[ntt1]

Tangential, but I really wish the shared-use path up Groat Road heading to 87 Ave was wider. It is easy to commute through Hawrelak from the west end now, but that path and bumpy is quite narrow heading up to UAlberta.

The whole Groat Rd/River Valley Rd spaghetti bowl of roads is such a barrier to better-connected cycling routes.

 

[Filip.Nowak]

Finally got to check out Lift Me Up on the Lake yesterday and it was incredible:

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

 

[thommyjo]

Tangential, but I really wish the shared-use path up Groat Road heading to 87 Ave was wider. It is easy to commute through Hawrelak from the west end now, but that path and bumpy is quite narrow heading up to UAlberta.

The whole Groat Rd/River Valley Rd spaghetti bowl of roads is such a barrier to better-connected cycling routes.

87ave LRT and active modes bridge is the solution! Tawatina 2.0. Would be soooo busy and would connect our city so much better.

Let’s stop wasting money on average buses in suburbs that barely shift any mode use. Let’s double down centrally to make transit good enough for tens of thousands to delay vehicle purchases or move most households to 1 car vs 2 in mature areas.

 

[TAS]

Let’s stop wasting money on average buses in suburbs that barely shift any mode use. Let’s double down centrally to make transit good enough for tens of thousands to delay vehicle purchases or move most households to 1 car vs 2 in mature areas.

^
And this is generally what public transportation experts say isn't it in terms of best practice. So why aren't we doing this?

 

[kcantor]

0 sympathy for drivers having a slow trip around, sorry.

My main beef is there not being dedicated bike path/lanes separate from pedestrians. We should allow pedestrians to safely stroll without constant bike traffic and likewise cyclists shouldn’t have to weave and slam breaks and constantly be ringing bells to get through.

Arguably a 2nd, small playground in the NW could be justified.

Maybe you would have more than 0 sympathy if your passengers were recovering from a stroke or had a broken leg or were otherwise disabled and unable to take to the bike path/lanes, dedicated or not.

 

[bodsbods9090]

Maybe you would have more than 0 sympathy if your passengers were recovering from a stroke or had a broken leg or were otherwise disabled and unable to take to the bike path/lanes, dedicated or not.

Exactly.

Have to make it useable/accessable for everyone.

 

[cloney]

Lmao. Saying the park isn’t accessible for people who can’t walk is hilarious. It couldn’t be easier to drive from anywhere in the city to a parking spot in the park. An extra 1-2 minutes to go around the park when it’s at its busiest is not a problem to solve.

 

[thommyjo]

^
And this is generally what public transportation experts say isn't it in terms of best practice. So why aren't we doing this?

Far left ideology and well meaning progressives applying too heavy of an equity lens to transit policy.

Literally from our ETS execs, they’ve claimed we need transit in suburbs because of equity. And they’ll bring up thing like race and diversity of our suburbs.

As if more central indigenous and Somali areas should be shortchanged so well off Asian and middle eastern families in keswick and windemere can get poor transit that very few utilize….

Equity isn’t the right lens imo, while it’s a good tool to still consider. But we need to be driven primarily by what drives the highest ridership, which is best boosted by mode shifts for work and school commuting.

 

[Wax]

^Equity needs to be balanced with ridership. We cannot have equity if we cannot get good transit in the first place…

 

[thommyjo]

Maybe you would have more than 0 sympathy if your passengers were recovering from a stroke or had a broken leg or were otherwise disabled and unable to take to the bike path/lanes, dedicated or not.

Such a logical fallacy. Come on.

This is like claiming that me supporting a few kms of bike lanes means I’m suggesting fridge delivery workers start using bikes.

Only giving vehicles 1 lane instead of 2 doesn’t mean injured or disabled people can’t access. It just means they might experience congestion because the 98% of visitors who don’t have those accessibility challenges are also driving. Making it better to access the park with transit and biking means less vehicles on the road for those that need vehicle access still.

 

[Gronk!]

 

[roe_]

Far left ideology and well meaning progressives applying too heavy of an equity lens to transit policy.

Literally from our ETS execs, they’ve claimed we need transit in suburbs because of equity. And they’ll bring up thing like race and diversity of our suburbs.

As if more central indigenous and Somali areas should be shortchanged so well off Asian and middle eastern families in keswick and windemere can get poor transit that very few utilize….

Equity isn’t the right lens imo, while it’s a good tool to still consider. But we need to be driven primarily by what drives the highest ridership, which is best boosted by mode shifts for work and school commuting.

Pitting one neighbourhood against another by turning public infrastructure into a proxy war for political ideology is exhausting. Ensuring people can reliably get to work, school and grocery stores isn't a radical political experiment. It is the core civic duty of a municipality.

 

[thommyjo]

Pitting one neighbourhood against another by turning public infrastructure into a proxy war for political ideology is exhausting. Ensuring people can reliably get to work, school and grocery stores isn't a radical political experiment. It is the core civic duty of a municipality.

It’s not about putting neighborhoods against each other. It’s about acknowledging we have limited resources for transit. Therefore, we should focus them on what drives the most ridership imo.

I’d rather see 30-40% transit use in central areas because we invest heavily in transit and 5% in suburbs vs 10-15% across the entire city because we have average transit everywhere.

The reality is, newer suburbs are almost impossible to live car free in. The census data shows this. So transit in those areas is primarily commuting/school focused. But those people still own vehicles they can use. Let’s have trains/BRT and park and rides for them.

But in more central areas, we can help people literally live car free if transit is strong. So let’s focus efforts there in terms of high coverage, frequency, and comfort of facilities.

I think that nets us a greater ROI, mode shift, congestion relief, and pollution reduction. Every bus route to service secord, walker, or edgemont is taking away from better ROI routes elsewhere.

 

[buildings]

please stop derailing the Park thread. if you all want to talk bicycles or politics there already exists such threads.