Crowchild Tr FYI

[suntan]

I find it strange that Nenshi has the support of so many cyclists considering that:

- He has a taxpayer subsidized vehicle.
- He drives to work.
- He flies all over the place.
- He's very unfit.

[jwslam]

Originally posted by benyl
The City is also actively reducing the amount of parking downtown with new high rise developments to "tax" and encourage people to use alternative means of getting to the DT core.

Genius move considering how shitty CT is. Put more bike lanes so the buses have less lanes to move abouts. My friend posted this this morning from her office.

» Click image for larger version

[J-D]

^ That's a lot of buses.

[Kramerica]

Wouldn't be suprised if they suggested something idiotic like a carpool lane so crowchild gets even more congested

[bspot]

Originally posted by rage2

Not to mention retarded winters. Trying to force Vancouver style bike lanes on us is ridiculous. It's 1/4 of the footprint of Calgary, flat, and isn't fucking freezing half the year. Not to mention being at sea level, which makes biking easier.

The odds are against us to be using cycling as a primary mode of transportation year round.

Never been to Scandinavia huh?

Biking in the winter works just fine. And seriously, altitude as an excuse for it being more difficult? It's not the Tour de France every morning... commuting should be relaxing compared to almost every other form of biking.

Anyhow, I'm glad that for once in my life not all of my tax money is going to pay for a bunch of overpasses I'll never use for a bunch of suburban leaches (exactly the people that come in here and whine about Nenshi because THEY made the decision to live 45 minutes away from work).

[rage2]

Originally posted by bspot
Biking in the winter works just fine. And seriously, altitude as an excuse for it being more difficult? It's not the Tour de France every morning... commuting should be relaxing compared to almost every other form of biking.

Yea, relaxing bike ride, you'll be slower than taking the bus lol. The biggest problem is distance, but yes, altitude does make a difference when you're biking 1.5 hrs uphill unless you're in really good shape.

Originally posted by bspot
Anyhow, I'm glad that for once in my life not all of my tax money is going to pay for a bunch of overpasses I'll never use for a bunch of suburban leaches (exactly the people that come in here and whine about Nenshi because THEY made the decision to live 45 minutes away from work).

We pay taxes in the suburbs too, and we helped pay for your inner city pedestrian bridges and bike lanes that we'll never use. So do you have friends across the river? Or do you refuse to socialize with people that live farther than biking distance from you?

Suburban leaches? Inner City parasites?

[bspot]

Originally posted by rage2

Yea, relaxing bike ride, you'll be slower than taking the bus lol. The biggest problem is distance, but yes, altitude does make a difference when you're biking 1.5 hrs uphill unless you're in really good shape.

You're right, it is all about distance. But going 30 on the flats is doable for anyone in even questionable shape. After 2 weeks of hills, if you have any, your body will acclimatize to the elevation/exercise and it doesn't feel any different than sea level. I've mountain biked at near sea level and at 13,000 feet. A couple days and you acclimatize.

We pay taxes in the suburbs too, and we helped pay for your inner city pedestrian bridges and bike lanes that we'll never use. So do you have friends across the river? Or do you refuse to socialize with people that live farther than biking distance from you?

Suburban leaches? Inner City parasites?

You pay wayyyy less. Trust me, I used to live in Rocky Ridge. I laughed every time they built a new overpass for me on Crowchild while I paid about half the property taxes of any of my friends in similarly sized places close to downtown.

I do often drive to other parts of the city, but I do it in off peak times. I would be fine if Crowchild was 2 lanes, it would barely slow down my trip up that way.

The stoney/crowchild interchange cost more than my new fancy pedestrian bridges combined. And you won't be seeing any tourists taking pictures of the interchange...

When I lived in Rocky Ridge interchanges got built at Brisbois, Shagannapi, Northland Dr, Sarcee and Nosehill. That's over $100 million in commuting infrastructure, plus whatever the LRT extension cost. Now, paying wayyy more tax per square foot, I've gotten the river walk (sort of, that was paid for by CMLC, not the city). The Peace bridge is a little past my work, but sure, I'll count it.

And this is why the city is screwed up. Why wouldn't everyone move out to the edges? It just makes financial sense the way the city is set up. But then everyone bitches about traffic and gets upset that finally someone realizes this is a shitty way to build the city and finally starts trying to encourage growth near downtown.

