[ChazYEG]

Adding to the point above: We could spend about 4 decades spending $100M/year on bike lanes with the cost of ONE YEAR of the money spend on highway construction and maintenance that is not covered by the GTF and licensing. If you ask me, would be a much better use of taxpayer money than what we currently do. Hell, cut off 1/3 of car infrastructure spending for a whole electoral cycle and build a bike lane network that would make Europeans blush!

 

[Out of Towner]

Cyclists come from all income groups, dude. And as has been thoroughly debated here, they already contribute to the funding by paying property taxes just like everybody else. And the argument that motor vehicle owners pay for the car infrastructure with their many fees doesn't really stand. The construction and maintenance of roads far exceeds the amounts collected by licensing and the gas tax, and insurance doesn't go to funding infrastructure, especially in Alberta, where we have private insurance providers.

Just for the sake of argument, let's say Alberta has 5 million private vehicles circulating on the roads, with a licensing fee of $85/year, that's $425M dollars to build and maintain the whole car infrastructure of the province, which doesn't even come close to being enough. The rest is subsidized by everyone, be they vehicle owners or not. Just for the sake of argument, in the years of 2019-2020 the provincial government spent $4.4Bn in the highway network alone, for a licensing revenue of roughly $700M in licenses and $420M of the gas tax. That's about 25% of the total cost of highway maintenance and construction alone. And that's not counting city road maintenance, etc...So the remaining $3.3Bn, and the total expenditure of road maintenance in the cities, is a burden carried by every single private citizen and company in the province, by way of taxes (property taxes, income tax, GST, etc...).

So you're really telling me that the subsidized ones are the cyclists, because we're carving out $100M over several years for bike lanes, while the entire population is subsidizing literally BILLIONS every year for car infrastructure?

Give me a damn brea

And the tax paid by motorists at the pump? And the user fees paid by transit rides? None of that means anything to you? Let me add that the bicycles seen at the coffee shops are not from WalMart that the kids in the north east ride. Most of bike paths are catering to a demographic that ride thousand dollar plus bicycles to the coffee shop.

 

[constance_chlore]

And the tax paid by motorists at the pump? And the user fees paid by transit rides? None of that means anything to you?

The gas tax is literally addressed by the post you're quoting.

 

[an_edmontonian]

It shouldn't come as a surprise that cyclists are satisfied with the funding model for their bike paths. Cyclists on average are not low income or fixed income people but instead are a self centered higher income group that has the ability to make a contribution to their preferred transportation but are too tight to do so. Perhaps a better transportation funding strategy would be to make transportation free to everybody and fund it from revenue collected from income taxes.

Furthermore, the earlier tranches of funding dedicated to bike paths was used on some residential streets in places like Old Strathcona that did nothing to improve cycling safety. Most of those street are low traffic streets to begin with and bike paths were constructed to improve cyclists' cycling experience. Now cyclists like Constance want another $100M to take away the parking from more home owners so their cycling experience can improve?

Care to respond to any of the point I made in the original comment? Do you think that grade separated interchange access to South Edmonton Common is good use of public dollars?

 

[constance_chlore]

Care to respond to any of the point I made in the original comment? Do you think that grade separated interchange access to South Edmonton Common is good use of public dollars?

I don't think this person is ever going to respond to a point we make. They're throwing stuff against the wall to see what sticks.

Reading anti-bike lane rhetoric, it sure seems like there's a certain kind of person is very mad that some people have found a mode of transportation that's cheaper both for themselves and for society at large, and they need there to be some sort of penalty for using it so that they can feel better about themselves.

 

[thommyjo]

It shouldn't come as a surprise that cyclists are satisfied with the funding model for their bike paths. Cyclists on average are not low income or fixed income people but instead are a self centered higher income group that has the ability to make a contribution to their preferred transportation but are too tight to do so. Perhaps a better transportation funding strategy would be to make transportation free to everybody and fund it from revenue collected from income taxes.

Furthermore, the earlier tranches of funding dedicated to bike paths was used on some residential streets in places like Old Strathcona that did nothing to improve cycling safety. Most of those street are low traffic streets to begin with and bike paths were constructed to improve cyclists' cycling experience. Now cyclists like Constance want another $100M to take away the parking from more home owners so their cycling experience can improve?

If cyclists are high income people, that means they’re paying much higher property taxes and income taxes than others, right? As well as likely having a lower burden to the tax system with better health and less road damage caused by them?

That’s just if your thesis is correct. But you provided 0 data. Mind backing up your claims?

