HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Manitoba & Saskatchewan


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #221  
Old Posted Oct 11, 2018, 6:41 PM
buzzg buzzg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 7,799
Quote:
Originally Posted by windypeg View Post
Mpls is one of the most bike-friendly cities in the US. Yes our road network is poorly planned and forces traffic downtown. So what I don't understand is, instead of using your time and energy to push for improvements to traffic arteries and create an inner ring road, you spend it all having hissy fits about bikes. We had a crappy road network long before there were any bike lanes, a handful of bike lanes here and there is not going to make any difference. The peanuts we spend on bikes every year would have virtually no impact if it were redirected into the road budget. It's practically a rounding error. If you want better roads, fine, then focus your energy on that instead of yelling at guys on bikes.
This is one of the key points for me. It's also a key point that is often overlooked (whether on purpose or not) in the Portage & Main debate. Just because something "is not a priority" according to some people, doesn't mean it can't happen. That logic means that we as a city can and should only do 1 thing at a time. It's insane.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #222  
Old Posted Oct 12, 2018, 3:29 PM
rrskylar's Avatar
rrskylar rrskylar is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: WINNIPEG
Posts: 7,641
Quote:
Originally Posted by windypeg View Post
Mpls is one of the most bike-friendly cities in the US. Yes our road network is poorly planned and forces traffic downtown. So what I don't understand is, instead of using your time and energy to push for improvements to traffic arteries and create an inner ring road, you spend it all having hissy fits about bikes. We had a crappy road network long before there were any bike lanes, a handful of bike lanes here and there is not going to make any difference. The peanuts we spend on bikes every year would have virtually no impact if it were redirected into the road budget. It's practically a rounding error. If you want better roads, fine, then focus your energy on that instead of yelling at guys on bikes.
Disagree, society and tax dollars should be for the common good not spent frivolously on entitled groups. If you are outlying this amount of capital for only .01 % of the population that actively cycle and closing vehicle lanes is this really the best use of resources? Common sense would say no on many levels except in Skyscraper Page forums.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #223  
Old Posted Oct 12, 2018, 3:37 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 37,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by rrskylar View Post
Disagree, society and tax dollars should be for the common good not spent frivolously on entitled groups. If you are outlying this amount of capital for only .01 % of the population that actively cycle and closing vehicle lanes is this really the best use of resources? Common sense would say no on many levels except in Skyscraper Page forums.
You make it sound like fortunes are spent on building cycling infrastructure. How big is the city's budget for AT infrastructure? I'd be surprised if it was even 1% of what gets spent on roads and transit each year.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #224  
Old Posted Oct 12, 2018, 3:42 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 13,708
Spending 0.01% of the budget on 0.01% of people. Seems about right. What's the problem?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #225  
Old Posted Oct 12, 2018, 3:48 PM
cheswick's Avatar
cheswick cheswick is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: South Kildonan
Posts: 2,756
Quote:
Originally Posted by rrskylar View Post
Disagree, society and tax dollars should be for the common good not spent frivolously on entitled groups. If you are outlying this amount of capital for only .01 % of the population that actively cycle and closing vehicle lanes is this really the best use of resources? Common sense would say no on many levels except in Skyscraper Page forums.
Sorry to break this to you, but encouraging cycling over cars is for the common good.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #226  
Old Posted Oct 12, 2018, 3:52 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 13,708
rr meant for the common good of drivers.

The City budgeted $4.7m in 2017 and has $5.4m budgeted for each of the next 5 years on AT infrastructure. Capital spending is hovering around $360M each year (last year was actually $432m). So we're at about 1.5% of the capital budget on AT, which is walking too, not just cycling.

I'm pretty sure 100% of people walk. So that's pretty good value. I'm also sure more than 1.5% of people cycle.

Source: https://www.winnipeg.ca/finance/file...et_Volume3.pdf
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #227  
Old Posted Oct 12, 2018, 3:56 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 37,483
^ So realistically, once you part out the cycling-specific infrastructure (bike lanes, etc.) it'll be under 1%.

So remind me what all the fuss is about again?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #228  
Old Posted Oct 12, 2018, 4:16 PM
rrskylar's Avatar
rrskylar rrskylar is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: WINNIPEG
Posts: 7,641
Quote:
Originally Posted by bomberjet View Post
rr meant for the common good of drivers.

The City budgeted $4.7m in 2017 and has $5.4m budgeted for each of the next 5 years on AT infrastructure. Capital spending is hovering around $360M each year (last year was actually $432m). So we're at about 1.5% of the capital budget on AT, which is walking too, not just cycling.

I'm pretty sure 100% of people walk. So that's pretty good value. I'm also sure more than 1.5% of people cycle.

Source: https://www.winnipeg.ca/finance/file...et_Volume3.pdf
I have no problem with AT infrastructure, people use it year round and around the clock myself included. Hacked in bike lanes get used by very few for a couple hours of the day. Add up the real cost of the roadways these designated bike lanes are hacked into and not just the paint and curbs! Obviously more than 1.5% of the population cycle, but what is the real number that cycle commute on dedicated bike lanes, is it .01% or more like .001% obviously our climate dictates otherwise which furthers my argument against hacked in bike lanes!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #229  
Old Posted Oct 12, 2018, 4:18 PM
windypeg windypeg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 417
Quote:
Originally Posted by rrskylar View Post
Disagree, society and tax dollars should be for the common good not spent frivolously on entitled groups. If you are outlying this amount of capital for only .01 % of the population that actively cycle and closing vehicle lanes is this really the best use of resources? Common sense would say no on many levels except in Skyscraper Page forums.
I'd like to know where you got the number 0.01% of the population. It's already been established that's simply not factual. If you want to have a debate I'm all ears but if you're going to just continue to make stuff up like a child I have better things to do. The percentage of people who cycle exceeds the percentage of our budget given to cycling, meaning cyclists get less than their fair share. That's simply a fact. You're obviously not a numbers person but at least make an effort.