[effingidiot]

Well, if people commuted in cars with a footprint of a Smart, the city could redraw the markings to have 2 through-lanes in the S-N corridor of Crowchild. I'm not sure if the truck/SUV-driving populace would be too happy about that though The city could also introduce a progressive footprint tax based on how much road space a vehicle is occupying at any given moment and raise the funds for a second deck The options are very limited - either tolls or taxes.

[bspot]

Originally posted by effingidiot
Well, if people commuted in cars with a footprint of a Smart, the city could redraw the markings to have 2 through-lanes in the S-N corridor of Crowchild. I'm not sure if the truck/SUV-driving populace would be too happy about that though The city could also introduce a progressive footprint tax based on how much road space a vehicle is occupying at any given moment and raise the funds for a second deck The options are very limited - either tolls or taxes.

The should throw in narrow bus lanes like on NB crowchild near 17th ave and let cars under a certain size use them as well. Slower lanes are better suited for smart cars (I took a Car2Go on Deerfoot and I found it scary as hell) and then you get more throughput for the road.

[suntan]

Originally posted by bspot


You're right, it is all about distance. But going 30 on the flats is doable for anyone in even questionable shape. After 2 weeks of hills, if you have any, your body will acclimatize to the elevation/exercise and it doesn't feel any different than sea level. I've mountain biked at near sea level and at 13,000 feet. A couple days and you acclimatize.



You pay wayyyy less. Trust me, I used to live in Rocky Ridge. I laughed every time they built a new overpass for me on Crowchild while I paid about half the property taxes of any of my friends in similarly sized places close to downtown.

I do often drive to other parts of the city, but I do it in off peak times. I would be fine if Crowchild was 2 lanes, it would barely slow down my trip up that way.

The stoney/crowchild interchange cost more than my new fancy pedestrian bridges combined. And you won't be seeing any tourists taking pictures of the interchange...

When I lived in Rocky Ridge interchanges got built at Brisbois, Shagannapi, Northland Dr, Sarcee and Nosehill. That's over $100 million in commuting infrastructure, plus whatever the LRT extension cost. Now, paying wayyy more tax per square foot, I've gotten the river walk (sort of, that was paid for by CMLC, not the city). The Peace bridge is a little past my work, but sure, I'll count it.

And this is why the city is screwed up. Why wouldn't everyone move out to the edges? It just makes financial sense the way the city is set up. But then everyone bitches about traffic and gets upset that finally someone realizes this is a shitty way to build the city and finally starts trying to encourage growth near downtown.

Not sure what your point is. Most of Calgary's population lives in the suburbs.

Also, I have no sympathy for your tax whining. You choose to live in a more expensive house, you pay more taxes.

Also, I have a business, and my property taxes were around $16K last year. So you've got nothing on me.

[dirtsniffer]

people in the burbs should definitely have to pay to build the infrastructure. good thing blinky didnt win or the suburb sprawl would be getting even worse.

[hampstor]

More and more studies. You gotta wonder if these studies are motivated by politics and not to actually drive benefit. The municipal election is only a year away!

There is crumbling infrastructure along crowchild that I have not seen an attempt to fix... next time you drive down crowchild, take a closer look at the 16th avenue overpass.

Originally posted by bspot

You pay wayyyy less. Trust me, I used to live in Rocky Ridge. I laughed every time they built a new overpass for me on Crowchild while I paid about half the property taxes of any of my friends in similarly sized places close to downtown.

I do often drive to other parts of the city, but I do it in off peak times. I would be fine if Crowchild was 2 lanes, it would barely slow down my trip up that way.

The stoney/crowchild interchange cost more than my new fancy pedestrian bridges combined. And you won't be seeing any tourists taking pictures of the interchange...

When I lived in Rocky Ridge interchanges got built at Brisbois, Shagannapi, Northland Dr, Sarcee and Nosehill. That's over $100 million in commuting infrastructure, plus whatever the LRT extension cost. Now, paying wayyy more tax per square foot, I've gotten the river walk (sort of, that was paid for by CMLC, not the city). The Peace bridge is a little past my work, but sure, I'll count it.

And this is why the city is screwed up. Why wouldn't everyone move out to the edges? It just makes financial sense the way the city is set up. But then everyone bitches about traffic and gets upset that finally someone realizes this is a shitty way to build the city and finally starts trying to encourage growth near downtown.

