News   Apr 03, 2020
From the Editor: A Message to Our Readers
 9.1K     3 
News   Apr 02, 2020
Topping Off March 2020: What's Hot on SkyriseEdmonton
 10K     0 
News   Apr 02, 2020
News Roundup for April 2, 2020
 3.3K     0 

132 Ave Renewal

$100M for bike paths? I look at the bike path pictures and don't see much there but it's about $100 for every man, woman, and child in the city. Where in the hell is all the money going? Can't afford one water feature in one park but there's $100M to build bike paths to nowhere.
 
Out of Towner said:
$100M for bike paths? I look at the bike path pictures and don't see much there but it's about $100 for every man, woman, and child in the city. Where in the hell is all the money going? Can't afford one water feature in one park but there's $100M to build bike paths to nowhere.
Click to expand...
I’m confused…. What bike path pictures are you referring to?
 
Out of Towner said:
$100M for bike paths? I look at the bike path pictures and don't see much there but it's about $100 for every man, woman, and child in the city. Where in the hell is all the money going? Can't afford one water feature in one park but there's $100M to build bike paths to nowhere.
Click to expand...
I mean, the Yellowhead conversion is costing 11 times that much.
 
I think it's fair to say that there is more than 11 times the work involved in building the Yellowhead conversion then there is in constructing some barriers and painting some bike paths. Moreover, the Yellowhead conversion is partially funded by tax revenue that motorist pay at the pump. Why are the small number of cyclists that use bike paths and who don't pay a red cent for their transportation entitled to a $100M budget expenditure from the city.
 
Out of Towner said:
I think it's fair to say that there is more than 11 times the work involved in building the Yellowhead conversion then there is in constructing some barriers and painting some bike paths. Moreover, the Yellowhead conversion is partially funded by tax revenue that motorist pay at the pump. Why are the small number of cyclists that use bike paths and who don't pay a red cent for their transportation entitled to a $100M budget expenditure from the city.
Click to expand...
I mean, we're also getting a lot more length of bike path for that $100 million (70 km) than we're getting Yellowhead, and they're going to cost a lot less for maintenance (about 1/7 the cost per km). Cyclists are constantly subsidizing a bloated, decaying road network, and a bit of expenditure on bike lanes in return is quite literally the least we can expect.
 
Last edited:
Out of Towner said:
I think it's fair to say that there is more than 11 times the work involved in building the Yellowhead conversion then there is in constructing some barriers and painting some bike paths. Moreover, the Yellowhead conversion is partially funded by tax revenue that motorist pay at the pump. Why are the small number of cyclists that use bike paths and who don't pay a red cent for their transportation entitled to a $100M budget expenditure from the city.
Click to expand...

Almost all of Edmonton's bike paths you refer to (including most of the $100 million active transportation fund) are multi-use paths for people who walk, bike, scooter, skateboard or use mobility devices.

Multi-use paths are a great way to reduce traffic congestion by providing a viable alternative to driving - we just need to build out a properly connected network that can efficiently get people to where they need to go. That"s what is being worked on.

There are also health benefits and reduced health costs when people are active for at least 30 minutes a day (that evidence is clear). Why wouldn"t we want to build infrastructure that encourages and makes it easier to be more active while also having an effect of increasing safety for pedestrians and cyclists as well as getting more cars off the road to reduce congestion?
 
70 KM of bike paths for $100M isn't money well spent. That's more than $1.4M per kilometer! For a city that's so financially strapped that a water feature in a park is more than it can handle, how can it justify spending $1.4M per kilometer on bike paths that in many locations will have low utilization rates? $100M would go a long way to solving the homeless problem that most Edmontonians worry about. But no, there's a bicycle lobby that has the ear of elected officials who are going to bill a family of 4 about $400 - $500 for their bicycle paths.
 
