News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.6K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 41K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.4K     0 

Golfing guy said:
Your right. Oh wait I forgot about the $4.6 Billion for the green line. $200 hundred million+ for the BRT’s... we spend so much money on alternative transportation modes in this city. Also car users pay for these with the Carbon Tax. I wish transit users paid more for there services as well. A surcharge on transit to pay for capital projects might help build more. Car users pay for our roads with gas taxes, vehicle registration fees etc.
Click to expand...

For every alternative transportation project that manages to get funding, we create countless acres of sprawl that are completely car dependent. Even something like the University District, which could be designed around a car-free lifestyle is in actuality designed to prioritize cars as the default mode of transportation: wide roads and turn radii, cut off from surrounding neighbourhoods by freeway-like arterial roads, ample parking, lousy transit connectivity, intersections that force pedestrians to zigzag all over pork chop islands, etc. All this to ensure little if any barriers to the ownership and daily use of a car.

Every transit line, every bike lane, every waiver of parking requirements is a huge fight. Hell, even getting crosswalks installed are a problem. Since the first LRT line began construction in 1977, we've expanded the system at a whopping 1.4 km per year. If Phase 1 of the Green Line opens on time, that number will go all the way up to 1.6 km/year. Meanwhile, sprawl continues unabated. We are compelling the vast majority of residents (and countless future generations) to live in this whether they like it or not.
 
Silence&Motion said:
For every alternative transportation project that manages to get funding, we create countless acres of sprawl that are completely car dependent. Even something like the University District, which could be designed around a car-free lifestyle is in actuality designed to prioritize cars as the default mode of transportation: wide roads and turn radii, cut off from surrounding neighbourhoods by freeway-like arterial roads, ample parking, lousy transit connectivity, intersections that force pedestrians to zigzag all over pork chop islands, etc. All this to ensure little if any barriers to the ownership and daily use of a car.

Every transit line, every bike lane, every waiver of parking requirements is a huge fight. Hell, even getting crosswalks installed are a problem. Since the first LRT line began construction in 1977, we've expanded the system at a whopping 1.4 km per year. If Phase 1 of the Green Line opens on time, that number will go all the way up to 1.6 km/year. Meanwhile, sprawl continues unabated. We are compelling the vast majority of residents (and countless future generations) to live in this whether they like it or not.
Click to expand...
100% agree. And let's not forget the little compromises even within the Transit, pedestrian and bicycle projects:
  • Every bus pull-out on 16th Ave as part of the Max Orange BRT project undermines transit competitiveness while using Transit funding (bus has to pull into traffic, which doesn't have to slow down. Creates delays on merging, while improves the travel time of Transit's competition: driving)
  • Every advanced-left-turn green on 12th Ave paid for by the Cycletrack project to move cars faster at the expense of bicycle travel times
  • Every LRT extension in the NW past Brentwood was paired with a healthy dose of freeway-ification of Crowchild Trail 2000 - 2015. Again undermining Transit's travel time advantage by speeding up cars and ability to build effective transit-oriented developments at stations
  • West LRT Sarcee Trail and 45th Street grade-separated crossings came from LRT project budgets
  • Every attempt to reuse Park-and-rides for redevelopment (to help support Transit's sustainability) has been loudly rejected to allow for free parking. Again, benefitting drivers with minor transit benefits (and nothing close to what TOD would bring in benefits)
And of course my favourite: the big $$$ car-favouring projects that just "kind of happen" - 16th Avenue widening back in the and the Memorial Drives median beautification of the 2000s, 17th Ave's current rebuild - but use the language of being "pedestrian-focused" and end up being something completely different. They aren't bugs, they are the feature. The vast majority of their budgets were always going to to go to utilities and vehicle throughput.

Thankfully, there are greenshoots everywhere in recent projects, community groups and pressure from the public. But the damage we have done and continue to do as we turn around our cities transportation system will take generations to approach anything other than complete car-orientation. If ever at this pace.
 
UrbanWarrior said:
Yeah, we feel so bad for you guys in your climate controlled, environmentally polluting moving boxes. It must be so difficult sitting there waiting in your heated/air conditioned box for traffic while everyone else is taking transit, walking and biking. Must be such a hassle o_O??
Click to expand...

A actually do have a lot of sympathy for drivers (in fact, I am one of them these days). I think the vast majority of drivers would prefer to drive less on a daily basis. Probably a majority of them would prefer to take other modes of transportation if that was a viable option (particularly walking). The main problem is that many people are under the false impression that building more roads will mean that they can spend less time in their car. Reality has proven time and again that more roads = more driving (which completely makes sense if you think about it). My guess it that the average car commute time in the city increases within a few years of the completion of the ring road.
 