I do not get this constant desire to funnel everyone into a singular massive business core. I too agree that the infrastructure is wholely insufficient. You're trying to design infrastructure to support traffic problems that occur twice a day, 5 days a week - and trying to do it with 20+ years of foresight. Not going to happen and to expect someone to have planned for that is pure fantasy in a city like this (edit: this part is not directed at you, just a general comment regarding the 'lack of planning' at the City).

Growing the area around the core is another way of saying you want to increase density. Increasing density in very old areas has it's own challenges to consider:
- Upgrading water and sewage for the increased density
- Upgrading utilities (electricity and gas)
- Upgrading existing roads in the area and increasing parking spots because you're now shoving more people into a small area, and these people will own cars. Just because people are closer to work and bike to work, it doesn't mean that they don't own a car as well.

With Imperial Oil moving out of the core, and most of CP going as well, I wouldn't be surprised if you're going to see more of this 'move to the suburbs'. At least with that situation, you can move closer to your work (and help more people to look at walking or biking) without paying an arm and a leg for a 50 year old home.

[effingidiot]

Originally posted by bspot


The should throw in narrow bus lanes like on NB crowchild near 17th ave and let cars under a certain size use them as well. Slower lanes are better suited for smart cars (I took a Car2Go on Deerfoot and I found it scary as hell) and then you get more throughput for the road.

Having high(er) speed of traffic flow on the right = bad time. What they should do is take the left lane of Deerfoot and a bit of the left shoulder, turn it into 2 lanes, make that a low-footprint car zone (sort of like HOV lanes), keep everyone else to the right, lower the speed limit to 80 (since speed on Deerfoot is only critical for 4 a.m. racer-types - it's essentially a parking lot during peak hours or, alternatively, tie speed limits to different time intervals ie: 80 kph between 7-9 am & 4-6 pm and 100 kph at any other time) in order to facilitate safe operation of smaller vehicles.

[suntan]

Originally posted by dirtsniffer
people in the burbs should definitely have to pay to build the infrastructure. good thing blinky didnt win or the suburb sprawl would be getting even worse.

Most new infrastructure is paid from the provincial and federal gov't. Most of your property taxes goes to pay for labour.

Also, 43.5% of your property tax goes to the province. Nenshi has done sweet fuck all to get some of that back. At least Bronco lobbied long and hard to get some of that.

I've always thought that a graduated property tax rate would bring in extra revenue and would have very little political backlash, since no one could ever taking the whining of rich people and their expensive properties seriously. Also, taxes on second properties should be higher, or at least have a land transfer tax attached to them.

These are simple ideas, yet our big-headed Nenshi has stuffed his ample caboose in the mayor's seat for, what, over two years now and these concepts escape him.

[bspot]

Originally posted by suntan
Not sure what your point is. Most of Calgary's population lives in the suburbs.

Also, I have no sympathy for your tax whining. You choose to live in a more expensive house, you pay more taxes.

Also, I have a business, and my property taxes were around $16K last year. So you've got nothing on me.

My point is living in the burbs is subsidized, on the backs of people who live in older, less maintained areas. If people had to pay for the services they used (built into home price or property tax) the city wouldn't be so fast to eat up every farm field 30km away from downtown.

[suntan]

Originally posted by bspot


My point is living in the burbs is subsidized, on the backs of people who live in older, less maintained areas. If people had to pay for the services they used (built into home price or property tax) the city wouldn't be so fast to eat up every farm field 30km away from downtown.

Yeah hey that's how taxes work. What do you think I get for the $16K I pay to the city? Sweet fuck all. Should I be complaining about that? Do you bitch about the 40% income tax you pay on income over $132K? I've been paying god-damned EI for 20 years now, I made one claim and had to pay it back, do I get to bitch about that too?

[bspot]

Originally posted by hampstor
More and more studies. You gotta wonder if these studies are motivated by politics and not to actually drive benefit. The municipal election is only a year away!

There is crumbling infrastructure along crowchild that I have not seen an attempt to fix... next time you drive down crowchild, take a closer look at the 16th avenue overpass.



I do not get this constant desire to funnel everyone into a singular massive business core. I too agree that the infrastructure is wholely insufficient. You're trying to design infrastructure to support traffic problems that occur twice a day, 5 days a week - and trying to do it with 20+ years of foresight. Not going to happen and to expect someone to have planned for that is pure fantasy in a city like this (edit: this part is not directed at you, just a general comment regarding the 'lack of planning' at the City).

