policyenthusiast
Senior Member
Wait until this guy hears about playgrounds.
|
|
|
Municipal Politics
- Thread starter Airboy
- Start date
thommyjo
Senior Member
You hate outdoor pools, ski hills, playgrounds, tennis courts, outdoor rinks and all the other seasonal stuff too then. Right?
Can you describe what level of ridership would make you satisfied for bike lanes to be paid for? @jason403
Here's the data for just 1 route. 110st (one of the new garneau ones, and not even the busiest in our city). Over 1000 riders a week in the dead of winter, 5000+ each week in the Summer. That's not good enough? We have thousands of kms of local roads that are 5x the width of bike lanes that serve just a few hundreds cars a day, year round. Why can't we have just a few hundred kms of bike lanes? People who bike pay taxes too
kcantor
Senior Member
^
Not only do people who bike pay taxes, they pay their share of taxes for road construction and maintenance and snow removal!
I will however take issue with the use “weekly ridership numbers”. If weekly ridership is 1,000, it’s as pretty safe assumption that there are 500 return trips per week. I would also doubt that those who are riding take only one trip per week, if the average frequency is 4 times a week, that means there are 125 discrete riders making up those 1,000 weekly trips.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m in favour of well executed and maintained bike lanes as an integral part of our transportation system but exaggerating the actual usage is not a great supporting strategy.
As an aside, I have the very same padding the numbers complaint when it comes to Rogers Place reporting that more than 6 million visitors have been to the facility since it opened. It doesn’t matter if I attended 350 hockey games in last 8 years, I’m still a single visitor visiting multiple times.
Not only do people who bike pay taxes, they pay their share of taxes for road construction and maintenance and snow removal!
I will however take issue with the use “weekly ridership numbers”. If weekly ridership is 1,000, it’s as pretty safe assumption that there are 500 return trips per week. I would also doubt that those who are riding take only one trip per week, if the average frequency is 4 times a week, that means there are 125 discrete riders making up those 1,000 weekly trips.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m in favour of well executed and maintained bike lanes as an integral part of our transportation system but exaggerating the actual usage is not a great supporting strategy.
As an aside, I have the very same padding the numbers complaint when it comes to Rogers Place reporting that more than 6 million visitors have been to the facility since it opened. It doesn’t matter if I attended 350 hockey games in last 8 years, I’m still a single visitor visiting multiple times.
Greenspace
Senior Member
Tracking the budget amendments:
Dec 3 - https://pub-edmonton.escribemeetings.com/FileStream.ashx?DocumentId=244088
Dec 4 - https://pub-edmonton.escribemeetings.com/FileStream.ashx?DocumentId=244269
Dec 3 - https://pub-edmonton.escribemeetings.com/FileStream.ashx?DocumentId=244088
Dec 4 - https://pub-edmonton.escribemeetings.com/FileStream.ashx?DocumentId=244269
Gus Haynes
Active Member
It sounds like Jennifer Rice put on quite the show today: https://edmontonjournal.com/news/local-news/edmonton-property-tax-rate-2025
TAS
Senior Member
Here was a 2 hour count in May between 4-6pm at the railtown intersection at 110st and 102 Ave - see below.
Scooters were counted as personal vehicles so there were actually more than 400 bikes/scooters. These numbers were basically people riding home from work. University session ended in April so there weren't as many students riding home as usual.
All combined around 1,050 people not in cars increasing congestion and instead getting some physical activity into their day. Some of the bike riders were actually transporting 1 or even 2 kids.
Tonight I went for a walk after work along 102Ave - I was actually surprised how many people on bikes riding home. And it's so pretty. Another benefit of walking/biking is you really appreciate the beauty of your commute. Meanwhile, when i got to 109 st, it was not pleasant for vehicles - slow moving, honking, and sedentary. And none of that was due to bike infrastructure.
Virtually all of active transportation routes are off of main roads such as 83 Ave, 110st, 119 Ave, the greenbelt along 121st etc - i think a lot of the ridership remains unseen. Plus bikes are a fraction the size of vehicles - they are not nearly as noticeable for drivers focused on the road or their phones.
I am all for smart spending, so I've tried to really be fair when advocating for spending on active transportation. Even with low ridership relative to cars, the amount spent is totally reasonable and not wasteful based on total transportation spending and bike usage. It makes financial sense and has many benefits for a city not to mention benefits to health and business.
Scooters were counted as personal vehicles so there were actually more than 400 bikes/scooters. These numbers were basically people riding home from work. University session ended in April so there weren't as many students riding home as usual.