 

[Out of Towner]

If cyclists are high income people, that means they’re paying much higher property taxes and income taxes than others, right? As well as likely having a lower burden to the tax system with better health and less road damage caused by them?

That’s just if your thesis is correct. But you provided 0 data. Mind backing up your clai

Is there a reason why you and Constance refuse to make a financial contribution, in the form of a user fee, to your transportation of choice? Everybody else does. You can debate whether your property tax already covers your bike path usage adequately, but is your refusal based on financial reasons or something else?

 

[ChazYEG]

And the tax paid by motorists at the pump? And the user fees paid by transit rides? None of that means anything to you? Let me add that the bicycles seen at the coffee shops are not from WalMart that the kids in the north east ride. Most of bike paths are catering to a demographic that ride thousand dollar plus bicycles to the coffee shop.

I literally addressed the Gas Tax ($420M for 2019-2020). User fees paid by transit drivers go to cover the costs of operating transit, and they're not even enough for that, let alone to cover road maintenance (transit is also subsidized with taxes, in general).
Have you also stopped to think that there aren't more people in lower income areas riding bikes BECAUSE THERE'S NO INFRASTRUCTURE?
But again, I, like so many others, brought hard numbers and facts, while you're just trolling and making senseless claims with NOTHING to show for it. Typical cancervative behaviour

 

[ChazYEG]

Is there a reason why you and Constance refuse to make a financial contribution, in the form of a user fee, to your transportation of choice? Everybody else does. You can debate whether your property tax already covers your bike path usage adequately, but is your refusal based on financial reasons or something else?

Again, Why should cyclists pay any more, when they're already subsidizing car infrastructure with their taxes?

 

[Out of Towner]

I literally addressed the Gas Tax ($420M for 2019-2020). User fees paid by transit drivers go to cover the costs of operating transit, and they're not even enough for that, let alone to cover road maintenance (transit is also subsidized with taxes, in general).
Have you also stopped to think that there aren't more people in lower income areas riding bikes BECAUSE THERE'S NO INFRASTRUCTURE?
But again, I, like so many others, brought hard numbers and facts, while you're just trolling and making senseless claims with NOTHING to show for it. Typical cancervative behaviour

 

[an_edmontonian]

Is there a reason why you and Constance refuse to make a financial contribution, in the form of a user fee, to your transportation of choice? Everybody else does. You can debate whether your property tax already covers your bike path usage adequately, but is your refusal based on financial reasons or something else?

Would you support the gas tax being increased substantially to cover the costs of private motor infrastructure and massive parking lots? Until that happens non car users will continue to subsidize car users by a huge amount each year.

 

[ChazYEG]

was there a response here?

 

[Out of Towner]

I vote liberal and own a bicycle and am willing to pay a user fee for using bicycle paths because I think it's fair. I go to coffee shops and see cyclists with their expensive bicycles drinking their expensive designer beverages. Again, this isn't kids in the northeast riding WalMart bicycles or the guy with a crap job drinking coffee at Tim Horton's, we're talking about cyclists with all the gear refusing to pay their own way because they're cheap skates and would rather leach off of government funding.

 

[an_edmontonian]

I vote liberal and own a bicycle and am willing to pay a user fee for using bicycle paths because I think it's fair. I go to coffee shops and see cyclists with their expensive bicycles drinking their expensive designer beverages. Again, this isn't kids in the northeast riding WalMart bicycles or the guy with a crap job drinking coffee at Tim Horton's, we're talking about cyclists with all the gear refusing to pay their own way because they're cheap skates and would rather leach off of government funding.

Sounds like you are going to these very same expensive coffee joints.

And guess what costs more. A car vs a bike? A car.

Guess what users infrastructure "costs more" and doesn't pay its way through "user fees"? Also cars.

 

[ntt1]

It shouldn't come as a surprise that cyclists are satisfied with the funding model for their bike paths. Cyclists on average are not low income or fixed income people but instead are a self centered higher income group that has the ability to make a contribution to their preferred transportation but are too tight to do so.[citation needed] Perhaps a better transportation funding strategy would be to make transportation free to everybody and fund it from revenue collected from income taxes.

Furthermore, the earlier tranches of funding dedicated to bike paths was used on some residential streets in places like Old Strathcona that did nothing to improve cycling safety.[citation needed] Most of those street are low traffic streets to begin with and bike paths were constructed to improve cyclists' cycling experience. Now cyclists like Constance want another $100M to take away the parking from more home owners[citation needed] so their cycling experience can improve?

Not sure why people are even bothering to engage when you're just throwing stuff like this out unsubstantiated.