132 Ave Renewal

[Out of Towner]

@Out of Towner

Cycling infrastructure is infrastructure for everyone. It makes everybody's life better, including drivers, because it gives people a safe option to get around their local area that is comparable in speed to driving yet reduces traffic on the road. I suggest you actually try using a bike path or shared use path. It's a pleasant experience, I promise.

Motorists should pay more in taxes than they already do because, as a motorist, you operate a machine measured in TONS which can go a hundred kilometres an hour and kill people in an instant if not done correctly. They also harm and kill people passively over time through emissions and noise pollution.

Cyclists operate a 30-50 IB machine which has about as much impact on the road as walking does. Do we tax pedestrians?? Hell no, because that would be absurd. Ask yourself: Why the hell would an elected official who subscribes to actual data, research and common sense discourage behaviours which cost infrastructure and taxpayers less?

Here's the answer: Minister Devin Dreeshen, Karen Principe and Tony Caterina don't care about actual data, research and common sense when it comes to cycling infrastructure. They are all capitalizing off of misinformed voters who, through the very real lobbying of the auto and petrochemicals industries, have been led to believe that bike lanes are the root of all their problems. Let's not care about the fact that the YELLOWHEAD FREEWAY RUNS RIGHT BESIDE THIS AREA. Let's not care about all the health, social, environmental and FISCAL benefits this infrastructure can bring when done properly. That doesn't matter at all!

It's all "Facts don't care your feelings" until they upset someone's feelings. Fucking beautiful.

FYI: This bike line is not even the provinces jurisdiction because these paths are being funded by municipal property tax dollars.

Some of you want to name call and belittle and make this about me, so I'll offer you a suggestion in response too. Have some dignity and loosen your helmet straps and your wallets and make a financial contribution to your choice of transportation like everybody else. $100M for 70 KM of bike paths is not an insignificant sum and it's a sum dedicated for your pleasure and convenience because cycling is permitted on roads. Cyclists are not entitled to bike paths. .

 

[ADob]

Some of you want to name call and belittle and make this about me, so I'll offer you a suggestion in response too. Have some dignity and loosen your helmet straps and your wallets and make a financial contribution to your choice of transportation like everybody else. $100M for 70 KM of bike paths is not an insignificant sum and it's a sum dedicated for your pleasure and convenience because cycling is permitted on roads. Cyclists are not entitled to bike paths. .

So you're saying you didn't read any of the comments above, yeah? Because I thought the arguments were pretty clearly spelled out.

And as for your final sentence: cyclists might not be entitled to bike paths, but I think that we are entitled to come home alive, which the bike paths accomplish very well. I am a classic demographic that most certainly would NOT cycle if I had to do it on the roads. Between the potholes and entitled ijits in overlarge trucks, you take your life in your hands. Plus more often than not you get yelled at to "get off the road (insert expletive)".

 

[Seamusmuldrew]

Some of you want to name call and belittle and make this about me, so I'll offer you a suggestion in response too. Have some dignity and loosen your helmet straps and your wallets and make a financial contribution to your choice of transportation like everybody else. $100M for 70 KM of bike paths is not an insignificant sum and it's a sum dedicated for your pleasure and convenience because cycling is permitted on roads. Cyclists are not entitled to bike paths. .

My conclusion from this response is that this argument has become pointless. Just repeating the same points that have been well refuted is a waste of everyone's time.

 

[dkazzed]

Tell that to the drivers who refuse to give us at least a metre on the road.

Keith Gerein: Nuisance or not, Edmonton’s bike lanes are no business of the UCP government

The Alberta government is weighing safety selectively as it pressures Edmonton city council to backtrack on new bike lane infrastructure

edmontonjournal.com

Selective safety
In that vein, my greatest concern with all this is the shockingly low — or selective — priority the UCP government seems to place on safety. Dreeshen’s whole schtick here is about the movement of people and products, which is obviously an important part of his portfolio, but it shouldn’t be everything. We’ve seen the same ideology at play in his recent gutting of photo radar.

Article content
At this point, I will admit to a personal stake in the issue. A year ago, a good friend was cycling home from work when he was hit by a pickup truck. He thankfully survived, but suffered severe internal injuries. There were complications for months afterwards. The pickup truck driver left the scene.

