News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 11K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 43K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 6.9K     0 
Ah... the "common sense fallacy"... I'll flip your argument back: if you need to drop off a package from, say, Winketowin to Whyte ave, which, using "common sense" is probably more frequent, considering that these are two of the densest populated areas of the city, and you use a bike, the net GDP generation is higher than by private vehicle, since all costs are lower: purchasing, operating and maintaining a bike, building and maintaining the infrastructure, not to mention the lower environmental impact and the health benefits to the cyclist, which in turn adds economic benefit for the society as a whole...

And the public benefit assumption goes beyond just the cyclist himself: it has been proven, with actual evidence, I might add, that having dedicated cycling and pedestrian infrastructure lower the risks of accidents, and the severity of the ones that still happen, which is an overall public benefit, just for starters. Also, while the bike lane is a public thoroughfare that can serve several hundred people, having street parking, especially in residential neighborhoods, provides no public good except that to the homeowner who, I'll say again, should be the only person responsible for the costs of having a private, dedicated parking spot at his front door.

Not to mention that you keep treating bike lanes as this leisurely and fringe thing that only serves a radical elite, but ignore the fact that the underusage of bikes as a daily transportation method is also a reflection of how the lack of proper infrastructure makes riding them unsafe in most of the city, therefore forcing people into other modes (usually motorized vehicles). Imagine if the script was flipped, and instead of having 11000km of roads and 100km of bike lanes (and these are not contiguous), we had the exact opposite, now imagine that all of the space dedicated to bikes in this scenario are very narrow lanes that fall into a cliff, making it relatively safe for cyclists, but extremely dangerous and hard to navigate by car, and accidents would often be fatal do drivers. Would people still choose car ownership, or would they start riding bikes more often, and only those with dedicated car lanes would frequently use their cars (while still owning a bike, because they will often need to go to areas without car lanes). This exact what happens to cyclists who want to use bikes as their main mode of transportation. Riding on stroads designed for high speeds, negotiating the road with drivers in their 2-ton suburbitanks who see them as an inconvenience, or breaking the law and sharing the road with pedestrians (and risking getting penalized for injuring one accident

Ah... the "common sense fallacy"... I'll flip your argument back: if you need to drop off a package from, say, Winketowin to Whyte ave, which, using "common sense" is probably more frequent, considering that these are two of the densest populated areas of the city, and you use a bike, the net GDP generation is higher than by private vehicle, since all costs are lower: purchasing, operating and maintaining a bike, building and maintaining the infrastructure, not to mention the lower environmental impact and the health benefits to the cyclist, which in turn adds economic benefit for the society as a whole...

And the public benefit assumption goes beyond just the cyclist himself: it has been proven, with actual evidence, I might add, that having dedicated cycling and pedestrian infrastructure lower the risks of accidents, and the severity of the ones that still happen, which is an overall public benefit, just for starters. Also, while the bike lane is a public thoroughfare that can serve several hundred people, having street parking, especially in residential neighborhoods, provides no public good except that to the homeowner who, I'll say again, should be the only person responsible for the costs of having a private, dedicated parking spot at his front door.

Not to mention that you keep treating bike lanes as this leisurely and fringe thing that only serves a radical elite, but ignore the fact that the underusage of bikes as a daily transportation method is also a reflection of how the lack of proper infrastructure makes riding them unsafe in most of the city, therefore forcing people into other modes (usually motorized vehicles). Imagine if the script was flipped, and instead of having 11000km of roads and 100km of bike lanes (and these are not contiguous), we had the exact opposite, now imagine that all of the space dedicated to bikes in this scenario are very narrow lanes that fall into a cliff, making it relatively safe for cyclists, but extremely dangerous and hard to navigate by car, and accidents would often be fatal do drivers. Would people still choose car ownership, or would they start riding bikes more often, and only those with dedicated car lanes would frequently use their cars (while still owning a bike, because they will often need to go to areas without car lanes). This exact what happens to cyclists who want to use bikes as their main mode of transportation. Riding on stroads designed for high speeds, negotiating the road with drivers in their 2-ton suburbitanks who see them as an inconvenience, or breaking the law and sharing the road with pedestrians (and risking getting penalized for injuring one accidentally).
Lots of pablum there Chaz but sooner or later you'll have to pay a user fee for using bike paths. You can't go to the National Parks and use the walking and riding paths for nothing. You can't go to Kananaskis and use the walking and biking paths there for nothing either. So why do you feel entitled to use the municipal paths for nothing? There are costs associated with maintaining bike paths from sweeping and snow removal to replacing broken barriers and such and if the bike path network is expanded, the costs of maintaining them goes up as well. If the city can issue dog licenses to cover the cost of a pound, then the city can issues licenses to cyclists who choose to use the bike paths. If you want to use the bike paths - you pay. If you don't use the bike paths - then you don't pay. Exemptions can be made for kids and for low income folks.
 
Cars also pay to enter national parks (and some provincial parks). Bikes also pay for using ferries or transit (during bike transport), so there is a degree of user fees. Bike paths eventually require maintenance, but not to the degree of roads.
 