Last edited by windypeg; Oct 12, 2018 at 4:31 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #230  
Old Posted Oct 12, 2018, 4:31 PM
ywgwalk ywgwalk is offline
Formerly rypinion
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Exchange District, Winnipeg
Posts: 388
Quote:
Originally Posted by rrskylar View Post
Hacked in bike lanes get used by very few for a couple hours of the day.
You can say practically the same thing for the roads that are getting the bike lanes "hacked in".
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #231  
Old Posted Oct 12, 2018, 4:35 PM
Authentic_City's Avatar
Authentic_City Authentic_City is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,626
This survey from CAA (car lobby group) and Bike Winnipeg (bike lobby group) found 21% bike daily or a few times a week *for transportation* not just for recreation/pleasure.

http://bikewinnipeg.ca/2018/07/24/cy....Sq6TCjAV.dpbs

This national poll found many Winnipeggers want bike lanes:

“Two-thirds of Winnipeg respondents said there were too few separated lanes (compared to 46 per cent of total respondents), while 76 per cent called the lanes "a good idea" (second only to Montreal’s 80 per cent).”

https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/lo...486785171.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #232  
Old Posted Oct 12, 2018, 5:09 PM
Ando Ando is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,723
Quote:
Originally Posted by windypeg View Post
I'd like to know where you got the number 0.01% of the population. It's already been established that's simply not factual. If you want to have a debate I'm all ears but if you're going to just continue to make stuff up like a child I have better things to do. The percentage of people who cycle exceeds the percentage of our budget given to cycling, meaning cyclists get less than their fair share. That's simply a fact. You're obviously not a numbers person but at least make an effort.
Out of his butt perhaps??
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #233  
Old Posted Oct 12, 2018, 5:21 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 13,708
There is no argument other than "you tuk 'r lanes!"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #234  
Old Posted Oct 12, 2018, 5:49 PM
oftheMoon's Avatar
oftheMoon oftheMoon is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: East Exchanger
Posts: 675
Quote:
Originally Posted by ywgwalk View Post
You can say practically the same thing for the roads that are getting the bike lanes "hacked in".
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #235  
Old Posted Oct 12, 2018, 7:45 PM
TimeFadesAway TimeFadesAway is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 719
Quote:
Originally Posted by rrskylar View Post
I have no problem with AT infrastructure, people use it year round and around the clock myself included. Hacked in bike lanes get used by very few for a couple hours of the day. Add up the real cost of the roadways these designated bike lanes are hacked into and not just the paint and curbs! Obviously more than 1.5% of the population cycle, but what is the real number that cycle commute on dedicated bike lanes, is it .01% or more like .001% obviously our climate dictates otherwise which furthers my argument against hacked in bike lanes!
According to the 2016 census, 1.7% of the population use cycling as their main mode of transportation to work. So you are only off by 17000%.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #236  
Old Posted Oct 12, 2018, 7:51 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 13,708
So seems the amount of funding is just about right if you want to go by percentages.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #237  
Old Posted Oct 12, 2018, 11:38 PM
Bdog's Avatar
Bdog Bdog is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 2,228
Quote:
Originally Posted by bomberjet View Post
There is no argument other than "you tuk 'r lanes!"
Despite the crude characterization of those who oppose losing travel lanes as slack-jawed yokels, I agree that more people seemed concerned with loss of lanes than cost.

I don't think generally there's as much concern over the 1% of spending going to AT; I think it's more the perception that they just lost 33% or 50% of the road capacity on a road they drive regularly.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #238  
Old Posted Oct 13, 2018, 1:53 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 13,708
South Park reference. Losing 1 of 4 lanes on a side street isnt concerning.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #239  
Old Posted Oct 13, 2018, 4:24 PM
Bdog's Avatar
Bdog Bdog is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 2,228
Quote:
Originally Posted by bomberjet View Post
South Park reference. Losing 1 of 4 lanes on a side street isnt concerning.
I wouldn't consider Bannatyne and McDermot side streets, and I doubt many who use them during rush hour do either.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #240  
Old Posted Oct 14, 2018, 4:55 AM
rrskylar's Avatar
rrskylar rrskylar is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: WINNIPEG
Posts: 7,641
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bdog View Post
Despite the crude characterization of those who oppose losing travel lanes as slack-jawed yokels, I agree that more people seemed concerned with loss of lanes than cost.

I don't think generally there's as much concern over the 1% of spending going to AT; I think it's more the perception that they just lost 33% or 50% of the road capacity on a road they drive regularly.
It's not just the 1% spent on curbs and paint for the dedicated bike lanes, the true cost is the expense of the road, if you have three lanes of roadway and one is hacked out for a bike lane the real cost is much higher, more like 33.3% of what the actual road cost is.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Manitoba & Saskatchewan
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 1:27 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.