DougB
Active Member
Unless the Heather Glen and Winston golf courses and Spring Gardens City of Calgary sites could be redeveloped.
- Thread starter Surrealplaces
- Start date
Unless the Heather Glen and Winston golf courses and Spring Gardens City of Calgary sites could be redeveloped.
Patrick.1980
Active Member
You could develop them and it would be an improvement, but the locations limit any real TOD potential. They are cut off from being walkable anywhere. TODs built along a centre street route have much better potential, and would be far easier to develop.
MichaelS
Senior Member
Easy may be optimistic. Land assemblies, constant NIMBYism, will make it very challenging.
Patrick.1980
Active Member
For sure, I just mean in comparison to buying out those golf courses and developing a master plan for them, it would be easier to let individual projects happen on their own.
The areas around stations along Centre Street would be a slow organic growth with projects getting bigger as time goes on. We would have to be patient, but we'd be starting at a higher bar having established populations, with a grid street layout and every time a project is added, the bar only gets higher.
Cowtown
Senior Member
I'm not sure it would be far easier. The TOD's would be far better, but developing some large lots in areas where there is no population might actually be the easier route. That said, The TOD's in those location would suck, whereas the TOD's along Centre Street have potential to be textbook examples of how to do one.
O-tac
Active Member
Is there a vote this week on this? I read some of Evan Woolley's comments and his motion to stop the whole thing and I am seething. His dismissal of the SE portion as only servicing a maintenance shed is ridiculous. By that logic Anderson station was a useless line that only serviced a maintenance facility for 25 years. He completely leaves out Quarry Park and all the SE communities that would funnel into the line.
How is it responsible government to say "I would rather no lrt than an imperfect one". Don't get me wrong, I am concerned about cost cutting measures, but to throw a tantrum like this in the 11th hour after a decade of study and deliberation is irresponsible and jeopardizes the entire project. His approach is a big FU to the rest of the city.
How is it responsible government to say "I would rather no lrt than an imperfect one". Don't get me wrong, I am concerned about cost cutting measures, but to throw a tantrum like this in the 11th hour after a decade of study and deliberation is irresponsible and jeopardizes the entire project. His approach is a big FU to the rest of the city.
Last edited:
MichaelS
Senior Member
They will be debating Councillor Wooley's motion at Council today (or might not get to it until tomorrow).
accord1999
Active Member
accord1999
Active Member
But the South line had high ridership to begin with. It would be more comparable if 40 years ago, the NE line was built first, all the way to Oliver Bowen while the South waited. And what kind of ridership do you think a SE line that starts at Shepard and ends at 4 Street SE with no downtown connection will have.
If that imperfect LRT ends up being as expensive as Honolulu Rail Transit ($9-$10 billion) and cost upwards of $100 million a year to operate, it's probably better to stick with proper BRT for now.
Given how much the Green Line has now gone over budget, perhaps those years of study and deliberation weren't worth very much. And if you go back to 2015, important reasons for building the Green Line now (high ridership from NC commuters) and for skipping BRT transit way (waste of money since NC ridership will soon exceed capacity of BRT) have been completely forgotten.
The Green Line continually growing in price is jeopardizing the project.
O-tac
Active Member
The point is to get shovels in the ground on the decided SE portion, figure out DT and build the DT section concurrently with the SE section. At least in the meantime you would get it started on the easiest portion. And yes you would get lots of ridership at Shepard. New Brighton and Copperfield are nearby and feeder buses would connect everything south to Seton.
Also let’s not ignore the fact that the SE industrial parks employ more people than DT.
I can’t help but notice you are a new member. Is this Evan?
Cowtown
Senior Member
Maybe better to have BRT right now, but to me the Green Line seems like a better to option for the long term. It probably will be less efficient and more costly upfront, but 30 years from now will be glad that we did it now. My two cents.
accord1999
Active Member
That plan didn't work out very well for Honolulu:
Enough to justify $2B of rail? Doubtful, given how little transit ridership there is currently in the SE and how even connected to downtown, the Green Line Stage 1 was projected to have high operating losses ($40M/year).
Those parks are not located that close to the SE stations for the most part, its questionable just how many people working in those industrial parks would be regular, or even occasional transit riders.
No, just somebody interested in infrastructure projects.
accord1999
Active Member
That was a major argument for skipping BRT and going to LRT directly.... But it was made on behalf of the NC. But with the massive cost overruns and the trouble in the DT, 15 years from now North of Beddington Trail communities probably won't have any LRT, or even significant transit service improvements of any kind.
Social Justice
Active Member
That plan didn't work out very well for Honolulu:
Enough to justify $2B of rail? Doubtful, given how little transit ridership there is currently in the SE and how even connected to downtown, the Green Line Stage 1 was projected to have high operating losses ($40M/year).
Those parks are not located that close to the SE stations for the most part, its questionable just how many people working in those industrial parks would be regular, or even occasional transit riders.
No, just somebody interested in infrastructure projects.
Transit ridership in the S.E. is low because the catchment area is severely underserved by transit. The current BRT is joke and does a winding milk-run route through low populated areas and takes about 45mins from downtown to Mckenzie.
The greenline will convert drivers to LRT riders.
O-tac
Active Member
This. Plus it is the fastest growing quadrant in the city. The population is there contrary to all the arguments that it’s just tumbleweeds and maintenance sheds. Currently there are no viable options other than driving a car for most people.
Last edited: