Saskatoon Construction III

[Crisis]

Originally Posted by djforsberg

You would think that improving the transit network and getting more people to use it would lower the amount of single-use vehicular traffic. You just need a city council with the balls to make the move. Just like wider roads induce more traffic, the opposite is true. If public transit was quicker and more convenient than single-use vehicle travel, that's when people will start making the jump.

My interpretation of what you've posted is that single-use vehicle travel (which I presume is anything other than public transit) needs to be slower than public transit in order to drive people to use the public transit system. To accomplish that, traffic lanes used by private vehicles will be reduced to allow for dedicated bus lanes, thus making private vehicle transportation less efficient.

My thought - That's not going to happen. Good luck getting re-elected as a city councillor or mayor if you vote to make travel more frustrating for the 90% of people that use private vehicles vs. buses. Sure, public transit may rule in many large cities around the world but Saskatoon isn't one of those places. And I don't believe that it will become one of those places in the foreseeable future.

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by Crisis

My interpretation of what you've posted is that single-use vehicle travel (which I presume is anything other than public transit) needs to be slower than public transit in order to drive people to use the public transit system. To accomplish that, traffic lanes used by private vehicles will be reduced to allow for dedicated bus lanes, thus making private vehicle transportation less efficient.

My thought - That's not going to happen. Good luck getting re-elected as a city councillor or mayor if you vote to make travel more frustrating for the 90% of people that use private vehicles vs. buses. Sure, public transit may rule in many large cities around the world but Saskatoon isn't one of those places. And I don't believe that it will become one of those places in the foreseeable future.

Saskatoon's percentage of trips made by transit (4.3%) is obviously lower than the major cities like Vancouver (20.4%), Toronto(24.3%), and Montreal (22.3%), but it's also lower than cities of comparable size with no rapid transit such as Regina (5.1%), London (7.2%), Halifax (11.8%), and Victoria (10.9%). Winnipeg is much larger but its share (13.6%) is significantly higher and it has no rail. In fact, Winnipeg's ridership is better than Edmonton (11.3%) despite the latter's LRT system.

Speed is just one variable. Reliability, comfort, cost, and safety are other ones. There are several other ways to improve Saskatoon's buses such as: running buses on main corridors at higher frequencies (10 minutes and less); providing shelters at all stops to protect from wind, rain, and snow; ensuring stops have adequate street lighting at night; capping daily and monthly fares; and investing in a better transit app are all steps that could increase ridership.

I think it is also important to keep in mind that Saskatoon has a duty to provide good transit not only for the people who might switch from driving to transit but also for those who have no other option. Seniors, immigrants, students, the disabled, and the poor sometimes have no option but to take the bus. Requiring access to a vehicle in order to participate in the labour force, attend school, shop for groceries, or visit friends is not only inequitable but it's also bad for society when those people don't work or can't make a doctor appointment or live isolated lives.

But again, Saskatoon has many streets that are severely overbuilt. I can guarantee that the traffic volumes on 22nd, 8th, and College do not require three lanes for more than 90% of the day. And adding dedicated lanes on those streets would probably increase travel times for private vehicles by 5 minutes or less at peak hours.

[phone]

Found this new map of the proposed Southeast Concept plan buried in the City's 2022 Planning & Development Year-end Report, in the agenda for the upcoming Planning, Development and Community Services meeting. More suburban whatever. Looks to me like the equivalent of two new Stonebridges.

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by phone

Looks to me like the equivalent of two new Stonebridges.

I don't really get why cities wait until they face a housing crisis and gridlocked roads before deciding to build more densely. Yes, Saskatoon's land is too cheap to justify the sorts of highrises that are going up in Vancouver or Toronto, but the city should be building new mixed-use, medium-density neighbourhoods instead of these unsustainable (from a financial perspective) single-family "suburbs".

I think it is absurd that for this new conecpt, just like with Stonebridge or Evergreen or Brighton, some people will need to drive two or three kilometers to access that tiny sliver of commercial built next to the highway. McOrmond Drive, Brighton Gate, and Brighton Boulevard should have lined with two-story commercial buildings akin to Broadway or 20th, but instead Brighton and every other new neighbourhood (including the new one pictured here) is allergic to any sort of mixed-use.

[phone]

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

I think it is absurd that for this new conecpt, just like with Stonebridge or Evergreen or Brighton, some people will need to drive two or three kilometers to access that tiny sliver of commercial built next to the highway. McOrmond Drive, Brighton Gate, and Brighton Boulevard should have lined with two-story commercial buildings akin to Broadway or 20th, but instead Brighton and every other new neighbourhood (including the new one pictured here) is allergic to any sort of mixed-use.

Hey let's not jump to conclusions. I'm sure those "Urban Mixed-use Nodes" will be teeming with Jacobsian vitality /s

[prairieguy]

[QUOTE Speed is just one variable. Reliability, comfort, cost, and safety are other ones. There are several other ways to improve Saskatoon's buses such as: running buses on main corridors at higher frequencies (10 minutes and less); providing shelters at all stops to protect from wind, rain, and snow; ensuring stops have adequate street lighting at night; capping daily and monthly fares; and investing in a better transit app are all steps that could increase ridership..[/QUOTE]

I especially agree with the suggestion of shelters at all stops. Let us acknowledge and embrace that we are winter city, and as such need to provide more comfortable shelter from the cold for winter public transit. With the advancement of solar technology, there must be existing shelters that integrate solar panels into the bus shelter. Even if these type of shelters were every 2nd stop (with a windbreak shelter in between) this would go a long way to improving the experience. We have friends that are new Canadians, recently had a baby and cannot afford a car. Their struggles to get around our city for appointments and shopping (especially for the baby) has broken our hearts.

[Roquentin]

Oh look, a new freeway.

It is absurd, isn't it? While we cheer on things like the Caswell bus barns rehab, the city is putting blobs of colour on a map and planning to metastasize. The city grows by, what, ~6000 people per year? How much of that growth takes place centrally? Or, not even centrally --- how much of that growth occurs inside the perimeter of Circle Drive? Almost none of it, relatively speaking?

Whenever the issue of suburban growth is raised, people talk about the desires of consumers who prefer to own a house (and to have that house be reasonably affordable, have access to local services, etc.). Those preferences are sacrosanct here at a local, political level --- those preferences are massively supported and subsidized. For the sake of argument (or to avoid an argument, maybe), let's say that those preferences are completely, 100% fine. However, on a personal level, in the next few months, I'm going to be moving from downtown to 639 Main (woo!). My preference is to live/work/shop etc. centrally. Compared to suburban living, how easy/affordable/convenient etc. is it to do that here? Compared to the suburbs, how well is the core (or anything inside Circle Drive) supported and subsidized?

What is being done at governmental levels to encourage or support the choices people make when they decide where to live? Building a new freeway would be an answer to that question. Allowing a cluster of office buildings to be built in Stonebridge is an answer to that question. Giving heritage designation to a gravel parking lot downtown answers that question. And so on and so on. Meanwhile, people complain about replacing the downtown library or building the arena downtown --- and career-minded political opportunists listen to them.

The status quo here leaves a lot to be desired. What will the city look like when it finally hits that half-a-million mark that planners envision? Inside Circle Drive, will it even be very different than it is right now?

[Saskabusher]

I think good and bad points for Saskatoon developments- trying to build the CBD while allowing the waste of tax money expanding the burbs is tricky.

[4LSaskatoon]

Highlighting a few projects, and proposed projects.. in and around downtown..
all within Circle Dr. There are some fantastic infill projects from smaller builders.
The Caswell Bus Barns are making plans.... that look fantastic!
I too.... am impatient, and wanting projects to happen faster.
It feels like not much is happening... but there's a lot happening behind the scenes, a lot of planning going on (and a lot of hurdles to overcome... )

https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=55fdd...Zm9saW8u&ntb=1

https://www.ckom.com/2022/05/11/plan...-in-saskatoon/

https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=1ab6e...lwbGVzLw&ntb=1

https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=e1a07...1cmNoZXM&ntb=1

https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=a4eb5...MTk0NzY5&ntb=1

https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=980e2...91c2luZw&ntb=1

https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=d8f6f...NoZXdhbg&ntb=1

https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=52a87...ODYwODg3&ntb=1

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saska...lace-1.5996541

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saska...0strong%202018

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by Roquentin

Whenever the issue of suburban growth is raised, people talk about the desires of consumers who prefer to own a house (and to have that house be reasonably affordable, have access to local services, etc.). Those preferences are sacrosanct here at a local, political level --- those preferences are massively supported and subsidized.

I hear this argument all the time: "People who want to live in apartments move to Vancouver or Toronto; people who want to own a SFH live in Saskatoon". Never mind the fact that part of the reason my wife and I left Saskatoon is because of the poor-quality urban living. We lived in one of the most walkable parts of the city (Nutana) and there was still only one grocery store a 15-minute walk away and even that store has closed!

Originally Posted by 4LSaskatoon

It feels like not much is happening... but there's a lot happening behind the scenes, a lot of planning going on (and a lot of hurdles to overcome... )

The problem is that for every major project or 15 infills within Circle Drive, another thousand-home development on the periphery of the city is given the green light!

These far-flung developments are essentially a pyramid scheme: the property taxes they generate do not cover the maintenance and eventual replacement of infrastructure like roads and sewers, so a city either has to cover that shortfall with the taxes generated from the CBD and dense, mixed-use developments or it has to approve more and more new developments to keep the whole racket going.

Here's a fun fact: per the 2021 census Saskatoon's CMA has a land area of 5,900 square kilometres and a population of 317k, while Vancouver's CMA has a land area of 2,900 square kilometres and a population of 2.6 million. So if you ever wonder why one city has Skytrain and one of the better bus networks in North America while the other has an abundance of freeways and poor bus service now you know.

[djforsberg]

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

Here's a fun fact: per the 2021 census Saskatoon's CMA has a land area of 5,900 square kilometres and a population of 317k, while Vancouver's CMA has a land area of 2,900 square kilometres and a population of 2.6 million. So if you ever wonder why one city has Skytrain and one of the better bus networks in North America while the other has an abundance of freeways and poor bus service now you know.

And Saskatoon is spending FAR more per capita for all those roads and other infrastructure to support the low density cities like it has. If people actually cared about low taxes, they should be looking at vastly increasing density and improving public transportation vs spreading out and building an enormous amount of sporadically-utilized roads.

[The S'toon Goon]

What is a shame is that some of the newer neighborhoods are actually some of the best planned neighborhoods in the city. I quite like Evergreen and even Hampton Village is quite nice. They are well thought out, amongst the city's more dense areas and they are diverse with it's housing options. It's just too bad they aren't located maybe we're North Park/ Richmond Heights or Holliston are.

I am very pro infill. It needs to be greatly encouraged and incentivized throughout the city. And perhaps the NIMBYism that runs rampant in this city could be reigned in as well. But that said, maybe it's a small win that the suburbs aren't continuing to be endless Briarwoods and Arbour Creeks. The city planners might be slowly learning!

Sorry, meant to say that Evergreen and Hampton Village are amongst the densest neighborhoods outside of circle drive!

[Dalreg]

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

I hear this argument all the time: "People who want to live in apartments move to Vancouver or Toronto; people who want to own a SFH live in Saskatoon". Never mind the fact that part of the reason my wife and I left Saskatoon is because of the poor-quality urban living. We lived in one of the most walkable parts of the city (Nutana) and there was still only one grocery store a 15-minute walk away and even that store has closed!



The problem is that for every major project or 15 infills within Circle Drive, another thousand-home development on the periphery of the city is given the green light!

These far-flung developments are essentially a pyramid scheme: the property taxes they generate do not cover the maintenance and eventual replacement of infrastructure like roads and sewers, so a city either has to cover that shortfall with the taxes generated from the CBD and dense, mixed-use developments or it has to approve more and more new developments to keep the whole racket going.

Here's a fun fact: per the 2021 census Saskatoon's CMA has a land area of 5,900 square kilometres and a population of 317k, while Vancouver's CMA has a land area of 2,900 square kilometres and a population of 2.6 million. So if you ever wonder why one city has Skytrain and one of the better bus networks in North America while the other has an abundance of freeways and poor bus service now you know.

Fun fact one city is 320K and the other is 2.5miliion.

Fun fact the city of 320K is actually only 280k in the city proper. Don't spend dime one on roads or buses outside it's borders.

How about you make a proper comparison

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by The S'toon Goon

They are well thought out, amongst the city's more dense areas and they are diverse with it's housing options. It's just too bad they aren't located maybe we're North Park/ Richmond Heights or Holliston are.

Yes, those neighbourhoods have a good variety of housing types. But I still wish there was more mixed use development and that the neighbourhoods were built on more of a grid. I like the shops and services in Evergreen Square, but it would be nice if there were a couple shops spread through the neighbourhood maybe at the intersection of Evergreen and Zary or the northeast Evergreen traffic circle. And I wish there were more pedestrian connections between the crescents along McOrmond and Fedoruk and those arterials to make it easier to walk to a bus stop.

