Plan|it|Calgary Draft Municipal Development Plan and Transportation Plan

[Bunk]

Discussion on the Plan it Calgary initiative which leads to a new Municipal Development Plan (MDP) and associated Calgary Transportation Plan (CTP)

All the downloadable documents, available here.

http://www.calgary.ca/portal/server....pportunity.htm

[fusili]

Based upon a quick glance, it seems to be a pretty good plan. Will have to give it more of a detailed look later on, but the general idea is something that I would strongly support.

[The Geographer]

The plans for the NCLRT seem much more ambiguous then they used to (which may be a good thing).

In the draft versions of Plan It available before today, it appeared as though a Centre St alignment would be chosen for the Compact or Hybrid model, and a Nose Creek alignment for the Dispersed model. In the primary transit network map available through the link in the OP (the "Part 6: Maps" pdf), there are primary transit lines up both, which might mean that one is BRT and one is LRT. Of course you can't tell which. I would suspect that Centre St. is BRT, simply because it doesn't connect to the SELRT on the map. But then, it didn't connect in the Hybrid or Compact models either, where it was suggested it would be LRT.

Anyone have info on where the planning for this is at now?

[Bigtime]

I skimmed through the first download at work today, will start looking over everything in more detail at home over the week.

[MalcolmTucker]

^ I think the planners realize it is a political decision. Going up Centre St means tough choices for the budget, 20 years out.

There is no way we know enough to make that decision now. We don't need to protect any land along Centre St. to build it so there is not a path dependency issue (further north the land is already protected), at least until the SE LRT starts construction.

The Nose Creek line as LRT likely lives or dies on how busy the West-NE line gets.

[Beltliner]

^^^ The C-Train daily ridership trend that seems to have held since 1996, with the usual assortment of annual peaks and valleys, works out roughly to the following expression:

r'(t',d') = (1.045^(t'-t))r + 7000(d'-d)

where

r = daily ridership
t = Q4 of any given year
d = revenue track length, in miles

Daily ridership per mile is particularly interesting:

1996: 7,227 (18.5 miles)
1997: 7,876 (18.5 miles)
1998: 8,303 (18.5 miles)
1999: 8,270 (18.5 miles)
2000: 8,697 (18.5 miles)
2001: 7,325 (20.6 miles)
2002: 7,971 (20.6 miles)
2003: 7,683 (22.4 miles)
2004: 6,775 (26.2 miles)
2005: 7,218 (26.2 miles)
2006: 7,897 (26.2 miles)
2007: 9,717 (27.9 miles)
2008: 10,663 (27.9 miles)

All the above data derive from APTA Q4 data--to go year by year, just paste http://www.apta.com/research/stats/r...rep/documents/xxq4can.pdf into your browser's command line, where xx is the last two digits of the year you have it in mind to review.

What all of this gobbledigook has to do with the point at hand is that if C-Train ridership is any indication, the Centre Street Metro represents a sound investment in the future of Calgary's mass transit system.

[frinkprof]

So does anyone think this may get watered down when it goes to council, and if so, how? What about sent back for more work? I think it will get approved in some form, but what that is, I'm not sure.

[Boris2k7]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

So does anyone think this may get watered down when it goes to council, and if so, how? What about sent back for more work? I think it will get approved in some form, but what that is, I'm not sure.

Hard targets are always the first to get watered down. Affordable housing targets, suburban densities, etc.

[bob1954]

There's only one way you can have affordable housing overall, and that is more multi-story, denser, and using of less land... and building a lot of product period!!! There's areas in places like Chicago that I can live cheaper than the damn suburbs!!

[Wooster]

Here's the cost analysis of Plan It. It projects that on infrastructure costs, their recommended scenario saves about $11 billion compared to current trends.

http://www.calgary.ca/docgallery/BU/...pril_third.pdf

[frinkprof]

^Skimmed through it the other day, seems logical.

So when does Plan It go to council? Sometime in June I'm pretty sure.

[Bigtime]

Here are a couple of letters in todays Herald that pertain to Plan It:

Plan on Plan It

Calgary HeraldApril 6, 2009

Re: "Don't crucify public planning," Jeff Kenworthy, Opinion, April 3.

It was a breath of fresh air to read Jeff Kenworthy's piece on sustainable planning and why Plan It is the right blueprint. He provides clear statistical comparisons such as Houstonians driving an average 21,000 km per year as compared to Calgarians who drove an average of 11,000 km per year. Then he paints simple visions of Houston, Stockholm and Calgary. I have not visited Houston or Stockholm, but I would only visit Houston to see what not to do in a planning sense.

