Just went and checked out the bridge in person, actually pretty crowded right now, but it looked like a lot of folks in the same boat as me "well the sun's out, let's go see this new bridge"
Yes it's a great looking piece of design and adds some nice artsy flare to our very conservative/bland skyline in the city. But it's still a little silly to look immediately west and see two more bridges with pedestrian access within 3-5 blocks.
Having said that, I'm glad it's opened, it looks great, I just hope next time projects like this will be driven more by the need for the structure rather than the more ego driven "you know what would look great?" and then finding a place for it.
I intentionally left this part out wondering if anyone would comment on their own but I'm too impatient.
Quote:
He writes that he's already used the bridge five times ("it is very nice") but points out he'll probably never use the airport tunnel, the ring road or the widened 52nd Street ("I don't even know where 52nd Street is," he writes). Using similar calculations to find his economic contribution to these projects, he revises his earlier offer, saying he'll happily send out those $8.33 Peace Bridge reimbursements in exchange for a $487.48 checque compensating him for the car-centric infrastructure he'll never use.
Given the he probably drives to do his mountaineering and his bike parts get shipped to MEC Calgary on some sort of large road infrastructure, the students that pay his salary likely don't all live a bike ride away and take busses and cars from far away lands... It's much too complicated an issue to just say "I'll give you $8 for $400" and he should know better. How the frack did he think the bridge parts got to Calgary.
PEDESTRIANS
6. (1) A pedestrian shall not cross a street within one block in any direction of a traffic control signal or pedestrian corridor other than in a crosswalk.
(2) Notwithstanding Subsection (1), no person shall cross a street which:
(a) forms the boundary of a school property or is designated as a school zone during the hours when reduced speeds for school zones are in effect; except in a painted crosswalk or the crosswalk at an intersection.
(3) No pedestrian shall cross an LRT track except on a sidewalk or a crosswalk.
(4) Where an LRT crossing is controlled by gates, lights, bells, pedestrian lights, or any combination thereof, a person shall not cross the LRT track while the control devices are activated indicating that crossing is not permitted.
(5) In the event that the control devices are inoperative or non-existent a person shall only cross the LRT track when it is safe to do so and shall yield the right of way to any approaching LRT vehicles.
This is all I could find on the matter, and it confuses me.
What is a "Pedestrian Corridor"? Is it a side walk, an intersection, a pathway, an overpass? I didn't see it in the definitions section of the bylaw. If that term is undefined, is there even a "real" law that governs this?
[EDIT] Ok, I think I've figured out. A "Pedestrian Corridor" according to elsewhere on the City of Calgary website, is a signed or light controlled pedestrian street crossing that is not connected to a stop light. (Usually has the flashing yellow light, like the one on 10st across from the Safeway).
I intentionally left this part out wondering if anyone would comment on their own but I'm too impatient.
Given the he probably drives to do his mountaineering and his bike parts get shipped to MEC Calgary on some sort of large road infrastructure, the students that pay his salary likely don't all live a bike ride away and take busses and cars from far away lands... It's much too complicated an issue to just say "I'll give you $8 for $400" and he should know better. How the frack did he think the bridge parts got to Calgary.
Did you read his whole thing? When it comes to things like the ring-road and some other infrastructure he says he won't use he decides to still pay 1/2 of the cost to him. So he is not completely eliminating it from his personal calculation.
Pretty sure he was just trying to make a point, and show how ridiculous the whole cost of the bridge thing got.
A couple of the quotes:
Quote:
The tunnel to the airport is costing us about $400 million. I will not likely ever use it, but I am willing to concede that maybe I will, once or twice, and maybe someone coming to visit me may use it so I am willing to kick in half of my share. $400 million ÷ 3.6 million ÷ 2 = $55.55.
Quote:
I think I used the ring road once but am not likely to use it again. I live in the city so there is really no need for me to drive a circle around it. I accept that goods and services that I use may be delivered via the ring road, so again I am willing to leave half of my contribution on the table. $3000 million ÷ 3.6 million ÷ 2 = $416.66.
Last edited by Bigtime; 03-29-2012 at 01:05 PM.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Bigtime For This Useful Post:
City Press Release
....... Media availability – Pedestrian safety on Memorial Drive
March 29, 2012 11:30 AM Category: Police, Public Safety
The Calgary Police Service and The City of Calgary would like to clarify the traffic safety rules around pedestrians crossing at Memorial Drive and 8 Street N.W.
