West District | ?m | ?s | Truman

[TooBizzy]

A lot of hours were spent coming up with the layout of the West District from the open spaces, the amenities and the block plans. Tripling the density of blocks to cash in on investors that don't give a shit about the community is going to have an impact

Investors... such as... Truman... the same people who designed the rest of the community... and are designing this development to be a thinner tower instead of a wider 8 storey apartment to continue the vision of well designed open space.

 

[lemongrab]

I think they could kind of easily turn the train north at 85th and have the West Blue Line terminus be at West District. You can capture the dense area by Spring Bank Hill and West District. Will that SW part of the city keep growing out past Stoney? I don't know.

The business case would be interesting here - I wonder how many new customers it would actually generate, or how many park and riders would become just riders? There's about 670 free P&R stalls on the west, with another 570 reserved stalls. A reserved stall can currently generate $1080 per year (but I'm not sure any lots sell out?).

So if you cannibalize 200 reserved stall users that's $216k per year...perhaps inconsequential, but it's a consideration. And I suppose this is true for any extension scenario, but it feels like it might be a little more pronounced here

 

[CBBarnett]

The business case would be interesting here - I wonder how many new customers it would actually generate, or how many park and riders would become just riders? There's about 670 free P&R stalls on the west, with another 570 reserved stalls. A reserved stall can currently generate $1080 per year (but I'm not sure any lots sell out?).

So if you cannibalize 200 reserved stall users that's $216k per year...perhaps inconsequential, but it's a consideration. And I suppose this is true for any extension scenario, but it feels like it might be a little more pronounced here

The other wrinkle to your math is that park-and-ride overall is a cost, not a revenue source for Calgary Transit. Reserved stall fees cover some of this, but the main theory is that park-and-ride is a customer nice-to-have perk that can marginally increase ridership, which therefore makes it worth it. Debatable logic, but that's the idea.

So while it's good that some cost recovery is going on, a more serious transit park-and-ride policy would declare that park-and-ride as a non-core transit amenity that must achieve total cost recovery through setting market pricing.

If that is not possible (i.e. if drivers are not willing to pay the cost recovery daily parking rate) - congratulations Calgary Transit can sell that land for millions and redevelop it into TOD, perhaps ever a few towers like this one. That would generate far more riders than any parking lot ever did, and you don't even need to do a costly LRT extension.

 

[CalgaryTiger]

The other wrinkle to your math is that park-and-ride overall is a cost, not a revenue source for Calgary Transit. Reserved stall fees cover some of this, but the main theory is that park-and-ride is a customer nice-to-have perk that can marginally increase ridership, which therefore makes it worth it. Debatable logic, but that's the idea.

So while it's good that some cost recovery is going on, a more serious transit park-and-ride policy would declare that park-and-ride as a non-core transit amenity that must achieve total cost recovery through setting market pricing.

If that is not possible (i.e. if drivers are not willing to pay the cost recovery daily parking rate) - congratulations Calgary Transit can sell that land for millions and redevelop it into TOD, perhaps ever a few towers like this one. That would generate far more riders than any parking lot ever did, and you don't even need to do a costly LRT extension.

Do you work/consult with CMLC?

 

[badc0ffee]

the main theory is that park-and-ride is a customer nice-to-have perk that can marginally increase ridership, which therefore makes it worth it

Something getting lost here is that one of the reasons we have this LRT system in the first place is because we didn't want to expand road capacity any further downtown. We priced parking super high downtown, and gave people the option to park at a train station instead.

I'm not saying that's a better use of the land around stations than TOD, and I'm aware that a large majority of train users don't even use those parking lots, but I just wanted to point this out. Increasing transit usage and getting people out of their cars wasn't the original goal in itself in the 70s-80s, it was to keep cars out of downtown specifically.

 

[lemongrab]

The other wrinkle to your math is that park-and-ride overall is a cost, not a revenue source for Calgary Transit. Reserved stall fees cover some of this, but the main theory is that park-and-ride is a customer nice-to-have perk that can marginally increase ridership, which therefore makes it worth it. Debatable logic, but that's the idea.

So while it's good that some cost recovery is going on, a more serious transit park-and-ride policy would declare that park-and-ride as a non-core transit amenity that must achieve total cost recovery through setting market pricing.