Lots of pablum there Chaz but sooner or later you'll have to pay a user fee for using bike paths. You can't go to the National Parks and use the walking and riding paths for nothing. You can't go to Kananaskis and use the walking and biking paths there for nothing either. So why do you feel entitled to use the municipal paths for nothing? There are costs associated with maintaining bike paths from sweeping and snow removal to replacing broken barriers and such and if the bike path network is expanded, the costs of maintaining them goes up as well. If the city can issue dog licenses to cover the cost of a pound, then the city can issues licenses to cyclists who choose to use the bike paths. If you want to use the bike paths - you pay. If you don't use the bike paths - then you don't pay. Exemptions can be made for kids and for low income folks.
How much do you pay when you go to the doctor?

How much do you pay when you walk down the sidewalk?

How much do you pay for your kids to go to elementary school?

How much do you pay to use a public washroom?

How much do you pay to park in front of your house?

How much do you pay for visiting a library?

How much do you pay for using a playground? Tennis court? Basketball court?

If I pay more in property taxes than you, would that make you happy? Cause I bet I might.

You don’t license bikes because they don’t kill people. Same reason you license guns and not shovels.

You don’t need a user fee for bike lanes because there’s no operating expenses. Both vehciles and transit have staffing and maintenance that’s much higher.

You don’t pay a “gas tax” equivalent because you aren’t creating pollution by biking and you aren’t funding provincial/rural biking routes.

The 100 million investment is equivalent to $1.77/household each year. The 7k I pay in property taxes each year can surely cover that 🙂
 
Last edited:
Can we all just agree that dude hasn't read a single point anyone has made on here and keeps doubling down (tripling? quadrupling? Actually, I think we're well into the double digits by now) about how cyclists should pay user fees? I appreciate everyone's responses and have learned a lot but it doesn't seem to matter to dude because "common sense" (untainted by actual facts) should be enough to support his indefensible position. And please don't bother responding (again) that we should pay user fees because we've already established multiple times that, one way or another, we do.

I would also recommend that if you want to go yell about bike lanes and the elites, any Post media comments section might be more to your liking.
 
Looking at Google Maps, the newer neighbourhoods have more bike/multi-use paths. but sparse in north central locations:
 
Beautiful day. I can only speak for Strathcona and Wihkwentowin areas, but there were so many people, groups, and families biking today. Wow - seriously it was great to see. Oliver Exchange was really busy and so was Paul Kane Park even though no water yet.

Keep up the biking people!
 
Yesterday was beautiful. In my 22 km ride home I easily saw hundreds of cyclists out and about.

We had our first Let’s Bike There YEG cargo bike and kids playground meet of the year this morning, great turn out despite the chillier weather. My 2 year old has hit 200 km in a month for the first time.
A54C5CD6-9DC8-42D8-8175-48FDEF5C9AD3.jpeg
 
Yesterday was beautiful. In my 22 km ride home I easily saw hundreds of cyclists out and about.

We had our first Let’s Bike There YEG cargo bike and kids playground meet of the year this morning, great turn out despite the chillier weather. My 2 year old has hit 200 km in a month for the first time. View attachment 646894
Well there you go. That's not the kids in the NE on WalMart bicycles and it's not the guy cycling to Tim Horton's to save money. No. Not at all. What you have there is the high minded and morally superior Rachel Notley constituency that wants everybody else to pay for their leisure and recreational actively.
 
Well there you go. That's not the kids in the NE on WalMart bicycles and it's not the guy cycling to Tim Horton's to save money. No. Not at all. What you have there is the high minded and morally superior Rachel Notley constituency that wants everybody else to pay for their leisure and recreational actively.
Those bikes are still cheaper than most cars lol.

You’re so insufferable man
 
My brother bought a 1300cc motorbike with 80,000 kms on it for $3000. Cheaper and way better than an electric bicycle.
 
Commuting by motorcycle in Edmonton is not a great experience though. I loved it in BC where motorcycles were accommodated everywhere like HOV lane access, motorcycle parking where cars wouldn't fit anyway, free motorcycle parking at YVR, etc. But nothing in Edmonton. Plus my two year old couldn't ride on my motorcycle, and oddly they don't make studded motorcycle tires.

I also used to think why buy an electric bike when I could buy a motorcycle that can take me across the country, which it did, but I couldn't imagine going back to motorcycling at this point in my life. Heck, now that my older kids are done with hockey for good, I'm getting ready to sell the second car so I can upgrade my cheap long tail bike to a front loader with weather protection.
 
My brother bought a 1300cc motorbike with 80,000 kms on it for $3000. Cheaper and way better than an electric bicycle.
How much is insurance annually for a motorbike vs ebike?

Many e-bikes are 2-3k, and used ones even cheaper.

By no measure is a motorbike cheaper than an ebike. And they’re pretty different in terms of useage. Not sure why you’d compare them? One can go 150km/hr, the other can carry kids on it.
 
Yea about $450 a year is what I paid here. There is a chance albeit smaller than motor vehicles that motorcyclists can cause injury, death, and property damage to others, but they are just as vulnerable as cyclists. I paid $700 a year in BC but again it was worth the cost for the commuting/parking perks plus the much longer riding season.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top