So from the province's last year budget, the provincial component of roads paid for themselves. Given that no revenue from users flows through to cities and counties to use operationally, and that capital grants to municipalities for transportation push the province's expenses over and above the revenue received. We can conclude that: no, road users are not paying the full financial cost of roads in the province.
sankeymatic_1600x1600.png
 
To think about what could be done to change that, the province could create a new grant program funded by registrations that would work like this:
  • Gather operating costs for roads per vehicle registered in every municipality
  • Gather the renewal cost, or the amortization cost for roads per vehicle registered in every municipality
  • Take the lowest, average, or median cost, and apply it on vehicle registrations in municipalities
  • Then, and this is the key to make it viable: mandate a line item rebate on municipal taxation of the same amount, for the average vehicles per household owned. For rental units, you could mandate that all rental contracts in the province must pass the rebate to their renters.
  • Then, transfer the amount of increased registration fees to the municipalities
In addition, over the long term:
  • As the gas tax revenue decreases due to electrification, toll the limited access highways with entrance and exit cameras to cover their operating, maintenance, and amortization costs. As this revenue is collected, reduce the gas tax a proportional amount.
  • Explore future mechanisms to price lower tier provincial roads (there might not be a practical one)
 
You should run for premier next election.

darwink said:
To think about what could be done to change that, the province could create a new grant program funded by registrations that would work like this:
  • Gather operating costs for roads per vehicle registered in every municipality
  • Gather the renewal cost, or the amortization cost for roads per vehicle registered in every municipality
  • Take the lowest, average, or median cost, and apply it on vehicle registrations in municipalities
  • Then, and this is the key to make it viable: mandate a line item rebate on municipal taxation of the same amount, for the average vehicles per household owned. For rental units, you could mandate that all rental contracts in the province must pass the rebate to their renters.
  • Then, transfer the amount of increased registration fees to the municipalities
In addition, over the long term:
  • As the gas tax revenue decreases due to electrification, toll the limited access highways with entrance and exit cameras to cover their operating, maintenance, and amortization costs. As this revenue is collected, reduce the gas tax a proportional amount.
  • Explore future mechanisms to price lower tier provincial roads (there might not be a practical one)
Click to expand...
 
Thanks for posting this @darwink I've always wondered what the breakdown was. So simply put, that first column in the left is revenue, and the next two columns are costs?
darwink said:
So from the province's last year budget, the provincial component of roads paid for themselves. Given that no revenue from users flows through to cities and counties to use operationally, and that capital grants to municipalities for transportation push the province's expenses over and above the revenue received. We can conclude that: no, road users are not paying the full financial cost of roads in the province.
View attachment 187119
Click to expand...
 
Just build it said:
Thanks for posting this @darwink I've always wondered what the breakdown was. So simply put, that first column in the left is revenue, and the next two columns are costs?
Click to expand...
Revenue is the first column, second column is total revenue needed, including extra from general revenue (why this column has a gap at the bottom), provincial costs the last two columns. The Sankey diagrams are great for visualizing stuff like this, really makes it understandable in a way that tables or more conventional charts do not imo.

There are a few assumptions here.
  • That the motor vehicle licenses revenue here is the net revenue to the treasury and reflected in the Transportation budget, not including registry fees and the back end administration, which I imagine is handled in another department's budget: Service Alberta.
  • Another is that the amortization costs being booked are being offset by the maintenance and preservation work, so none of them need to counted. If that was the case, it means that the province's future maintenance costs are not going to grow, or that the quality of the network as a whole is not declining other time. This assumption is probably wrong, but is impossible to verify unless you have access to data like the auditor general would.
  • Another assumption is that I consolidated all the costs correctly - I didn't include one budget item for inventory purchases, which is mostly road sand and salt, as I believe the province had already consolidated that into the other numbers but I can't be sure. The reason the province purchases the sand and salt in bulk then provides it to the maintenance companies is probably a historical anachronism due to how the maintenance system was privatized in the 90s - either the province had a long term supply contract at the time, or had provincial quarries with much lower costs, or had quarry operators who paid their resource royalties or crown land rent as in-kind rather than as cash.
As to not confuse people: government funds are not ring fenced (dedicated funds for dedicated purposes). The transportation revenue does not go into a transportation account that can only be used for transportation costs. Modern governments do not ring fence funds as that increases cash management costs. They operate typically under a system called one account (which because the province isn't a national government with a central bank, may be multiple accounts held at multiple providers to ensure continuity of service and competition).
 
