roe_
Active Member
Complaining about the city and then dumping on doing anything new or different. Truly the most Edmonton thing you can do.
|
|
|
Misc. Parks and Greenspace Projects
- Thread starter Daveography
- Start date
Didama
Active Member
I'm as big of an Edmonton booster as you'll find, but I don't think $170m for bike lanes is putting priorities in the right place. Basics first. Run before you can walk. That's not dumping on the city, that's just giving honest feedback.
Not a penny should be spent on bike lanes until we have a clean downtown and our major thoroughfares are not total embarrassments to anyone bringing in potential investors/new residents, etc.
Not a penny should be spent on bike lanes until we have a clean downtown and our major thoroughfares are not total embarrassments to anyone bringing in potential investors/new residents, etc.
Aaron_Lloyd
Active Member
The new bike lanes are the basics of transportation infrastructure. Infrastructure is always going to need investment, it's not a one or the other whether we can keep up with our infrastructure while also ensuring public safety downtown.
Didama
Active Member
If it's not one or the other, then why is our downtown as filthy as ever and our sidewalks on Whyte, Jasper and 124 Street remain a complete embarrassment without any commitment to funding? From where I'm sitting I'm seeing $0 for what I consider the basics and $170m for bike lanes which, although cool and certainly needed, are NOT basics if you can't fund clean up and basic sidewalk repair.
Gronk!
Senior Member
Bike lanes ARE basics. They are no longer merely nice-to-haves. Whyte Ave, Jasper Ave and 124 St need to be cleaned up but I fail to see why bike lanes need to be sacrificed for cleanliness.
TAS
Senior Member
Am I the only one that thinks it's strange that with all the money the city spends on urban sprawl and roads for vehicles and all the ongoing costs - and the huge environmental cost of doing so - that we pick on our least expensive mode of moving people around (aside from walking) and our healthiest for individuals, the planet and the livability of our neighbourhoods?
If someone wonders why there isn't more money for rec centres, then maybe advocate for more of these options:
Or give thus a viewing again.
Didama
Active Member
Depends on how much of a property tax hike you'd like to have. I would love to be able to have both as well, but we're pretty quickly looking at a 10% tax hike here. I'm not sure how many city residents are going to be able to swallow that.
124 street is currently undergoing renewal.
Also, why pick on the $170 million for bike lanes across the entire city when we're currently spending $180 million for a single overpass on 50 St?
Didama
Active Member
The 124 Street renewal isn't where the commercial district is (not that the residential portion doesn't deserve new sidewalks too).
And I agree about the overpass. My frustration is that while almost everything seems to be a priority, the basics of the basics do not seem to be a priority EVER. That dead tree in the crumbling median on Jasper Avenue between 102-103 street has literally been there for 10 years. A dead tree. With a crumbling median that wouldn't look out of place in downtown Baghdad, on our main street. It may seem like I'm picking on bike lanes, but I'm really not. I'm picking on the overall priorities of the City of Edmonton. In my mind we need to get back to basics. Once we've cleaned up our act on the basics of the basics (helloooo overflowing garbage cans and plastic bags stuck in trees for years) then we can move on.
And I agree about the overpass. My frustration is that while almost everything seems to be a priority, the basics of the basics do not seem to be a priority EVER. That dead tree in the crumbling median on Jasper Avenue between 102-103 street has literally been there for 10 years. A dead tree. With a crumbling median that wouldn't look out of place in downtown Baghdad, on our main street. It may seem like I'm picking on bike lanes, but I'm really not. I'm picking on the overall priorities of the City of Edmonton. In my mind we need to get back to basics. Once we've cleaned up our act on the basics of the basics (helloooo overflowing garbage cans and plastic bags stuck in trees for years) then we can move on.
TAS
Senior Member
We're always going to struggle getting back to basics because we keep building our city the same way which results in huge costs to build and maintain. We can't afford not to do the bike lanes. Seriously this has to be a priority if we are going to reduce car dependency and the huge costs involved in that. Density is also key.
Reducing car dependency also makes our city more sustainable and affordable and equitable - because the other huge costs we have are around homelessness and providing transportation options other than expensive annual costs associated with driving are essential.
Take a close look at this amazing example
Last edited:
_urbanite
Senior Member
"Won't someone please think of the roadways!"
roe_
Active Member
Many have hit the nail on the head above. If we keep doing what we've been doing -- building huge, expensive roadway projects -- we're going to get the city we already have. There are never going to be enough overpasses to make the city livable and attractive.