Out of Towner said:
I think it's fair to say that there is more than 11 times the work involved in building the Yellowhead conversion then there is in constructing some barriers and painting some bike paths. Moreover, the Yellowhead conversion is partially funded by tax revenue that motorist pay at the pump. Why are the small number of cyclists that use bike paths and who don't pay a red cent for their transportation entitled to a $100M budget expenditure from the city.
Click to expand...
So first of all, cyclists generally still pay property taxes, so I’m not sure how you figure that cyclists are getting this infrastructure for free. Secondly, cyclists can start paying some equivalent of the gas tax when there is 12,000 km of dedicated bike infrastructure that the city has to build, maintain, and renew using millions of dollars every year.
 
Out of Towner said:
But no, there's a bicycle lobby that has the ear of elected officials who are going to bill a family of 4 about $400 - $500 for their bicycle paths.
Click to expand...
That’s a pretty silly way of measuring how much this actually costs. Property taxes are based on property value, not number of people in a household. It’s $100 million over 4 years, and our non-residential tax rate is over double that of residential. Here’s a simplified measurement (not gonna be that accurate) of what it’ll actually cost. Taxes account for about 60% of the city’s revenue, and non-residential properties compose about 22% of all properties in Edmonton. My rough calculations say that comes out to an average of $21 per household per year for this infrastructure. I’ll reiterate, this is not an accurate estimate since it’s very high level and simple, but I just want to demonstrate that just taking the number and dividing it by population isn’t how it works, like, at all.
 
Seamusmuldrew said:
That’s a pretty silly way of measuring how much this actually costs. Property taxes are based on property value, not number of people in a household. It’s $100 million over 4 years, and our non-residential tax rate is over double that of residential. Here’s a simplified measurement (not gonna be that accurate) of what it’ll actually cost. Taxes account for about 60% of the city’s revenue, and non-residential properties compose about 22% of all properties in Edmonton. My rough calculations say that comes out to an average of $21 per household per year for this infrastructure. I’ll reiterate, this is not an accurate estimate since it’s very high level and simple, but I just want to demonstrate that just taking the number and dividing it by population isn’t how it works, like, at all.
Click to expand...
It's understandable that cyclists would try to mix the cost of their transportation into the weeds. Motorists pay taxes and pay a tax at the pump for their transportation. Transit riders and airline passengers pay taxes and pay a fee for their transportation. Cyclists pay taxes but pay nothing for their transportation.
 
Out of Towner said:
It's understandable that cyclists would try to mix the cost of their transportation into the weeds. Motorists pay taxes and pay a tax at the pump for their transportation. Transit riders and airline passengers pay taxes and pay a fee for their transportation. Cyclists pay taxes but pay nothing for their transportation.
Click to expand...
Because... it costs vastly less? Like, gas taxes would have to go way up to cover all of the infrastructure costs and the negative externalities caused by driving.
 
constance_chlore said:
I'm sorry, how much do you think roads cost? This is basic infrastructure. I'll entertain the conversation about not building bike lanes/MUPs because we haven't solved homelessness when you entertain the idea that we shouldn't fix potholes until we solve homelessness
Click to expand...
The cost of bike paths and sidewalks is a better comparable than the cost of bike paths and roads because externalities like utility corridors are included in the cost of constructing roads. I'm not opposed to the inclusion of bike paths in new subdivisions though. If the cost of constructing them is chicken feed as you and others are leading me to believe, then it shouldn't be an issue for developers to eat the cost or pass it on to new home buyers.
 
Out of Towner said:
The cost of bike paths and sidewalks is a better comparable than the cost of bike paths and roads because externalities like utility corridors are included in the cost of constructing roads. I'm not opposed to the inclusion of bike paths in new subdivisions though. If the cost of constructing them is chicken feed as you and others are leading me to believe, then it shouldn't be an issue for developers to eat the cost or pass it on to new home buyers.
Click to expand...
Have you so much as looked at a map of bike paths? New neighborhoods do have great bike paths/MUPs because developers do bear the cost of it. This thing that you want is already happening!

The expansion paid for by the city is in mature and redeveloping neighborhoods where there is no developer to foot the bill. This is where nearly all the big missing links are in the bike network, which is bad because these are the places that need bike paths the most!
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top