HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Calgary > Transportation & Infrastructure


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted May 13, 2014, 3:33 AM
DizzyEdge's Avatar
DizzyEdge DizzyEdge is offline
My Spoon Is Too Big
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Calgary
Posts: 9,191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug View Post
The irrigation districts are sitting on a gold mine. They will cut deals with Airdrie etc. eventually.
So if the irrigation districts sell water licenses for bit bucks, whose pocket exactly would those bucks flow into?
__________________
Concerned about protecting Calgary's built heritage?
www.CalgaryHeritage.org
News - Heritage Watch - Forums
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted May 13, 2014, 3:46 AM
Chadillaccc's Avatar
Chadillaccc Chadillaccc is offline
ARTchitecture
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Cala Ghearraidh
Posts: 22,842
Quote:
Originally Posted by DizzyEdge View Post
So if the irrigation districts sell water licenses for bit bucks, whose pocket exactly would those bucks flow into?
All money and resources from the districts go directly to President Snow.
__________________
Strong & Free

Mohkínstsis — 1.6 million people at the Foothills of the Rocky Mountains, 400 high-rises, a 300-metre SE to NW climb, over 1000 kilometres of pathways, with 20% of the urban area as parkland.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted May 13, 2014, 3:34 PM
Full Mountain's Avatar
Full Mountain Full Mountain is offline
YIMBY
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,938
Quote:
Originally Posted by RWin View Post
Yeah, that's over 66000 trips by transit on the principle alone. To and from work every day (including Saturday and Sunday) for 90 years.

Or 160000 litres of gas at todays price. 2.6 million Km in my car. I live 17 Km from downtown so thats about 76000 trips to and from work for $200000.

Never really though about it before but I guess (except for parking) it's actually cheeper to drive to work than take the bus.

I'm pretty sure my math is correct.
Given a cost of $0.54/km (the current CRA rate for reimbursement of mileage) $200k would give you just over 370,000 km. Given your 17 km trip that would equal 10,893 round trips or approximately 48 years of commuting. Note though that it's likely that the cost per km of a driving downtown commuter in Calgary is higher than the $0.54/km due to parking (on your 17km single direction commute it would be an additional $0.59/km at $20/day). So given an additional amount of $0.35/km for parking (lowered due to the likelihood that most peoples costs are below the $0.54/km rate), this would give you a total of ~$0.85/km or ~235,000 km for $200k (Approx 30 years @ 225 days/year). On my old car I used to have around the $0.50/km without driving to work or paying for parking, so I can only imagine how much it would add. Any drivers on here track their vehicle costs and mileage?

One further thought this assumes that your time has no value, or the time requirements of both commutes are equal. Both of these would seem to be poor assumptions. If your $200k more expensive home had a 15 min/direction shorter commute you would save 112.5 hrs/year or at $20/hr = $2,250/year or approximately 89 years to achieve $200k in time.

Taken together you end up with a value proposition that looks alot better than looking at one factor in isolation. Also note though that most people don't consider either of the above factors when they are choosing where to live.
__________________
Incremental Photo - @PhotogX_1

Disclaimer: All opinions expressed are my own not those of any affiliated organizations.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted May 13, 2014, 3:49 PM
RWin's Avatar
RWin RWin is offline
of Canada
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Calgary AB
Posts: 2,851
Quote:
Originally Posted by Full Mountain View Post
One further thought this assumes that your time has no value, or the time requirements of both commutes are equal. Both of these would seem to be poor assumptions. If your $200k more expensive home had a 15 min/direction shorter commute you would save 112.5 hrs/year or at $20/hr = $2,250/year or approximately 89 years to achieve $200k in time.
To bad the bank doesn't take time as payment on the mortgage My time is worth something but since I'm on salary, it's only worth something to me. And it's not a dollar value. Unfortunately I'm still at a point in my life where every dollars counts and ...

Actually, I don't really need to justify what I do.
__________________
All right... all right... but apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order... what have the Romans done for us? NOTHING!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted May 13, 2014, 4:17 PM
Full Mountain's Avatar
Full Mountain Full Mountain is offline
YIMBY
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,938
Quote:
Originally Posted by RWin View Post
To bad the bank doesn't take time as payment on the mortgage My time is worth something but since I'm on salary, it's only worth something to me. And it's not a dollar value. Unfortunately I'm still at a point in my life where every dollars counts and ...