Growing the area around the core is another way of saying you want to increase density. Increasing density in very old areas has it's own challenges to consider:
- Upgrading water and sewage for the increased density
- Upgrading utilities (electricity and gas)
- Upgrading existing roads in the area and increasing parking spots because you're now shoving more people into a small area, and these people will own cars. Just because people are closer to work and bike to work, it doesn't mean that they don't own a car as well.

With Imperial Oil moving out of the core, and most of CP going as well, I wouldn't be surprised if you're going to see more of this 'move to the suburbs'. At least with that situation, you can move closer to your work (and help more people to look at walking or biking) without paying an arm and a leg for a 50 year old home.

People change jobs on average of ~5 years (maybe even less now). People don't move that often, and they shouldn't. Its expensive and a pain in the ass. Having one centralized office core lets people in industries that exist in that core choose to live close to work even as they change jobs. Have business cores throughout your city leads to a ton of traffic crossing your entire city. If those are done in conjunction with transit, they can work great. Just live close to a train line and you'll be ok no matter where you work. So hopefully that is how the other business districts develop.

Houses/condos that are built inner-city need to provide parking, so that's a non issue. Sewer and utilities upgrades are due in most of those neighborhoods anyway, and again, are much cheaper than running sewer all the way out to Cranston.

[jwslam]

Originally posted by effingidiot
facilitate safe operation of smaller vehicles.

I don't know where you got the idea that bigger = safer.
You put the same shitty driver in either vehicle.

[rage2]

Originally posted by bspot
You pay wayyyy less. Trust me, I used to live in Rocky Ridge. I laughed every time they built a new overpass for me on Crowchild while I paid about half the property taxes of any of my friends in similarly sized places close to downtown.

People buy houses based on what they can afford. If I moved inner city, I would be living in a smaller place at a similar price. Property taxes in Calgary is based on home price.

Regardless, it's irrelevant, because our property taxes don't pay for infrastructure. Our income taxes might contribute slightly, but it's mostly funded through business taxes collected by Alberta and Canada.

Originally posted by bspot
And this is why the city is screwed up. Why wouldn't everyone move out to the edges? It just makes financial sense the way the city is set up. But then everyone bitches about traffic and gets upset that finally someone realizes this is a shitty way to build the city and finally starts trying to encourage growth near downtown.

This I agree with, but it's something that was designed in the 60's, and there's no quick fix to suddenly bring up population density. The city is trying to improve things with new homes in the suburbs having much smaller lots, and converting single lots into duplex lots for infills. You'd have to burn down the suburbs and build massive condo complexes to fit this city in a smaller footprint. But that won't fix traffic problems either, if anything, it'll make things much worse even if the majority of the population relies on a working transit system.

Originally posted by dirtsniffer
people in the burbs should definitely have to pay to build the infrastructure. good thing blinky didnt win or the suburb sprawl would be getting even worse.

If anything, the oil companies are paying for all the infrastructure.

[hampstor]

Originally posted by bspot


People change jobs on average of ~5 years (maybe even less now). People don't move that often, and they shouldn't. Its expensive and a pain in the ass. Having one centralized office core lets people in industries that exist in that core choose to live close to work even as they change jobs. Have business cores throughout your city leads to a ton of traffic crossing your entire city. If those are done in conjunction with transit, they can work great. Just live close to a train line and you'll be ok no matter where you work. So hopefully that is how the other business districts develop.

Houses/condos that are built inner-city need to provide parking, so that's a non issue. Sewer and utilities upgrades are due in most of those neighborhoods anyway, and again, are much cheaper than running sewer all the way out to Cranston.

When people change jobs, they'll take into account where the job is. If it's compelling enough, people will move closer to work. Currently with the way it is now, the vast majority of people who work in the core, couldn't afford it and it's not an option as there isn't even close to enough places to move into.

The sewage/utility upgrades going on are not designed for high density. To rage2's point, you'd have to build significant numbers of high density condos closer to the core to accomodate the number of people currently in the burbs. There's no way the infrastructure is even close enough to support that today. This also doesn't even consider the roads in the inner city neighborhoods (which are single-lane each direction).

IMHO we're well passed the point of build up to fix the problem.

Edit: Yes, I live in the burbs, I hate trying to get into the core but accepted it when I took my job in the core. I'm actually very happy that my team is being moved out of the core in early 2013.