All combined around 1,050 people not in cars increasing congestion and instead getting some physical activity into their day. Some of the bike riders were actually transporting 1 or even 2 kids.
Tonight I went for a walk after work along 102Ave - I was actually surprised how many people on bikes riding home. And it's so pretty. Another benefit of walking/biking is you really appreciate the beauty of your commute. Meanwhile, when i got to 109 st, it was not pleasant for vehicles - slow moving, honking, and sedentary. And none of that was due to bike infrastructure.
Virtually all of active transportation routes are off of main roads such as 83 Ave, 110st, 119 Ave, the greenbelt along 121st etc - i think a lot of the ridership remains unseen. Plus bikes are a fraction the size of vehicles - they are not nearly as noticeable for drivers focused on the road or their phones.
I am all for smart spending, so I've tried to really be fair when advocating for spending on active transportation. Even with low ridership relative to cars, the amount spent is totally reasonable and not wasteful based on total transportation spending and bike usage. It makes financial sense and has many benefits for a city not to mention benefits to health and business.
Last edited:
thommyjo
Senior Member
Yeah sorry, not trying to suggest unique users. Just that every trip counted is a “rider”. The same way road data is reported as “trips”, not users. Don’t think it’s an exaggeration, that’s just how the the data is presented. A local street with 700 daily trips I bet is like 150 users or less too as most households would produce at least 4 trips on their street daily.
We look to things like the census, or transportation surveys is we want data on transportation mode use (although those also don’t tell the whole story as someone that is primarily a driver might still bike 50-80 times a year in fair weather, but that’s not represented in the 80% drivers, 2% bikers sort of data).
kcantor
Senior Member
Actually, traffic volumes are reported directionally by the hour and not as artificial aggregates.
thommyjo
Senior Member
I mean, there’s both haha. Not sure the point of this….
Some data sets show totals, other directions. For both bikes and car traffic. Not hard for people to parse out.
Most of the bike lanes either show a total for both directions if 2 way, or specify if E/W/N/S (ex. 76ave, 106st, HLB)
The point is, bike lanes are so cheap to build comparatively to car infrastructure and transit. Even with significantly smaller usage, they are still more economical to build than alternatives.
If we add a bike lane to every road, that might be wasteful. But a few hundred kms throughout the city for key routes is a no brainer. And any fiscal conservative decrying them is either bad at math or too ideologically driven to see the facts.
TAS
Senior Member
Perfect summation
"...a few hundred kms throughout the city for key routes is a no brainer. And any fiscal conservative decrying them is either bad at math or too ideologically driven to see the facts."
husky
Active Member
She is easily the most ineffective councillor in a while. Her questions today almost felt like a weird filibuster, if anything, and it is clear she is extremely unprepared and didn't put the work in advance to understand the implications of her own motions.
I think she is trying to put on a show to demonstrate to her constituents that "she tried" to cut the tax levy.
jason403
Active Member
The usage just isn't there for bike lanes to justify taking something away (lanes for cars, or parking). Other than an elitist and loud group that has too much time on their hands and has a disproportionately large influence through advocacy groups for a form of transportiation that is both regressive, ineffective, and is only used by casual users in perfect climate conditions.
Other than main line bike paths that can sustain decent usage such as your oliver-downtown, garneau, etc, they are infrastructure that sits largely idle. Edmonton got tricked into investing hundreds of millions into fancy sidewalks that are used by dozens of people on most routes.
City can focus on MUPs as opposed to bike lanes as both sidewalks and bike paths are severely underutilized in most areas, which wouldn't further grade our important road networks.
Other than main line bike paths that can sustain decent usage such as your oliver-downtown, garneau, etc, they are infrastructure that sits largely idle. Edmonton got tricked into investing hundreds of millions into fancy sidewalks that are used by dozens of people on most routes.
City can focus on MUPs as opposed to bike lanes as both sidewalks and bike paths are severely underutilized in most areas, which wouldn't further grade our important road networks.
bodsbods9090
Senior Member
She's my councillor....I'm embarrassed.
thommyjo
Senior Member
Ok, but what # of cyclists do you think is “enough” to justify a bike lane on a road? How many daily trips on it?
You can’t be all wishy washy and just claim “not enough use”. What’s enough?
Whattagame
Active Member
Densification is occurring, and that will accelerate in the future. This will drive (pun always intended) people to increase the use of bike lanes. There is also a major demographic development that people seem to be ignoring: Young people are much less likely to get a driver's license today than in the past. If you don't create the infrastructure for that future demand, you prevent that evolution. Not building bike infrastructure is a self-fulfilling prophecy to keep people in their cars even if they'd rather hop on a bike.