Randal O'Toole, of the Cato Institute, touted Houston as the perfect example of good planning arising out of market forces. This may be the case for the developers; however, this is not the vision I hold for Calgary. The Houston model might work well for developers who are happy to develop the suburbs by passing on hidden costs to the inner city. However, loading such direct and indirect costs on taxpayers does not sound like the efficient operation of a free market to me.

Roy Wright,
Calgary
© Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald Link

Road map for future

Calgary Herald April 6, 2009

Re: "Who will build the Plan It vision without a market?" Paula Arab, Opinion, March 26.

Paula Arab is confused. She understands a free market requires government intervention such as zoning and urban boundaries. However, she believes Plan It is "offside" with the development industry. Instead, some in the development industry are offside with what Calgarians want. As Arab acknowledges, Calgarians want vibrant, complete communities--inner city and suburban. Many in the development industry are ready and willing to meet that demand. However, a vocal minority want the city to spread further into the countryside, leaving taxpayers on the hook for the roads, transit, schools and other infrastructure those developers will not provide. Plan It is only "fundamentally flawed" for those developers. Except for Randal O'Toole and others from the fringe, experts know a "convoluted report" is needed to provide the future Calgarians want.

Susan Stratton,
Calgary
© Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald Link

[MalcolmTucker]

No one in the development industry seems to bring up the fact that their expert O'toole only supports unbridled suburban development with infrastructure supported solely by user fees.

They distort even his argument, cheery picking what they like, and dismissing what they don't.

[Bigtime]

Alderman raises flags about pushy telephone pollsters
CHQR Newsroom
4/6/2009


Calgary Alderman Druh Farrell says she's concerned about what she refers to as a pushy telephone poll about a controversial development strategy known as 'Plan It Calgary'.

Farrell says she's received a few complaints but has been re-assured the city is not behind it.

She says homeowners are being asked if they want to raise their kids in a highrise jungle.
Another question asks, 'Do you want the city to take away your right to single family housing?'

David Watson, General Manager of Planning, Development and Assessment says the city would never be involved in a pushy telephone poll.
He says the whole thing is concerning because usually research or marketing firms don't ask these kinds of questions.

Critics of the Plan It Calgary strategy don't like the idea of building more dense neighbourhoods within current city limits to reduce the amount of urban sprawl.

The document sets out a plan for development over the next 50 years to accomodate another 1.3 million people.
Link
_________________________________________________________________

Hmm, now who could possibly be behind this?

So can the city find out who is behind this? Then proceed to make that information public to dirt them real good, because we all know that people love groups that call your house with yet another survey.

[frinkprof]

Right to single family housing - how can you take away something that doesn't exist?

[Bigtime]

I really wish that I could get this survey phone call. I'd blast 'em real good.

"Why yes I am about to start raising a family in a highrise jungle. Tell the UDI and CHBA to kiss my ass! Just as not all people want to live in multi-family not everyone wants to live in a single family house on the god forsaken outskirts of the city."

[MalcolmTucker]

It is likely an auto-poll if they are only asking a few questions and their sample is large enough to generate media stories. A poll conducted by people would never leak like this, since people likely to leak would decline to take the poll.

An auto poll, done by a 'demon dialer' is quite an old trick, and a pretty awesome thing for influencing public opinion. However, you do need to nuance your questions enough so that it isn't obvious who commissioned it and it doesn't backfire.

If they think PlanIt is so awful, they should be able to defeat it by presenting the facts. That they cannot shows how desperate they know their fight is.

[Wooster]

I swear the UDI and CHBA are the republican party of the US. Same tactics, same lies.

[DizzyEdge]

You know, I really think that perhaps the city went about this the wrong way.

I truly believe that the average Calgarian is probably indifferent, or against the plan, possibly due to ignorance, but an ignorance that perhaps the city hasn't done a good enough job to fix.

I'm glad they did the study that showed the 11 billion in savings, but doing a study that shows working on the plan is a good idea, after the plan has been worked on for some time and many people have gotten up in arms over it, seems the wrong order. The city really should have determined the problems with sprawl, then announced they were doing a study to determine how best to reduce those problems, then done the study that shows business as usual would cost us $X, but changing processes a, b, and c would save us $11 billion, then had some public debate... seems like things may have gone a lot smoother if this had been the process. My 2 cents anyway

[Bigtime]

So this goes before council on Monday the 11th right? What exactly will be decided at that time?