Ongoing Calgarians complaining about pedestrian bridges thread

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by fotze

It is legal? How is that?

Yesterday saw a girl crossing there while on her phone, barely looked up to the traffic. Ballsy.

From the article:

Contrary to common belief it’s perfectly legal to cross the street at an unmarked intersection.

This explains why the Herald spotted some Calgarians on Saturday walking across Memorial Drive right in front of a stopped police cruiser without so much as a finger-wagging from the officers.

“It’s not technically called jaywalking, unless it’s, of course, in the middle of the block and they’re running across the street,” said Lorie Boychuk, a city transportation spokeswoman.

[Bigtime]

Me either, time to start abusing it!

[frinkprof]

It should also be noted that the reason the signals haven't moved a block over to date is because Sunnyside residents voted it down a year or so ago.

[trew]

The city just put up four "crosswalk closed" signs around 8th street this morning, and they have a Bylaw officer on the bridge. It looks like they are trying to tighten the legalities so they can ticket people.

Now, if you still want to cross on Memorial, and would like to avoid getting a ticket, I would suggest crossing one block to the west on 9th street.

[First Lady]

For all the people wanting a "walkable" city, not too many seem to want to walk the extra feet to a safe crosswalk.

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

It should also be noted that the reason the signals haven't moved a block over to date is because Sunnyside residents voted it down a year or so ago.

That survey was apparently not very clear in the options, which led to the most votes going to the keep the existing lights option winning out.

[trew]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

It should also be noted that the reason the signals haven't moved a block over to date is because Sunnyside residents voted it down a year or so ago.

I think when they revisit this, the community will vote to move it.

I believe the previous vote was flawed, because the question wasn't well understood. (People thought that they would add more restrictions to vehicle traffic on 8th street when they moved the crosswalk). They also provided three options to vote on. (One leave it as is, and two move-its). The vote to move the crosswalk was therefor split over two candidates.

[frinkprof]

Originally Posted by First Lady

For all the people wanting a "walkable" city, not too many seem to want to walk the extra feet to a safe crosswalk.

What? Desiring walkability and desiring to walk an indirect and counter-intuitive route are two different things. The existing situation (up until this morning perhaps with talk of extra signage and enforcement) may not be as safe as if there were a crosswalk or no road at all, but the important part is that it is safe enough that using it outweighs walking the extra block over, crossing, then doubling back the block.

Seems you associate "walkability" with "wanting to walk a lot - even unnecessarily," which is not quite the opposite of walkability, but close.

[Jimmy Stang]

Originally Posted by First Lady

For all the people wanting a "walkable" city, not too many seem to want to walk the extra feet to a safe crosswalk.

Having a walkable city isn't about making walking trips unnecessarily inefficient, but rather the opposite.

It's unfortunate that the city botched the survey questions to the Sunnyside residents. Although it would have helped to have simplified the questions (ie: keep it where it is, or move it"), this is one of those situations where community input was not necessary or helpful.

There's a new, major piece of infrastructure that will generate a lot of pedestrian and cycling traffic, and the crosswalk needs to move to accommodate it. Done. There should be consultation with the community about how the relocated crosswalk will impact the neighbourhood (whether 7th should be re-opened and 8th closed, etc.), but the issue of whether the crosswalk should be moved should never have been up for debate or consultation.

[surferguy]

i guess with the bylaw officer on the bridge today there will always be somebody to bolster the usage numbers.

[First Lady]

Guess I should have used green text instead of

[SeoulFire]

Originally Posted by First Lady

Guess I should have used green text instead of

The Champions of Density know no humor!

[burn_this_city]

The city should build another bridge over memorial.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by GGG

One thought I had is that your taxes should be based partly on the amount of land you take up.

I'd agree with "Partly" but I still think property tax is still a super arbitrary form of taxation.

I think property tax should cover maintenance and improvements to all things in the city that are required to keep you living on your lot. Lot size does matter, as a larger lot has a longer sidewalk, longer street frontage and possibly a longer alley, but these costs are quite minimal compared to roads servicing your community, water and sewer facilities etc.