If that is not possible (i.e. if drivers are not willing to pay the cost recovery daily parking rate) - congratulations Calgary Transit can sell that land for millions and redevelop it into TOD, perhaps ever a few towers like this one. That would generate far more riders than any parking lot ever did, and you don't even need to do a costly LRT extension.

No argument here, but we've backed ourselves into a bit more of a corner with the parkade (demolition cost for redevelopment), and this lot almost certainly has more revenue per sq meter than any other P&R, so it should be near the bottom of the list for TOD. Sirocco lot would be a good one, though.

I wonder about a high frequency bus loop running clockwise: 17th-85th-OBCR-69th. It might have to dip around Ernest Manning and then need a left turn to get back onto 17th, but even that shouldn't be necessary. Surprisingly, the parkade access intersection just west of 69th/17th isn't actually set up with a crosswalk across 17th...but I see they've designed it to be intentionally hostile to pedestrians.

If the stop was a little west of the current pullout, it could be a 165m walk to LRT doors with a single priority crosswalk (on the east side of this intersection while NB-WB traffic makes their left turn). Currently, the pullout stop to those doors is 200 meter walk, crossing two slip lanes and a guaranteed wait at 69th/17th. Or, stopping on 69th immediately east of the parkade means a 130m walk (but no intersection) - but requires a long detour to get the bus back on track for my express route idea (unless maybe you build a connection from EM Dr to the little parkade access road I'm talking about, though there is a substantial grade difference.


I believe the parcel immediately to the NW of this is under development now, so maybe they'll think about making pedestrian access a little less terrible, though more likely they'll just rely on the adjacent intersections.

10km route with about 11 stops (though I think you could cut out the detour drawn here):

I think that's about the right length to run a single directional loop at double frequency - all right turns - instead of a slower bidirectional loop.

 

[jacketsniffer]

Anyone going to the Online Information Session tonight at 6pm ? ( https://hellowestdistrict.com/development/ or direct link is https://us02web.zoom.us/j/86452942617#success )

I'd like to but can't tonight, and the spouse is a NIMBY (I'm the YIMBY), so I'd like to hear how it goes. May be entertaining if there's audience input allowed.

 

[MichaelS]

I didn't attend, but the slide deck from the meeting is posted online:

https://hellowestdistrict.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/25-02-05-online-information-session-slide-deck.pdf

Some key bits of information from it:

First off, the West Radio Park development now appears to be called Wellington, and there is an updated rendering in the package:

I don't know if we have seen this rendering of Radio Park before:

It is a $20 million dollar investment, here are a few of the key features:

 

[jacketsniffer]

Thanks @MichaelS for the link and summaries above. Also like all the details in the linked PDF, some thoughts...

It feels like they were reading this thread, with the detail on transit service, the 10 minute frequency up and down 85th Street to the LRT would be great assuming it can be serviced at that frequency most of the day.

They mention shadow studies on adjoining property, but it reminds me of a weakness walking through the area that it seems really quite dark even on sunny days due to the blocking of the sun by large west to east oriented development, leaving Broadcast Avenue in a perpetual shade. Not much can be done at this point, but I don't recall that issue in University District for example.

While the park looks great and amenities thoughtful, I can understand the NIMBY perspective that it's also wholly insufficient to have one tot lot, one basketball court, etc for 10,000 plus residents. Having seen the size of the dog run area, about the size of a basketball court, interesting thought experiment to see all those residents with the dogs in the area at the same time there on a Saturday morning, LOL.

The map of schools nearby was a good reply to those concerns!

I can see some other weaknesses, but being a resident of West springs I feel like we'll gain positives in terms of amenities and retail. Once these residents have a few kids, and are attending local schools, the $$$ value of our nearby single family homes will rise faster than average because they'll upgrade from an apartment but want to stay nearby.

 

[Red Star]

Anyone going to the Online Information Session tonight at 6pm ? ( https://hellowestdistrict.com/development/ or direct link is https://us02web.zoom.us/j/86452942617#success )

I'd like to but can't tonight, and the spouse is a NIMBY (I'm the YIMBY), so I'd like to hear how it goes. May be entertaining if there's audience input allowed.

The City should look into building an LRT line that ties West District to Blue line.

The new line would be slightly less than 6km in length. Ideally the LRT line would be elevated along the length of Bow Trail.

 

[Golfing guy]

The City should look into building an LRT line that ties West District to Blue line.