Actually, I don't really need to justify what I do.
IMO this is why we need a variety of housing stock in the inner city, alot of the population can't or doesn't want to afford a 600-800k SFH in the inner-city. It would be better if we had a significant stock of 3-8 storey condo buildings at key locations throughout the inner city. This would provide a home for those that are looking in the 200-500k range, myself included. They would also provide options for those people looking to downsize but want to stay in the community they have lived in for many years.
__________________
Incremental Photo - @PhotogX_1

Disclaimer: All opinions expressed are my own not those of any affiliated organizations.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted May 13, 2014, 5:06 PM
MalcolmTucker MalcolmTucker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 11,429
Quote:
Originally Posted by freeweed View Post
Laws can be changed with the stroke of a pen. Water licenses aren't some natural force that we can control, they're simply our attempt to manage resources sustainably. All it takes is a loud (and highly motivated to vote) contingent in a few communities to claim that they're being "bullied" by the big cities, and short-sighted politicians will listen.

Like I said, I hope I'm worried over nothing. The real test should be coming shortly with communities like Airdrie, no? Surely they're approaching the limits of their growth (in terms of water)?
Airdrie iirc receives most of its water via pipeline from Calgary, but are approaching the current agreement's max levels. To buy a license from elsewhere you have to include the cost of new water and sewage treatment plants.

There was a story in the Herald on the Calgary Regional Partnership. The gist: areas can sign on to the development and governance plan, and access water and shared services or be on their own. Several municipalities have balked. Some of the councils want every municipality to have a veto, an entirely ridiculous option. The offer on the table from the city is 2/3rds including Calgary to pass a policy. Provincial legislation passed in the fall requires consent of all member municipalities to create a binding regional growth board.

But some communities want total freedom plus the province to force regional collaboration on water allocation. Fortunately that is politically untenable, and logically inconsistent for most of the members' communities fervent support of property rights.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted May 13, 2014, 5:34 PM
RWin's Avatar
RWin RWin is offline
of Canada
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Calgary AB
Posts: 2,851
Quote:
Originally Posted by Full Mountain View Post
IMO this is why we need a variety of housing stock in the inner city
I agree with you there. Variety makes things interesting. It gives more than one segment of the population (as in not only the wealthy) more choice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Full Mountain View Post
It would be better if we had a significant stock of 3-8 storey condo buildings at key locations throughout the inner city. This would provide a home for those that are looking in the 200-500k range, myself included. They would also provide options for those people looking to downsize but want to stay in the community they have lived in for many years.
I'd go a step further and say throughout the entire city (variety is good for more than the inner city). The city is what it is at this point and it's not like we're going to shrink it. Redevelopment can happen further out too. I'm sure we could live within our current boundaries for another 3 million people at least. London is probably an unfair comparison but they have 8 times the population in an area only twice as big. And I don't think there is a lot of highrise residential there. I'd like to see some redevelopment that has everything from single family houses to row houses, low rise appartments, and high rise appartments (condo, rental, whatever).

Then I wonder, what attracts people to Calgary? Is it the jobs? Is it the possibility of a large house on the edge of town for a lower price than they could get in Vancouver? If there was more multi-family housing and less single family housing available, would the desirability factor of Calgary decrease?

I suppose then to answer the question of thread title, I don't think a regional transit system is the way to go. Why encourage growth in satalite communities when we have years of space left in Calgary. Just build a system here that makes it more convenient to take the bus than the car.
__________________
All right... all right... but apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order... what have the Romans done for us? NOTHING!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted May 13, 2014, 6:36 PM
MasterG's Avatar
MasterG MasterG is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Calgary
Posts: 1,820
Quote:
Originally Posted by RWin View Post
I agree with you there. Variety makes things interesting. It gives more than one segment of the population (as in not only the wealthy) more choice.
I think a part of this is the ideas around the corridor plans and alternative nodes to the centre city. The big section that is lacking in Calgary is so few transition zones: it's either the burbs or it's downtown with skyscrapers.

If we want to get serious on offering choice, the inner suburbs need to open up to a variety of choices and options. Some are already (see Marda Loop / Altadore etc.) but largely driven by the high-end market and caps redevelopment at only 2-3X the density of the previous built form. Neighbourhoods that are inner, but resistant to change, create this barrier. Hell, it took Sunnyside and Hillhurst 40 years of being the desirable inner city location before even the current condo and density boom broke through the resistance. Many neighbourhoods are still holding strong against development pressures, forcing their properties ever higher and pricing out many people that aren't in the same demographic and socioeconomic tranche.

There neighbourhoods need to start allowing mid-rises at key spots, 5-15 storey buildings should follow the corridors all the way out into the SFH burbs. This is the only way to get truly mixed neighbourhoods, the Beltline will not be a place for 3 bedroom houses ever again, nor should it.