It would be great to tax communities on the edge of the city more because people are using a longer network of roads and transit to get to work, but that isn't necessarily true. Someone may live and work in Cranston, while someone may live in the Beltline but work at the Airport. This is why I think fuel taxes and tolls are actually fantastic methods of taxation. If someone is using the city roads a ton, tax them for their usage. If gas prices and transit fares go up, you take care of targeting people living far from their place of work and give people a chance to realize some savings by living close to work. Same with sewer/water. Build the price of maintaining the actual infrastructure to service a community into the tax. If you live by a waste water plant, good for you, you have a very short sewer run so you should see some savings. You live way up a hill very far from a water treatment plant? Too bad, you're paying for the operation of the maintenance and pumps to get it up there. If it costs the city more to service that land, you should be paying for it.

[frinkprof]

Originally Posted by First Lady

Guess I should have used green text instead of

Thin edge of the razor. Well done. I was only 50% sure it was sarcasm.

[ranchlandsselling]

Originally Posted by SeoulFire

The Champions of Density know no humor!

[ranchlandsselling]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

I'd agree with "Partly" but I still think property tax is still a super arbitrary form of taxation.

I think property tax should cover maintenance and improvements to all things in the city that are required to keep you living on your lot. Lot size does matter, as a larger lot has a longer sidewalk, longer street frontage and possibly a longer alley, but these costs are quite minimal compared to roads servicing your community, water and sewer facilities etc.

It would be great to tax communities on the edge of the city more because people are using a longer network of roads and transit to get to work, but that isn't necessarily true. Someone may live and work in Cranston, while someone may live in the Beltline but work at the Airport. This is why I think fuel taxes and tolls are actually fantastic methods of taxation. If someone is using the city roads a ton, tax them for their usage. If gas prices and transit fares go up, you take care of targeting people living far from their place of work and give people a chance to realize some savings by living close to work. Same with sewer/water. Build the price of maintaining the actual infrastructure to service a community into the tax. If you live by a waste water plant, good for you, you have a very short sewer run so you should see some savings. You live way up a hill very far from a water treatment plant? Too bad, you're paying for the operation of the maintenance and pumps to get it up there. If it costs the city more to service that land, you should be paying for it.

He did have a good point about the lot size and even if it's in the core you might have to consider the opportunity cost of the land your lot occupies. Whether or not you are at the edge of the city or the middle your lot size contributes to sprawl the same amount as anyone else's lot of the same size.

Agree with some of your gas/road taxes/tolls comments.

[Jimmy Stang]

Originally Posted by First Lady

Guess I should have used green text instead of

When the topic is the Peace Bridge, all bets are off.

[frinkprof]

To be fair, First Lady's sarcasm was difficult to detect due to history of getting facts about this project wrong, misunderstanding concepts used in discussing it (such as what "walkability" is and why it matters), and unwillingness to reassess her positions based on the previous two.

Sarcasm or not, it (and SeoulFire's post above) helps to illustrate part of why and to what scale people are so up in arms about this project (and other things too, such as Bow River Flow). It goes beyond the process and administrative problems. It's simply a matter of the fact that people like First Lady and her husband (and others) don't particularly like the types of people that would use and enjoy these projects, to the point where facts (Peace Bridge), process (Bow River Flow) and similarity to other things they do not have the same inherent disdain for are ignored in an attempt to justify it.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

Sarcasm or not, it (and SeoulFire's post above) helps to illustrate part of why and to what scale people are so up in arms about this project (and other things too, such as Bow River Flow). It goes beyond the process and administrative problems. It's simply a matter of the fact that people like First Lady and her husband (and others) don't particularly like the types of people that would use and enjoy these projects, to the point where facts (Peace Bridge), process (Bow River Flow) and similarity to other things they do not have the same inherent disdain for are ignored in an attempt to justify it.

Wait a minute. That is completely false. Neither Cory or I dislike any group of people.

Only issue I've ever had with the bridge is the process.