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.
Am I the only one that thinks it strange that we haven’t been able to come up with $6 million in the past dozen years for Scona Pool but we have no qualms directing administration to look at spending $170 million for more bike lanes over the next 4 years plus $11 million a year thereafter in annual operating costs for them?
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.
124 street is currently undergoing renewal.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.
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.
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.