I myself have had a number of close calls. I would like to cycle more, including commuting to work some days, but it just does not feel safe. For the people out there who say not enough Edmontonians use bikes to justify bike lanes, this is precisely the point. Similar to transit, if you want people to use the system, then a safe, reliable, integrated network is a prerequisite.

A majority of the "bike paths" in that plan are shared use paths to be used by pedstrians as well as cyclists. The bulk of the remainder are bikeways (sharrows), except for about 2km of protected bike lanes.

Of course, 132 Ave is not included in that plan, but it appears the road was going to be completely ripped up to accomodate utility replacement anyway, with or without the corridor redesign.

Agreed with Seamusmuldrew, it appears everyone here has their mind set on this discussion.

 

[Platinum107]

Some of you want to name call and belittle and make this about me, so I'll offer you a suggestion in response too. Have some dignity and loosen your helmet straps and your wallets and make a financial contribution to your choice of transportation like everybody else. $100M for 70 KM of bike paths is not an insignificant sum and it's a sum dedicated for your pleasure and convenience because cycling is permitted on roads. Cyclists are not entitled to bike paths. .

I'm sorry if you felt that this is targeted at you specifically because it's not, you just started the conversation. I also didn't call you a name once but that's besides the point.

Here is a targeted and genuine question: Why aren't you addressing the substance and points we are bringing up here? The rationale behind cycling infrastructure and the benefits it has on a personal level and civic level have been outlined well, but you keep pivoting to the fact that cyclists don't pay taxes for cycling. This has even been answered with these few points:

a) Cyclists like everybody else pay property taxes which go to fund all municipal infrastructure.
b) The entire point of cycling infrastructure is that it accessible to everybody to use; it's not an exclusive club which you need to pay thousands of dollars yearly to participate in (like driving). This rings even more true for shared-use paths which are also much more comfortable for walking among other things.
c) Beyond the environmental and social benefits of cycling infrastructure which are well known, more infrastructure means that less people are going to be in car traffic at a given time (especially in local areas) which helps reduce traffic congestion, which you should like if you drive places frequently...

Here's a few sources as well:

How Does Cycling Infrastructure in These Global Cities Measure Up?

In 2021, ITDP launched the Cycling Cities campaign, building off of momentum around cycling that emerged during the COVID-19 pandemic. During the pandemic, many cities swiftly responded to changing mobility needs by setting up temporary cycle lanes, designating reduced-traffic streets, and...

itdp.org

Why is Bike Infrastructure Important? | PeopleForBikes

Through our Great Bike Infrastructure Project, PeopleForBikes is helping communities across the country develop safe and connected bike infrastructure that gives people of all ages and abilities the opportunity to experience the many joys of bicycling for everyday trips and recreation. The Great...

www.peopleforbikes.org

7 Reasons to Fund Bicycle Infrastructure | Smart Cities Dive

Smart Cities

www.smartcitiesdive.com

 

[TAS]

The group Paths for People were concerned about what Alberta may do about bike lanes after Ontario and wrote a letter to municipal affairs minister.

Not surprising, what was provided in the letter was another example of say one thing, do another.

 

[TAS]

Also, court granted injunction to stop (for now) any removal of bike lanes in Ontario.

Redirect Notice

 

[Out of Towner]

So you're saying you didn't read any of the comments above, yeah? Because I thought the arguments were pretty clearly spelled out.

And as for your final sentence: cyclists might not be entitled to bike paths, but I think that we are entitled to come home alive, which the bike paths accomplish very well. I am a classic demographic that most certainly would NOT cycle if I had to do it on the roads. Between the potholes and entitled ijits in overlarge trucks, you take your life in your hands. Plus more often than not you get yelled at to "get off the road (insert expletive

I'm sorry if you felt that this is targeted at you specifically because it's not, you just started the conversation. I also didn't call you a name once but that's besides the point.

