[thommyjo]

It's understandable that cyclists would try to mix the cost of their transportation into the weeds. Motorists pay taxes and pay a tax at the pump for their transportation. Transit riders and airline passengers pay taxes and pay a fee for their transportation. Cyclists pay taxes but pay nothing for their transportation.

I’m sorry, but respectfully, are you an idiot?

Transit has high operating costs (drivers/maintenance)… hence the cost for fares.

Driving has SIGNIFICANT capital costs, so there’s a provincial gas tax. Which doesn’t even cover the total provincial road budget…. General taxes have to top it up. Not to mention all the extra expenses for land used for free parking, emergency services, healthcare for thousands of injuries annually in our city, daily police costs for enforcement and collision response. Then there’s snow clearing and pothole maintenance and repairing broken signs/buildings/barricades that cars hit.

PROPERTY TAXES pay for local roads and bike infrastructure. People who bike own homes lol. They pay property taxes. And if they bike regularly, that means they likely drive less than most others…meaning they have a lower impact on congestion, road deterioration, pollution, emergency services, etc.

If you can’t even understand how our taxes work, please stop arguing against bike lanes. The ignorance is astounding. Sheesh. Cyclists have subsidized roads more than drivers have subsidized the bike lanes.

 

[Out of Towner]

Have you so much as looked at a map of bike paths? New neighborhoods do have great bike paths/MUPs because developers do bear the cost of it. This thing that you want is already happening!

The expansion paid for by the city is in mature and redeveloping neighborhoods where there is no developer to foot the bill. This is where nearly all the big missing links are in the bike network, which is bad because these are the places that need bike paths the mo

 

[Markyeg]

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]

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.

 

[Seamusmuldrew]

It's understandable that cyclists would try to mix the cost of their transportation into the weeds. Motorists pay taxes and pay a tax at the pump for their transportation. Transit riders and airline passengers pay taxes and pay a fee for their transportation. Cyclists pay taxes but pay nothing for their transportation.

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]

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.

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.

 

[Edmcowboy11]

 

[BrettB]

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]

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.

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]

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.

Everyone should license their shoes to help cover the cost of sidewalks

 

[thommyjo]

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.

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]

Nothing has been banned. Construction will proceed as is.

 

[TAS]

A video from Coun. Salvador on 132 Ave (a good watch if unfamiliar about this padticular stretch of road from Fort Rd to 127st).

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

 

[Out of Towner]

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.

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!]

A video from Coun. Salvador on 132 Ave (a good watch if unfamiliar about this padticular stretch of road from Fort Rd to 127st).

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

The words of Councilor Ashley Salvador (our future mayor) are gospel to me.

It’s disappointing to see provincial leaders trying to undermine this important work in an attempt to change the channel and distract Albertans from their healthcare corruption scandal before a long weekend. Trying to turn a safety-focused, community-serving project into a political wedge is irresponsible. The tactics being used to divide people and pit different modes of transportation against one another are clear, and Albertans see through them.