Last edited:
MichaelS said:
The interchanges for Airport Trail (19th Street and Barlow) are going to CPC next week. Here is the report:

An artist's rendering of them:
View attachment 190406
Some other neat details can be found in some of the attachments. it is item 7.2.1 in the agenda, found here:

Calgary Planning Commission - June 20, 2019

pub-calgary.escribemeetings.com pub-calgary.escribemeetings.com
Click to expand...
I get the “need” for the interchange at Barlow and the airports want for it. I don’t get the point of the one at 19th St. After looking at the rendering it makes less sense. If there was direct access to the terminal it would make more sense. Entering the terminal from 19th and leaving on Barlow would be perfect. Doesn’t look like that is in the plans. Am I missing something?
 
Golfing guy said:
I get the “need” for the interchange at Barlow and the airports want for it. I don’t get the point of the one at 19th St. After looking at the rendering it makes less sense. If there was direct access to the terminal it would make more sense. Entering the terminal from 19th and leaving on Barlow would be perfect. Doesn’t look like that is in the plans. Am I missing something?
Click to expand...
I was wondering the same thing. 19th isn't a busy intersection, and right now it goes nowhere in both directions, it seems like a waste of money. I can't see 19th ever being used much more than it is now. Even if they keep adding industrial space, traffic can still come out onto Barlow. My guess is they want to turn Airport trail into more of an expressway, but they need to deal with the stupid intersection at Deerfoot first.
 
Nobody remembers the history of this deal? Think back to the 2010 election.....

Yes, Airport Trail is classified as a Skeletal road according to the Calgary Transportation Plan (newly minted in 2009), meaning it is to be essentially an expressway, between Deerfoot and Stoney Trail. Skeletal classification means grade separated intersections (interchanges) is the long term plan.

What also started shortly after the passing of the CTP is initial construction of the new runway. The City had not yet reached a proper deal to allow the installation of a tunnel, and some studies and scenarios had been looked at showing that CHB would be able to accommodate the capacity in the near to medium term, and a tunnel could be looked at at a later date. The issue was further confused by the closing of Barlow Trail, a route that ran N-S, connecting to the airport. As construction of the runway started up, it looked like the tunnel was not likely to happen.

Then, a young upstart named Naheed Nenshi runs for mayor, and makes the Airport Tunnel one of his major platform planks, insisting that it needed to get built as a critical piece of infrastructure. Nenshi gets elected, and makes it a key priority of his early days (see CBC article from 2010):

So, the new mayor wants a tunnel, but the airport has already started mobilising (or maybe really close to, this is a bit of a fuzzy memory now 9 years later) construction on their runway. What is to be done? Well, negotiations between the City and the Airport get underway. Airport is already rolling, so don't really need to come to the table and don't want to see any unnecessary delays,, but sure, they will see what is offered. The City, having this new major priority from the new mayor, are pretty eager to get a deal. So, Council agrees to fund the tunnel (in a close vote), before even knowing what the terms of the deal are:

With new funding in place, there is more pressure than ever to reach a deal. The airport, even further along in their plans, are even less eager to see disruption to their runway project, so play some pretty good hardball. After a few back and forths, Council finally agrees to a deal that is pretty sweet for the airport. It needed to be, in order for it to be worth the risk to their project:
calgary.ctvnews.ca

One last attempt at a deal on airport tunnel

City council is giving it one more try to strike a deal with the Calgary Airport Authority to build the highly controversial airport tunnel.
calgary.ctvnews.ca

Essentially, the airport said, alright, you can have your tunnel, but it can only connect to 36th Street. it cannot connect further east to the new growing communities of Skyview Ranch and Cityscape. Not until you build us two interchanges first, the ones at Barlow and 19th Street. The City, desperate to see their tunnel happen, agree. Tunnel gets built, runway opens. Oh also, I have heard rumour of an insurance policy required by the airport that the city carry that has a million dollar a year cost to it, but not sure how true that is.....

Home | Calgary Herald

Read latest breaking news, updates, and headlines. Calgary Herald offers information on latest national and international events & more.
www.calgaryherald.com www.calgaryherald.com

Fast forward a few years, and the NE is the fastest growing area of Calgary. Massive growth, lots of new development, and lots of new traffic. And, lots of people wanting to know why the expressway ends with a T-intersection on an 2-lane semi-rural industrial road, instead of connecting their communities to the Deerfoot and points further on in the City. Nenshi starts getting buyers remorse?...

In the end, the terms of the 2011 deal stood. If airport trail is to be extended further east of 36th street, the two new interchanges had to come first. Feds arrived to chip in some money, and work proceeds:

Now I am sure many would prefer to see the money spent on these two interchanges used for other capital transportation projects, but the Airport sure did well for themselves, and are quite happy to have their full infrastructure well ahead of schedule.
 
MichaelS said:
Nobody remembers the history of this deal? Think back to the 2010 election.....

