|
|
|
132 Ave Renewal
- Thread starter TAS
- Start date
Markyeg
Active Member
TBH I’m surprised it took the provincial govt this long to make a stink over bike lanes. I thought they would’ve passed a law similar to Ontario did within a couple months of Doug Ford doing so.
Out of Towner
Active Member
You're pivoting from shared roadways to shared pathways. The suburbs have numerous pathways primarily used for pedestrians and cyclists recreation but the number of shared roadways facilitating vehicular traffic and cyclists are few and far between.
Last edited:
Seamusmuldrew
Active Member
It’s not mixing it into the weeds, it’s correcting your complete misunderstanding (or intentional misrepresentation) of what this infrastructure is costing to individual taxpayers. Ignoring that is your choice, but it doesn’t make it untrue.
All those other forms of transportation charge extra taxes and fees because they require a far greater amount of infrastructure and operational costs. For biking, you have the infrastructure and that’s it. The additional operations like snow clearing and maintenance is a fraction of the cost compared to the other listed modes.
constance_chlore
Active Member
I mean, as TAS pointed out earlier just today (!) much of the $100 million is going towards mixed-use paths, which can be used for recreation, commuting, or whatever else your heart desires. The main thing keeping the ones in suburban neighborhoods from being used for commuting is probably the lack of connectivity with major job centers... which is exactly what Edmonton's bike plan aims to fix. I am asking you to please do ten minutes of reading on the policies you're complaining about.
There are places in Edmonton where bike paths are being built separately from walking pathways, including on 132 Ave. But these are generally places where pedestrians and cyclists should be separated based on the volume of bike and pedestrian traffic anticipated.
In any case, both MUPs and bike lanes/paths cost money, but they both cost way less money that roads.
Last edited:
Edmcowboy11
Senior Member
BrettB
Active Member
The thing that gets me is this project has been in planning since 2020 and now he weighs in? Feels like Caterina asking his buddy the minister for a favour creating a wedge issue for the coming municipal campaign.
Out of Towner
Active Member
What I would encourage you to do is to stop the gas lighting because 70KM of bike paths is not worth $100M. By Seamusmuldrew's calculations, the yearly capital cost expenditure by the city for bike paths is a mere $29 per household. If a dog license is $37 per year, then it shouldn't be egregious to license bicycles for $29 per year to help cover the cost of bicycle paths.
Seamusmuldrew
Active Member
Everyone should license their shoes to help cover the cost of sidewalks
thommyjo
Senior Member
Stupid take again.
Rec centres don’t cover their costs, neither do libraries. Playgrounds barely get used in winter, let’s remove them or make pay per use.
Vehicle licenses contribute 0 to the cost of roads, capital or operating. The fees only cover the costs to administer licenses since vehicles are so dangerous. Same reason you need a license for a gun, but not for a kitchen knife set.
Most of our bike lanes compared to most roads are literally cheaper per km, per daily user. Go do the math, you’ll be surprised.
trevorhayden
Active Member
Nothing has been banned. Construction will proceed as is.
TAS
Senior Member
A video from Coun. Salvador on 132 Ave (a good watch if unfamiliar about this padticular stretch of road from Fort Rd to 127st).
Out of Towner
Active Member
I suspect that Councilor Caterina has done the math and is of the view that $100M over represents the interest of cyclists at the expense of competing interest groups. What other special interest group receives that kind of money without making a supplemental financial contribution to their pursuit. In response to your assertion that the capital cost of constructing roads is greater than bike paths, I don't dispute that. However, let's attribute the cost of utility corridors for water, sewer, and electricity as well as overhead lighting to bike paths instead of roads and see whether bike path or roads are cheaper to construct on a km basis.
Gronk!
Senior Member
husky
Active Member
I don't really understand the controversy with this section of roadway. It was already a PITA and slow to drive down because of all the school zones, so it was a road I avoided. Not sure why the province would get involved here either, different story if they did something similar at 137 Avenue but here? This shouldn't have much if any impact on the overall transportation network vehicle capacity.