Originally Posted by Dalreg

Fun fact one city is 320K and the other is 2.5miliion.

Fun fact the city of 320K is actually only 280k in the city proper. Don't spend dime one on roads or buses outside it's borders.

How about you make a proper comparison

I don't know what your point is. Vancouver is only 675k in the city proper. And plenty of Vancouver's CMA is the Strait of Georgia, or the agricultural land reserve, or the North Shore Mountains, which are all places where "Vancouver" doesn't spend a dime on buses or roads either. Stats Canada draws CMAs in a similar fashion across the country, so they are pretty comparable in terms of how much "city" and how much "country" is captured inside the borders. If we want to compare the cities proper Saskatoon has 2x the land but only 40% of the population.

But my point was not that Saskatoon should have Skytrain or regional rail or an MLS team or any of the things Vancouver has, but rather that Saskatoon spends more per capita on its infrastructure (as djforsberg already mentioned) than if it developed more densely. Don't even bother comparing Saskatoon to another city; compare Saskatoon's older neighbourhoods to its newer ones. For example, how many more people per day use Main Street (because the lots are smaller, because Nutana and Varsity View are built on a grid so the streets are actually useful to residents city-wide, because pedestrians and cyclists use those roads, etc.) than use Hunter Road or Vic Boulevard in Stonebridge?

[Stormer]

Originally Posted by Dalreg

Fun fact one city is 320K and the other is 2.5miliion.

Fun fact the city of 320K is actually only 280k in the city proper. Don't spend dime one on roads or buses outside it's borders.

How about you make a proper comparison

Vancouver is also hemmed in by mountains and water.

[electricmodes]

Originally Posted by Stormer

Vancouver is also hemmed in by mountains and water.

Sure, but that doesn't negate the fact Saskatoon's sprawl is untenable.

[Saskabusher]

Saskatonians, and I'm one of them, are laughable in our self-righteousness, our caring and volunteering for the earth and its inhabitants, while at the same time having per capita one of the greatest carbon footprints on earth, and totally unwilling to face it, or to cut back even a bit. On the contrary, 2 story great rooms are the norm now, made of wood, heated, in very cold winters...and what for, besides posing? I don't justify this to my international friends. I guess we just have money to burn. Suck it up everybody else! And don't worry: my kid made you a macaroni map of the pollution flows in India! All clear here! It's pathetic

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by Saskabusher

Saskatonians, and I'm one of them, are laughable in our self-righteousness, our caring and volunteering for the earth and its inhabitants, while at the same time having per capita one of the greatest carbon footprints on earth, and totally unwilling to face it, or to cut back even a bit.

To be fair, I think you're describing almost everyone in an industrialized country? We are all happy to make the "easy" changes to help the environment such as recycling or installing motion sensor light switches, but when it comes to drastically changing our behavior by consuming less, walking or biking more, building smaller houses, etc., very few people are willing to do so.

[Saskabusher]

Absolutely not. We're particularly self-high-pedestal for our position even in W Canada. We believe we're being better, earth citizens. Even with a big house we rationalize our small town space. Being small, it's not so bad here, right?

Saskatoon has a reputation then, that it doesn't deserve. And that's what I mean. The sprawl is just as bad as in Vancouver or Calgary, and it should be accepted as such.

[Arts]

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

I don't really get why cities wait until they face a housing crisis and gridlocked roads before deciding to build more densely. Yes, Saskatoon's land is too cheap to justify the sorts of highrises that are going up in Vancouver or Toronto, but the city should be building new mixed-use, medium-density neighbourhoods instead of these unsustainable (from a financial perspective) single-family "suburbs".

I think it is absurd that for this new conecpt, just like with Stonebridge or Evergreen or Brighton, some people will need to drive two or three kilometers to access that tiny sliver of commercial built next to the highway. McOrmond Drive, Brighton Gate, and Brighton Boulevard should have lined with two-story commercial buildings akin to Broadway or 20th, but instead Brighton and every other new neighbourhood (including the new one pictured here) is allergic to any sort of mixed-use.

They are. All the newer neighborhood and development districts in the last decade and going forward all have a much more diverse mix of density, from mixed use mid-rise to multi-unit housing all the way down to more smaller lots for detached houses with only a very small portion of larger lots for bungalows. The things you are suggesting have been actively planned and developed here for some time. All we need now is for Transit to get their ass in gear and start servicing the suburban centers with high frequency RT routes already.