Yes, Airport Trail is classified as a Skeletal road according to the Calgary Transportation Plan (newly minted in 2009), meaning it is to be essentially an expressway, between Deerfoot and Stoney Trail. Skeletal classification means grade separated intersections (interchanges) is the long term plan.

What also started shortly after the passing of the CTP is initial construction of the new runway. The City had not yet reached a proper deal to allow the installation of a tunnel, and some studies and scenarios had been looked at showing that CHB would be able to accommodate the capacity in the near to medium term, and a tunnel could be looked at at a later date. The issue was further confused by the closing of Barlow Trail, a route that ran N-S, connecting to the airport. As construction of the runway started up, it looked like the tunnel was not likely to happen.

Then, a young upstart named Naheed Nenshi runs for mayor, and makes the Airport Tunnel one of his major platform planks, insisting that it needed to get built as a critical piece of infrastructure. Nenshi gets elected, and makes it a key priority of his early days (see CBC article from 2010):

So, the new mayor wants a tunnel, but the airport has already started mobilising (or maybe really close to, this is a bit of a fuzzy memory now 9 years later) construction on their runway. What is to be done? Well, negotiations between the City and the Airport get underway. Airport is already rolling, so don't really need to come to the table and don't want to see any unnecessary delays,, but sure, they will see what is offered. The City, having this new major priority from the new mayor, are pretty eager to get a deal. So, Council agrees to fund the tunnel (in a close vote), before even knowing what the terms of the deal are:

With new funding in place, there is more pressure than ever to reach a deal. The airport, even further along in their plans, are even less eager to see disruption to their runway project, so play some pretty good hardball. After a few back and forths, Council finally agrees to a deal that is pretty sweet for the airport. It needed to be, in order for it to be worth the risk to their project:
calgary.ctvnews.ca

One last attempt at a deal on airport tunnel

City council is giving it one more try to strike a deal with the Calgary Airport Authority to build the highly controversial airport tunnel.
calgary.ctvnews.ca

Essentially, the airport said, alright, you can have your tunnel, but it can only connect to 36th Street. it cannot connect further east to the new growing communities of Skyview Ranch and Cityscape. Not until you build us two interchanges first, the ones at Barlow and 19th Street. The City, desperate to see their tunnel happen, agree. Tunnel gets built, runway opens. Oh also, I have heard rumour of an insurance policy required by the airport that the city carry that has a million dollar a year cost to it, but not sure how true that is.....

Home | Calgary Herald

Read latest breaking news, updates, and headlines. Calgary Herald offers information on latest national and international events & more.
www.calgaryherald.com www.calgaryherald.com

Fast forward a few years, and the NE is the fastest growing area of Calgary. Massive growth, lots of new development, and lots of new traffic. And, lots of people wanting to know why the expressway ends with a T-intersection on an 2-lane semi-rural industrial road, instead of connecting their communities to the Deerfoot and points further on in the City. Nenshi starts getting buyers remorse?...

In the end, the terms of the 2011 deal stood. If airport trail is to be extended further east of 36th street, the two new interchanges had to come first. Feds arrived to chip in some money, and work proceeds:

Now I am sure many would prefer to see the money spent on these two interchanges used for other capital transportation projects, but the Airport sure did well for themselves, and are quite happy to have their full infrastructure well ahead of schedule.
Click to expand...
I’m aware of the deal the city made with the Airport Authority. It just doesn’t make any sense why the CAA would insist on 19st interchange when it really has nothing to do with the current airport transportation plan. If they had/have plans to connect that interchange directly with the terminal I would be all for it. Just do see that planned out yet. In these tough economic times it seems a big waste of tax payer dollars and CAA dollars
 
Golfing guy said:
I get the “need” for the interchange at Barlow and the airports want for it. I don’t get the point of the one at 19th St. After looking at the rendering it makes less sense. If there was direct access to the terminal it would make more sense. Entering the terminal from 19th and leaving on Barlow would be perfect. Doesn’t look like that is in the plans. Am I missing something?
Click to expand...
Surrealplaces said:
I was wondering the same thing. 19th isn't a busy intersection, and right now it goes nowhere in both directions, it seems like a waste of money. I can't see 19th ever being used much more than it is now. Even if they keep adding industrial space, traffic can still come out onto Barlow. My guess is they want to turn Airport trail into more of an expressway, but they need to deal with the stupid intersection at Deerfoot first.
Click to expand...


The currently planned "Ultimate Stage" for Airport Trail and YYC access does indeed have the entrance at 19 ST and looping through the terminal and out at Barlow.

Some maps in this presentation...
https://www.calgary.ca/Transportati...rojects/transportation-study-presentation.pdf
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top