A different approach is needed and a significant and substantial investment in cycling infrastructure is a good idea. Is it a guaranteed success? No. But is it time to try something different than what we've been doing for the last 50 years? Absolutely.
A different approach is needed and a significant and substantial investment in cycling infrastructure is a good idea. Is it a guaranteed success? No. But is it time to try something different than what we've been doing for the last 50 years? Absolutely.
kcantor
Senior Member
there seems to be either some misunderstanding or misinterpretation of my post regarding scona pool. it was not proposing the trade-off of cycling infrastructure for more suburban automobile oriented development. furthermore, it specifically acknowledged that these are not straight-forward trade-offs.
however, while they are not straight-forward trade-offs, they are still a reflection of priorities. closing poor scona pool is the latest example of many years of neglect and poor maintenance of existing infrastructure leading to their demolition. while the new bike lanes are simply the latest shiny penny to be placed in front of council, they are no more-so than new roads or bridges or lrt or railroad overpasses or ring road improvements or solar roofs on expo centre and the conference centre or the next stretch of jasper avenue revisioning...
my point was that scona pool, like ritchie school etc., is just one more example of demolition by neglect. if the objective is to "create mixed use neighborhoods that make good use of land while encouraging walking, cycling and public transit" as noted in the lafayette video, we won't get thereor stay there by allowing the very fabric of those neighborhoods, their destinations, to be removed from them.
as a transportation mode, bike paths are not dissimilar to roadways - it doesn't matter how many of them there are or how smooth they are, if they don't take you anywhere worth going to, what's the point? we need to stop losing those things worth going to. the cost of maintaining them comes nowhere close to the cost of replacing them, it's just that maintaining things isn't as sexy as creating their legacy replacements even when that's financial folly.
however, while they are not straight-forward trade-offs, they are still a reflection of priorities. closing poor scona pool is the latest example of many years of neglect and poor maintenance of existing infrastructure leading to their demolition. while the new bike lanes are simply the latest shiny penny to be placed in front of council, they are no more-so than new roads or bridges or lrt or railroad overpasses or ring road improvements or solar roofs on expo centre and the conference centre or the next stretch of jasper avenue revisioning...
my point was that scona pool, like ritchie school etc., is just one more example of demolition by neglect. if the objective is to "create mixed use neighborhoods that make good use of land while encouraging walking, cycling and public transit" as noted in the lafayette video, we won't get thereor stay there by allowing the very fabric of those neighborhoods, their destinations, to be removed from them.
as a transportation mode, bike paths are not dissimilar to roadways - it doesn't matter how many of them there are or how smooth they are, if they don't take you anywhere worth going to, what's the point? we need to stop losing those things worth going to. the cost of maintaining them comes nowhere close to the cost of replacing them, it's just that maintaining things isn't as sexy as creating their legacy replacements even when that's financial folly.
TAS
Senior Member
Ah OK, I do think a few of us misunderstood.
The city should do better in terms of managing its existing assets such as rec centres to maintain the fabric of our neighbourhoods. It's an excellent point. And school boards and the province should do better with our existing schools.
I guess by including bike lanes in your post, it caused some confusion. I also want to see the city spend more wisely while enhancing the fabric of our neighbourhoods and one way to do that is improve our transportation system via bike lanes.
kcantor
Senior Member
^
i included bike lanes as they were the "latest and greatest" reflection of a syndrome that is detrimental to the city and that gets applied to a lot more than just bike lanes.
if the city is going to spend more wisely however, new bike lanes - just like any of the other shiny pennies everyone wants - shouldn't get automatic funding when it comes to budget priorities given to new projects at the expense of existing infrastructure maintenance.
and, for what it's worth, other shiny pennies shouldn't be funded at the expense of providing proper infrastructure maintenance for existing bike lanes.
i included bike lanes as they were the "latest and greatest" reflection of a syndrome that is detrimental to the city and that gets applied to a lot more than just bike lanes.
if the city is going to spend more wisely however, new bike lanes - just like any of the other shiny pennies everyone wants - shouldn't get automatic funding when it comes to budget priorities given to new projects at the expense of existing infrastructure maintenance.
and, for what it's worth, other shiny pennies shouldn't be funded at the expense of providing proper infrastructure maintenance for existing bike lanes.