There is no marked or implied crosswalk at this intersection. Therefore, neither the Traffic Safety Act, nor The City of Calgary’s bylaws, allow for pedestrians to cross at this T-intersection.
This is not a safe place to cross the busy thoroughfare of Memorial Drive, and pedestrians are urged to use the alternate crossings at 7 Street N.W. or 10 Street N.W.
Traffic safety is a shared responsibility between drivers, pedestrians and cyclists.
Cst. Jim Lebedeff of the CPS Traffic Education Unit and Gord Elenko, Manager of Traffic Engineering with The City of Calgary, will be available to speak to the media at 2 p.m. today, Thursday, March 29, 2012, at the north end of the Peace Bridge.
I intentionally left this part out wondering if anyone would comment on their own but I'm too impatient.
Given the he probably drives to do his mountaineering and his bike parts get shipped to MEC Calgary on some sort of large road infrastructure, the students that pay his salary likely don't all live a bike ride away and take busses and cars from far away lands... It's much too complicated an issue to just say "I'll give you $8 for $400" and he should know better. How the frack did he think the bridge parts got to Calgary.
16th avenue by truck? Deerfoot?
I doubt the parts used any of the ring road. Probably Deerfoot right into the core.
His point was in referencing three pieces of infrastructure he doesn't use and gave a few numbers based on that.
I would be surprised if the bridge used any of those three pieces of infrastructure. The ring road is the most likely candidate, but I'm guessing not.
I find the whole crosswalk thing quite hilarious. Bridge detractors say that nobody is using the bridge (or would ever want to), yet the police have to make a special press release because too many people are jaywalking to use it.
And, in typical newspaper comment section fashion, everyone is up in arms that there will now end up being 2 crossings (the question was never to build an additional one, but to relocate the existing one to a more logical spot), among other mindless anger at pedestrians in general, Druh, Sunnyside latte sippers, etc.
Yes it's a great looking piece of design and adds some nice artsy flare to our very conservative/bland skyline in the city. But it's still a little silly to look immediately west and see two more bridges with pedestrian access within 3-5 blocks.
How is this silly?
As a foreword to this, I'm speaking more generally to the "other bridges are too close" argument that seems prevalent and not necessarily toward you jaydorn. Just using your post as a launching point. I'm also going to work under the assumption that many of the people using this line of reasoning are coming from the point of view of someone who travels predominantly by automobile.
In terms of walking or cycling, 550 meters (the distance between the bridges on the short side of the river) is problematic and undesirable because:
1. One has to go out of their way that distance and then has to double-back that same distance on the other side of the crossing.
2. As many would be doing this twice a day, the separation is as much as quadrupled for commuters.
3. Providing a more direct path from point of origin to destination is more acutely needed for cyclists and people who will walk because they use their manual power to make that trip and added distance is more directly proportionate to the time spent crossing that distance. It can be easy for people who normally don't travel as often on foot or bike to not relate to this because a more circuitous route usually costs very little in terms of fuel or time and costs virtually zero in terms of discomfort (other than pressing the gas pedal for a few more seconds). Much of the time spent traveling via automobile in cities is spent on the first 10% and the last 10% of the trip distance, and any double-back routing along the way is much less consequential due to average travel speeds along the middle of the trip as compared to travel speeds near the origin or the destination. The relationship is more linear for cyclists and especially pedestrians.
----------------
Looking at it from a general infrastructure angle, it's perhaps more intuitive. Route options increase as trip densities increase. On a macro-level, there's less bridges over geographic obstacles in rural Saskatchewan than there is near downtown Calgary. In Paris, there's a crossing of the Sienne River approximately every 200 meters. Not saying Calgary is Paris, but when Calgary starts to look more like Paris than it does like Oyen, it seems intuitive that there would be a need for more crossings of geographic obstacles.
Last edited by frinkprof; 03-29-2012 at 01:48 PM.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to frinkprof For This Useful Post:
City Press Release
....... Media availability – Pedestrian safety on Memorial Drive
March 29, 2012 11:30 AM Category: Police, Public Safety
The Calgary Police Service and The City of Calgary would like to clarify the traffic safety rules around pedestrians crossing at Memorial Drive and 8 Street N.W.
There is no marked or implied crosswalk at this intersection. Therefore, neither the Traffic Safety Act, nor The City of Calgary’s bylaws, allow for pedestrians to cross at this T-intersection.
