Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz
Ah, the "we have so many km of path" bull#### number. Have you actually been on a lot of them? they are garbage. As top the rest of your defeatist post, you sound like someone who works for the city. The Edworthy to downtown section has challenges, sure, but it's not like we don't have challenges building roads, and the city doesn't just shrug and say "good enough". There are plenty of sections with no trees in the way that wider paths could be put in. Or do split paths and separate users. People with your attitude are why we still have what we have.
|
Did you even look at the criteria?
Quote:
Each city receives a City Ratings score on a scale of 0 - 100. A low score (0-20) indicates a weak bike network, meaning the city lacks safe bikeways or there are gaps in the network. A high score (80-100) indicates that most common destinations are accessible by safe, comfortable bike routes that serve people of all ages and abilities.
City Ratings scores are released annually each summer based on results from our Bicycle Network Analysis (BNA), a data analysis software that measures the quality and connectivity of a city’s bike network. The BNA assesses six factors captured in the acronym SPRINT:
- Safe Speeds
Protected Bike Lanes
Reallocated Space
Intersection Treatments
Network Connections
Trusted Data
https://cityratings.peopleforbikes.o...-ratings-works
|
This is what an excellent bike pathway system looks like according to one of the most prominent cycling advocacy groups in North America. Could it be better? Sure. But if you feel Calgary’s pathway system is embarrassing, you’d feel pretty much any North American city’s pathway system (and most European cities as well) are embarrassing.