View attachment 630972

The new line would be slightly less than 6km in length. Ideally the LRT line would be elevated along the length of Bow Trail.

Think the billions that would cost would be better spent extending existing lines. Buses can connect WD with blue line at 69st or maybe an extension to 85st

 

[MichaelS]

Two buses already connect West District to the Blue Line. Route 98 uses 85th Street to connect with 69th STreet station, and Route 111 uses OBCR and Bow Trail to connect at Westbrook. Again, it will be much, much cheaper to just run those buses frequently, it would deliver amazing transit service to West District.

 

[UrbanWarrior]

You had me until I realized you were proposing an entire new line through sparsely populated, established suburbs that would fight this tooth and nail.

Our best bet would be to hope that, once the West Line is extended to 85 Street (it's eventual terminus), there's an appetite to extend it the 2.5 kilometers north along 85th. But even that is doubtful unless they start proposing some serious density in the few remaining developable plots along that corridor (unlikely).

Frequent bus service will be fine.

 

[CBBarnett]

The area obviously has really solid urban design applied throughout and be should commended for that. It's shaping up nicely and exceeds the quality of most other developments we've ever had. But ultimately it will always be fairly difficult to service with quality transit.

Two structural issues that work against transit here:

Location

1. the most obvious challenge for transit is where this place is - edge of the city, kilometres from existing rapid transit. It's that classic suburban problem - where we have the existing quality service wasn't buildable, so we built where we could anyways, and now have to wait (for decades) to extend the quality to the place we just built.
2. Death by 1,000 cuts to transit here - every one of these dense clusters that pop up on the edge of the city away from existing service is yet another drag on the whole system - ever more investment is needed, timelines are stretched out and resources are spread too thin to achieve them all.
3. Reminds me a bit of Seton and the South Hospital - density still waiting for the quality transit because it's so far out. Had we just built the hospital on the Red Line in the 2000s as was originally planned that would have changed everything and we might not even have needed the Greenline in the first place!
4. Even upgraded bus service will take years to materialize, with so many other needs competing for Calgary Transit investment in far better locations. The distance is just too far and even substantial density is marginal to attract dramatically better service.
5. I find it kind of surprising it was approved at the scale it is - let alone even more density now - particularly when we have seen far more incremental or better located density increases facing way more friction. I am still very much in support of it, just surprised our process didn't tamp down density expectations here given the lack of local or city plan that says this is a good place for a new mini-Beltline.

Inward looking

1. West District follows other developments in this pattern where we can't seem to build good quality urban neighbourhoods/main streets on our existing arterials, we can only do good stuff if we build new streets from scratch that aren't mobility corridors.
2. The result is density is pulled off the main corridors - meaning buses will deviate and be pulled off as well, eating tons of time with turns and slower speeds. This is antithetical to good transit design to keep things moving quickly.
3. The development is more of a symptom than the problem itself, there's a few ways to mitigate. Transit could stick to it's guns to have truly frequent and fast service, meaning people have to walk to 85th or Old Banff Coach Hill Road for transit, there's no silly hub in the middle of the community. Arterial design and land uses is the root of the problem and that needs substantial rethinking to be successful for transit and pedestrians, not just benefiting transit's competition - cars.

Is West District a disaster for transit? No, of course not, lots of this can be mitigated and it's still light-years better than some other developments we've seen. But it's not going to be as easy in practice to realize good transit with competing objectives. My bet is this will result is a prolonged status quo - great urban design cluster at high density, but underwhelming transit performance and slow ridership growth that matches a lack of investment.

 

[Mountain Man]

Thanks @MichaelS

They mention shadow studies on adjoining property, but it reminds me of a weakness walking through the area that it seems really quite dark even on sunny days due to the blocking of the sun by large west to east oriented development, leaving Broadcast Avenue in a perpetual shade. Not much can be done at this point, but I don't recall that issue in University District for example.

UD has a slight NE / SW orientation on University Ave that mitigates the shadows slightly. The south sidewalk is almost always in shade, especially this time of year. Calgary should have more of a N / S orientation to our streets where possible, would allow more sun and block more wind.

If we could somehow connect 85St to 16Ave without ruining half of Paskapoo, that would be the ideal transit solution. Just run BRT (like the 301, not MAX) along that road to feed between 17Ave Blue Line and some sort of transit station around Trinity Hills.