It takes a lot of neighbourhoods being willing to see much more change than they are willing to see currently, on a much wider swathe of the inner city. A Drake-sized tower should not be out of place in Brentwood, Westbrook, 17th or 17 Ave SW as it would be on 17th Ave SE, 16 Ave N, Centre, Macleod, Elbow etc.

Allow the zoning, encourage much more that the duplex density in key areas and let the development happen.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted May 14, 2014, 2:29 PM
RWin's Avatar
RWin RWin is offline
of Canada
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Calgary AB
Posts: 2,851
__________________
All right... all right... but apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order... what have the Romans done for us? NOTHING!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted May 14, 2014, 5:14 PM
freeweed's Avatar
freeweed freeweed is offline
Home of Hyperchange
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Dynamic City, Alberta
Posts: 17,566
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bassic Lab View Post
New water licenses would go beyond the province and invite litigation from Saskatchewan. It's funny that you brought up the American Southwest because it actually provides a strong counter example to your argument. Growing urban areas are forced to stretch existing water licenses while California's central valley remains an a major agricultural producer in a former desert based on old water rights that are essentially untouchable.
Except that the Central Valley is returning in many parts to scrub desert as less and less water is available for agriculture, while LA and Phoenix and Vegas continue to grow. I realize that these aren't necessarily connected, and yeah, *some* water restrictions are happening (especially in Vegas), but the fact is that politically, large urban centres win out over agriculture or even logic all the time

Not that I think we're going that route, but I just don't think water rights are as set in stone as people seem to believe these days. Hell, it's been less than a century since Alberta even owned its own resource rights. Anything can change given enough screaming.
__________________
Suburbs are the friends with benefits of the housing world.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted May 14, 2014, 5:28 PM
MasterG's Avatar
MasterG MasterG is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Calgary
Posts: 1,820
Quote:
Originally Posted by freeweed View Post
Except that the Central Valley is returning in many parts to scrub desert as less and less water is available for agriculture, while LA and Phoenix and Vegas continue to grow. I realize that these aren't necessarily connected, and yeah, *some* water restrictions are happening (especially in Vegas), but the fact is that politically, large urban centres win out over agriculture or even logic all the time

Not that I think we're going that route, but I just don't think water rights are as set in stone as people seem to believe these days. Hell, it's been less than a century since Alberta even owned its own resource rights. Anything can change given enough screaming.
Especially with the only two political parties of significance currently being extremely pro-rural vote and largely pro-rural vote. Perhaps this will change, but not if the polls are correct right now.

Calgary needs to join forces with Edmonton to throw some political weight around, we have much more in common with them than with Rockyview in terms of needs, funding issues and regional development issues. If no one takes the city and its issues seriously enough, no wonder the city tries to protect it's own interests through using whatever means it has, in this case water-rights.

A regional transportation network plan would be a great thing for the area as a whole; but only if the rural counties want to play ball and make the necessary compromises to make the investment worth it and sustainable.

Last edited by MasterG; May 14, 2014 at 5:47 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted May 14, 2014, 6:33 PM
freeweed's Avatar
freeweed freeweed is offline
Home of Hyperchange
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Dynamic City, Alberta
Posts: 17,566
Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterG View Post
Especially with the only two political parties of significance currently being extremely pro-rural vote and largely pro-rural vote. Perhaps this will change, but not if the polls are correct right now.
That's precisely what scares me. Now, I think it's a bit of a stretch to call Red Deer or Airdrie "rural", but... in terms of the non-Calgary/Edmonton vote, these areas could hold a LOT of political power. And their influence is growing, proportionally.

There was a time when rural Alberta was moving towards the margins. Well, exurbs can change that dynamic a lot. That's the sort of thing that scares me. We'll see how long it takes until we see terminology like "elites" being lobbied towards Calgary and Edmonton on a regular basis. That will be the opening salvos.
__________________
Suburbs are the friends with benefits of the housing world.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted May 14, 2014, 6:37 PM
Boris2k7's Avatar
Boris2k7 Boris2k7 is offline
Majestic
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Calgary
Posts: 12,010
Quote:
Originally Posted by freeweed View Post
That's precisely what scares me. Now, I think it's a bit of a stretch to call Red Deer or Airdrie "rural", but... in terms of the non-Calgary/Edmonton vote, these areas could hold a LOT of political power. And their influence is growing, proportionally.

