frinkprof
Mar 31, 2010, 7:39 PM
Part of it is. It was a $90M/$90M/$90M split between the 3 levels of gov't that funded the whole CT 'package'. So in my mind its possible they used the federal part for stuff underway already (SE BRT, 7th ave upgrades, GPS system, etc) while the rest will be used for later parts (11th street station, 4 car expansions, traction power upgrades, etc)Global Positioning System system?

freeweed
Mar 31, 2010, 7:54 PM
Global Positioning System system?

Paid for by funds withdrawn from an ATM machine, using my PIN number.

frinkprof
Mar 31, 2010, 7:58 PM
^And brought to you by the Department of Redundancy Department.

MalcolmTucker
Mar 31, 2010, 8:32 PM
Part of it is. It was a $90M/$90M/$90M split between the 3 levels of gov't that funded the whole CT 'package'. So in my mind its possible they used the federal part for stuff underway already (SE BRT, 7th ave upgrades, GPS system, etc) while the rest will be used for later parts (11th street station, 4 car expansions, traction power upgrades, etc)

I believe the program was designed to make sure the matching funds were spent by the end of next fiscal year aswell, or else we would have never got to 2% gdp. This was the reason they didn't allow stimulus funding for the Toronto streetcars.

lubicon
Mar 31, 2010, 10:05 PM
Maybe they should just start on 5 car platforms :D

Which is what Edmonton is building their new platforms to accomodate.