Here is a targeted and genuine question: Why aren't you addressing the substance and points we are bringing up here? The rationale behind cycling infrastructure and the benefits it has on a personal level and civic level have been outlined well, but you keep pivoting to the fact that cyclists don't pay taxes for cycling. This has even been answered with these few points:

a) Cyclists like everybody else pay property taxes which go to fund all municipal infrastructure.
b) The entire point of cycling infrastructure is that it accessible to everybody to use; it's not an exclusive club which you need to pay thousands of dollars yearly to participate in (like driving). This rings even more true for shared-use paths which are also much more comfortable for walking among other things.
c) Beyond the environmental and social benefits of cycling infrastructure which are well known, more infrastructure means that less people are going to be in car traffic at a given time (especially in local areas) which helps reduce traffic congestion, which you should like if you drive places frequently...

Here's a few sources as well:

How Does Cycling Infrastructure in These Global Cities Measure Up?

In 2021, ITDP launched the Cycling Cities campaign, building off of momentum around cycling that emerged during the COVID-19 pandemic. During the pandemic, many cities swiftly responded to changing mobility needs by setting up temporary cycle lanes, designating reduced-traffic streets, and...

itdp.org

Why is Bike Infrastructure Important? | PeopleForBikes

Through our Great Bike Infrastructure Project, PeopleForBikes is helping communities across the country develop safe and connected bike infrastructure that gives people of all ages and abilities the opportunity to experience the many joys of bicycling for everyday trips and recreation. The Great...

www.peopleforbikes.org

7 Reasons to Fund Bicycle Infrastructure | Smart Cities Dive

Smart Cities

www.smartcitiesdive.com

Cyclists do pay property taxes but they don't pay a user fee for their transportation like everybody else. Cyclist have no legal obligation to carry insurance. There's no obligation to have a license to identify the bad cyclists. I'm not even sure if cyclists pay a recycling fee for their tires. It's all free!

The safety beef presented by cyclists can be challenged too because there is no legislation restricting a cyclist to the more dangerous routes. Similar to motorists, cyclists can choose a route based on safety.

 

[constance_chlore]

I will very gladly pay a license fee for my bike when I get reimbursed for my contribution to all the car infrastructure I don't use.

 

[trevorhayden]

Please stop wasting energy arguing here and send your angry messages to the UCP.

 

[thommyjo]

Cyclists do pay property taxes but they don't pay a user fee for their transportation like everybody else. Cyclist have no legal obligation to carry insurance. There's no obligation to have a license to identify the bad cyclists. I'm not even sure if cyclists pay a recycling fee for their tires. It's all free!

The safety beef presented by cyclists can be challenged too because there is no legislation restricting a cyclist to the more dangerous routes. Similar to motorists, cyclists can choose a route based on safety.

As addressed, the “operating” costs of biking aren’t the same.

If someone picked me up on a bike, I’d expect to pay fare for the driver’s cost.

If my bike caused billions in healthcare, emergency, and infrastructure damage costs, I’d expect to pay a fee of sorts too.

Biking is literally the cheapest option besides walking for both the user, and society as a whole.

Same reason it’s free to mountain bike in the river valley but costs money at jasper where there are lifts, employees, more path maintenance. Capital and operating costs.

If you can’t get your head around this, your arguing is pointless.

 

[The_Cat]

How many trips from our residence are local trips? Each bike means eyes on the street.

 

[jason403]

It's pretty exciting to see people finally standing up to the absolute waste of bike lanes that are being pushed by yuppies. A small percentage of people without families have had undue influence and wasted hundreds of millions of dollars on bike lanes that are unused amd have crippled a transportation network for the benefit of maybe a couple dozen bicyclists who would still bicycle without bike lanes or would be using public transit anyway.

 

[CplKlinger]

A small percentage of people without families

I didnt realize that each kid I see using a bike lane is an orphan. How tragic.

Back on topic, I hope that planned roundabout in next year's phase of construction still gets built.

 

[ededed]

It's pretty exciting to see people finally standing up to the absolute waste of bike lanes that are being pushed by yuppies. A small percentage of people without families have had undue influence and wasted hundreds of millions of dollars on bike lanes that are unused amd have crippled a transportation network for the benefit of maybe a couple dozen bicyclists who would still bicycle without bike lanes or would be using public transit anyway.

>crippled a transportation network

I’ll bite, can you share an example of this crippling of our transportation network?