Should the Calgary Region create a Metropolitan Regional Transit System?

Chadillaccc · #1 Posted **Mar 4, 2014, 6:31 PM**

I've been thinking lately... with the explosive growth of our suburbs, Airdrie creating the Airdrie Ice Commuter Busses and Cochrane talking about the use of double-decker busses to ferry people to Crowfoot Station... should Calgary Transit start looking into reforming itself into a regional transit network rather than a municipal transit system? Similar to Translink in Vancouver?

While clearly Metro Calgary has nowhere near a comparable population to Metro Vancouver, it is still something to think about. Our metro area is growing fast and before you know it, our suburban cities might be scrambling to service their people. Airdrie is already at 50 000, Cochrane and Chestermere near 20 000, and Okotoks nearing 30 000... So it could be a more pressing need earlier than most of us expect.

Not being an expert in the workings of Calgary and the region, I wanted to know what you all think.

mersar · #2 Posted **Mar 4, 2014, 6:41 PM**

See the answer in this thread.

5seconds · #3 Posted **Mar 4, 2014, 6:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mersar

See the answer in this thread.

That's giving me a broken link

DarthMalgus · #4 Posted **Mar 4, 2014, 6:56 PM**

Absolutely we should. While not so long ago, the total population of the towns around Calgary totalled around 50,000, now there are over 200,000 people living in the satellite communities surrounding Calgary. That's euqivalent to a Regina. With the regional growth share of places like Airdrie, Cochrane and Okotoks only increasing, it won't be that far into the future when their combined population is a Halifax or a Victoria.

Chadillaccc · #5 Posted **Mar 4, 2014, 6:58 PM**

I agree Darth. It is happening right before our eyes. Our metropolitan area is now growing by between 50 and 60 000 a year too! Including the city of course.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 5seconds

That's giving me a broken link

Same here.

VIce · #6 Posted **Mar 4, 2014, 7:21 PM**

The cost of shuttling from Cochrane, Chestermere, and Okotoks to the nearest CTrain station isn't enormous at all, but would it not be a hard sell to suburbanite commuters to transfer mid-commute? A couple 40' busses and shelters isn't a huge investment though.

But for Airdrie there's no rail infrastructure to tap into, meaning the same fleet can only offer modest frequency. As far as I know their five busses a day run full to the brim - but that's only 600 people. I would love to see a couple DMU's a day run on CP ROW, but that probably wouldn't be viable.

DizzyEdge · #7 Posted **Mar 4, 2014, 7:21 PM**

This is probably the link he meant:

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...154106&page=20

Chadillaccc · #8 Posted **Mar 4, 2014, 7:46 PM**

Oh, that thread hasn't been used in 2 years. No wonder I didn't know about it!

swimmer_spe · #9 Posted **May 10, 2014, 11:28 PM**

All major centres need a regional transit commission. Toronto has one, as does Montreal and Vancouver.

Doug · #10 Posted **May 11, 2014, 12:25 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

All major centres need a regional transit commission. Toronto has one, as does Montreal and Vancouver.

All of which are bureaucratic disasters. Calgary should annex Cochrane, Airdrie and Chestermere. The carrot would be a significant property tax reduction delivered by reducing staffing levels through economies of scale. The stick would be water.

Fuzz · #11 Posted **May 11, 2014, 12:57 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug

All of which are bureaucratic disasters. Calgary should annex Cochrane, Airdrie and Chestermere. The carrot would be a significant property tax reduction delivered by reducing staffing levels through economies of scale. The stick would be water.

.. And we may end up with Toronto, where the suburbs and former bedroom communities elect a Rob Ford and the interest of the inner city get trashed.

Policy Wonk · #12 Posted **May 11, 2014, 1:16 AM**

Calgary doesn't have to annex anywhere for that to happen, people just have to get pissed off and I think a housing affordability crisis will do just that.

Doug · #13 Posted **May 11, 2014, 1:59 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fuzz

.. And we may end up with Toronto, where the suburbs and former bedroom communities elect a Rob Ford and the interest of the inner city get trashed.

Us vs. them never works and sadly Calgary is headed down that path.

Doug · #14 Posted **May 11, 2014, 2:00 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

Calgary doesn't have to annex anywhere for that to happen, people just have to get pissed off and I think a housing affordability crisis will do just that.

Housing affordability only makes the situation worse by forcing more people into surrounding communities.

para transit fellow · #15 Posted **May 11, 2014, 2:59 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug

Housing affordability only makes the situation worse by forcing more people into surrounding communities.

Most people don't realize that housing affordability is really housing plus transportation costs. Realtors and developers focus only on the housing costs...

An extra $25- $50 a week for gas in a longer commute somehow does enter entry-homeowner calculations.

MasterG · #16 Posted **May 11, 2014, 3:38 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fuzz

.. And we may end up with Toronto, where the suburbs and former bedroom communities elect a Rob Ford and the interest of the inner city get trashed.

This already is the reality. Calgary can still manage to trash the inner city despite electing as opposite to Rob Ford as is available.

It is changing for sure, but change can't come fast enough.

Regional transit is a good idea. But take the GO Transit approach, a separate entity to the city transit. Let's not let scope creep make Calgary Transit's job any harder than it already is; there are enough challenges already.

swimmer_spe · #17 Posted **May 11, 2014, 5:51 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MasterG

This already is the reality. Calgary can still manage to trash the inner city despite electing as opposite to Rob Ford as is available.

It is changing for sure, but change can't come fast enough.

Regional transit is a good idea. But take the GO Transit approach, a separate entity to the city transit. Let's not let scope creep make Calgary Transit's job any harder than it already is; there are enough challenges already.

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.

Chadillaccc · #18 Posted **May 11, 2014, 6:34 AM**

That's not the case. Translink is the transit system for all of Metro Vancouver. Vancouver does not have an independent transit corporation, nor do any of the suburbs, except maybe Langley and White Rock, but I doubt it.

You are thinking of West Coast Express. That is the commuter rail agency for the lower mainland, the only equivalent in the west to AMT and GO.

ue · #19 Posted **May 11, 2014, 7:12 AM**

Simply put, yes. So should Edmonton, Toronto, Montreal (off-Island), and Quebec City. Vancouver, Ottawa, and Halifax are the only cities in Canada I know of with a singular metro-wide transit agency and I'm frankly surprised it isn't more popular in other cities to make things easier on passengers and get rid of needless bureaucracy.

Wooster · #20 Posted **May 11, 2014, 8:15 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug

Housing affordability only makes the situation worse by forcing more people into surrounding communities.

Land has become extraordinarily expensive in Calgary - and is growing rapidly in surrounding communities too because of limited land supply in municipal boundaries (Chestermere a bit of an exception) and limited water license capacity. The other cost that is affecting affordability is labour and materials - which are costs common to the entire region. The prices of Calgary and surrounding communities will become more similar than divergent.

A homebuilder told me the other day that the days of land developers and homebuilders being different entities is probably over. Land developers are building more and more houses themselves, and larger homebuilders are becoming land developers because neither on their own is sustainable in the long term.