Calgary should keep their ped-only street ped-only, with bicycles allowed on the street, one-way, when cars are, too.
Those opposed to bicycles in Edmonton should get a study group together, with a council mandate to follow through with the recommendations of the committee, and then staff the group with ardent cycling advocates -- half advocating cycling-dedicated infrastructure, half advocating VC practice as road users... We are our own worst enemy. Like environmentalists calling for alt energy because oil/coal/nuclear is too dirty, and then opposing windmills.
Originally Posted by Nicodemus regarding mconlonx
You, I don't generally think of you as clueless. You're kind of ok.
I was there ....ooooh There were 11 scheduled speakers until I signed up to be the 12th man. haha
The first 6 got the most focus and questions after their 5 minutes each. Then a lunchbreak before the second 6, only 2 were questioned. I live by the best of the implemented routes, 95th ave., a very lightly traveled way most of the day. Mostly with narrowed 4 lanes, but also 1 km reduced to 3 lanes and two 5 foot painted lanes beside. The EBC basically wanted more segregated paths which are now in all new neighborhood plans, mostly very usefull. A couple insinuated that VC lane hogging was need to be taught to cars. I decied to not rain on that nonsense, practiced by 1 in 10 thousand here.
I winged it and didn't make very good use of it, I suck at talking. I started with saying I have ridden all around the city for 50 years and said there were only 3 places not safe for us. I said cars have always been nice to me and did NOT need educating. Then I praised the safety of my 95 route for bikes and cars. I said the 2 lanes plus center turn lane took the guesswork out of lane changing and is far easier around left turning busses at one light. I mentioned left turn signals and praised 2 longer used side paths. I said I didn't care if I rode on the sidewalk or the freeway. I finished by getting a laugh saying only potholes make it unsafe for bicycles.
Next southside councillor Michael did his rant about seniors not wanting their road taken away and not knowing how to deal with us and the new situation. Basically NIMBY, get outta my sight and bikes don't PAY for the roads. Of course this is total BS ... city roads are paid for by property tax and income tax for Fed shared cost. He complained about neighborhoods not being consulted, oh, because they all stayed home and cyclists went to the 3 meetings. I went to them all and everyone wrote something on the plans. I said that 76 ave was poor because it's a very narrow residential ave full of parked cars and several businesses/ churches. Most of the nimbys complain its winter here 5 months and a waste of money. There is no doubt that cycling has doubled lately. I failed to mention that.
The other councillors then ranted that nobody likes their built and planned routes. They all have way too much parking conflict, center tree boulevards and snow pile involvement, which covered my lane 95% of the winter. I only rode it once a short way. Some drivers did give me the funny looks, during afternoon rushhour linups, when the lane opened. Most of the succesful paths are MUPs. Some DZBLs were new last year.
Councillor Ben, who bike commutes, had a story about a F150 seriously crowding him going fast down a hill. Mayor Don and wife have 11 bikes, from Pashleys to Surlys. They finished by passing the motion to redo all the plans. bah
Last edited by GamblerGORD53; 02-07-14 at 04:22 PM.