There was a time when rural Alberta was moving towards the margins. Well, exurbs can change that dynamic a lot. That's the sort of thing that scares me. We'll see how long it takes until we see terminology like "elites" being lobbied towards Calgary and Edmonton on a regular basis. That will be the opening salvos.
Divide and conquer. The Tories are forced into a territorial battle over rural voters and risk alienating the urban base that allowed them to gain power in the first place.
__________________
"The only thing that gets me through our winters is the knowledge that they're the only thing keeping us free of giant ass spiders." -MonkeyRonin

Flickr
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted May 14, 2014, 6:49 PM
MalcolmTucker MalcolmTucker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 11,429
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boris2k7 View Post
Divide and conquer. The Tories are forced into a territorial battle over rural voters and risk alienating the urban base that allowed them to gain power in the first place.
Rural isn't even as rural as you might think. The concerns are similar, schools and hospitals. There is a fight between parties, but it is the same fight. Then you have very local concerns that get magnified up by fear (property rights, medevac). It isn't an easy environment to operate it, but all the parties realize all they need is a majority - you don't need to run up the total at the expense of becoming a mile wide but an inch deep.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted May 14, 2014, 7:01 PM
MasterG's Avatar
MasterG MasterG is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Calgary
Posts: 1,820
Quote:
Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker View Post
Rural isn't even as rural as you might think. The concerns are similar, schools and hospitals. There is a fight between parties, but it is the same fight. Then you have very local concerns that get magnified up by fear (property rights, medevac). It isn't an easy environment to operate it, but all the parties realize all they need is a majority - you don't need to run up the total at the expense of becoming a mile wide but an inch deep.
Allowing the big cities to have more control over their own areas would be a big help in mitigating the fear of being ignored. Transit, homelessness and the overall rate of complexity and cost of infrastructure projects in big urban areas are all real concerns that aren't shared by many smaller communities.

Giving Calgary and Edmonton the means and authority to deal with these issues more independently could head off a lot of issues of being left out by a rural-dominated political system.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted May 14, 2014, 7:06 PM
Chadillaccc's Avatar
Chadillaccc Chadillaccc is offline
ARTchitecture
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Cala Ghearraidh
Posts: 22,842
I think eventually the PCs will take the urban votes of Calgary, Edmonton, and Red Deer, with rural support in Northern and Northeastern Alberta, while the Wild Rose will take the rural and suburban votes of all of Southern and Central Alberta, with an urban base in Lethbridge, Medicine Hat, and High River.


Well, that's pretty much what it already is.
__________________
Strong & Free

Mohkínstsis — 1.6 million people at the Foothills of the Rocky Mountains, 400 high-rises, a 300-metre SE to NW climb, over 1000 kilometres of pathways, with 20% of the urban area as parkland.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted Jun 3, 2014, 8:10 PM
lightrail lightrail is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 809
Quote:
Originally Posted by swimmer_spe View Post
That is what I mean.

GO Transit, AMT and Translink are not the local transit commission. They are regional transit commissions. Each local area still have their own locally run system.

https://mapsengine.google.com/map/ed...c.kHKkmO2ME3hA

My thoughts on what could be done using existing rail.
In British Columbia the province supports public transit through BC Transit and Translink. Translink is a body run by Metro Vancouver (the regional district) and it is the provider of public transit for all of the municipalities within the region (there are 20 of them). Each of them are represented in some way on the Mayor's council and that council approves budgets and sets fares. They also have input into routes and infrastructure decisions.

In the rest of BC the service area is defined and a transit commission established made up of representatives from each municipality served by the transit system. The transit commission decides on fares and routes and service levels. BC government provides the professional staff to plan the routes and estimate costs, provides and maintains buses from a provincial unified fleet and administers and manages the transit system. A private contractor (in most cases) provides the drivers (in some it is the district or local government). The local government provides bus stops and shelters (BC Transit provides the bus stop signs and poles).

BC Transit (the government) funds 56% of new transit systems, reducing to 40% after three years. The local governments in the service area make up the difference after fare revenue (and if the fare revenue exceeds their 60% of the bill, they get to keep it, making money from the transit system - this happens in Whistler).

The only municipality that runs its own transit system in BC is West Vancouver and even then, it is contracted to Translink and it has integrated fares with the rest of the Translink system,, so other than different colour and style of buses, you'd never know it was a separate system.

Using this model, BC Transit operates 72 transit systems in practically every municipality and many rural unincorporated areas. This is in addition to Translink.

If you want more information - check out BC Transit website, and look at Municipal Systems Program.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted Jun 4, 2014, 12:12 AM
DizzyEdge's Avatar
DizzyEdge DizzyEdge is offline
My Spoon Is Too Big
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Calgary
Posts: 9,191
Mods, could we merge this thread and this thread http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...154106&page=22 together?
__________________
Concerned about protecting Calgary's built heritage?
www.CalgaryHeritage.org
News - Heritage Watch - Forums
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Calgary > Transportation & Infrastructure
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:13 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.