This is not a safe place to cross the busy thoroughfare of Memorial Drive, and pedestrians are urged to use the alternate crossings at 7 Street N.W. or 10 Street N.W.
Traffic safety is a shared responsibility between drivers, pedestrians and cyclists.
Cst. Jim Lebedeff of the CPS Traffic Education Unit and Gord Elenko, Manager of Traffic Engineering with The City of Calgary, will be available to speak to the media at 2 p.m. today, Thursday, March 29, 2012, at the north end of the Peace Bridge.
Ok, for kicks I've gone through both of the laws mentioned (yes I have no life). The more I read the more convinced I become that there is really no clear legal language that explicitly prohibits pedestrian crossing at these intersections.
All it says is that a "T" intersection is not a crosswalk, because there is no joining set of sidewalks across from one another. This means that pedestrians do not have the right of way over vehicles.
However if you yield to traffic, and comply with the city Bylaw (>= 1 block from nearest crosswalk), nothing in these laws prevent you from crossing, provided you do not obstruct traffic or stop in the middle of the roadway.
Conversly, if a motorist incorrectly yields to a pedestrian who is waiting by the side of the road, that motorist could concievably be fined for obstructing traffic.
I do believe the City is trying to act on the side of public safety, but I suspect they may be leading people to come to conclusions about the law that may not be accurate.
As a foreword to this, I'm speaking more generally to the "other bridges are too close" argument that seems prevalent and not necessarily toward you jaydorn. Just using your post as a launching point. I'm also going to work under the assumption that many of the people using this line of reasoning are coming from the point of view of someone who travels predominantly by automobile.
In terms of walking or cycling, 550 meters (the distance between the bridges on the short side of the river) is problematic and undesireable because:
1. One has to go out of their way that distance and then has to double-back that same distance on the other side of the crossing.
2. As many would be doing this twice a day, the separation is as much as quadrupled for commuters.
3. Providing a more direct path from point of origin to destination is more acutely needed for cyclists and people who will walk because they use their manual power to make that trip and added distance is more directly proportionate to the time spent crossing that distance. It can be easy for people who normally don't travel as often on foot or bike to not relate to this because a more circuitous route usually costs very little in terms of fuel or time and costs virtually zero in terms of discomfort (other than pressing the gas pedal for a few more seconds). Much of the time spent traveling via automobile in cities is spent on the first 10% and the last 10% of the trip distance, and any double-back routing along the way is much less consequential due to average travel speeds along the middle of the trip as compared to travel speeds near the origin or the destination. The relationship is more linear for cyclists and especially pedestrians.
----------------
Looking at it from a general infrastructure angle, it's perhaps more intuitive. Route options increase as trip densities increase. On a macro-level, there's less bridges over geographic obstacles in rural Saskatchewan than there is near downtown Calgary. In Paris, there's a crossing of the Sienne River approximately every 200 meters. Not saying Calgary is Paris, but when Calgary starts to look more like Paris than it does like Oyen, it seems intuitive that there would be a need for more crossings of geographic obstacles.
You know what, you got me, I just checked on google maps to see the distance between the LRT bridge & Bow River Pathway bridge and it's just over 1km west-to-east... with the Peace Bridge being at about the 550m mark between the two.
I respectfully withdraw my "looks kinda silly comment" in regards to the positioning on it.
Did you read his whole thing? When it comes to things like the ring-road and some other infrastructure he says he won't use he decides to still pay 1/2 of the cost to him. So he is not completely eliminating it from his personal calculation.
Pretty sure he was just trying to make a point, and show how ridiculous the whole cost of the bridge thing got.
A couple of the quotes:
I thought his offering to pay 1/2 of his share for the large projects was quite hilarious. Even if he doesn't drive on them himself, He'll use other big roads that have built in the past, plus he'll purchase countless goods that will have been transported on the roads he says he'll never use. That he's saying he's being generous by paying 1/2 of his share for the roads is actually quite comical.
The main point of the article, that the cost of the peace bridge is just a tiny portion of the total infrastructure spending, that I can agree on.
He dreams of a car free city? I suppose anyone can dream, but how exactly are any goods going to be transported, at least for any kind of remotely reasonable cost? If you want to triple the price for everything, then fine.
I thought his offering to pay 1/2 of his share for the large projects was quite hilarious. Even if he doesn't drive on them himself, He'll use other big roads that have built in the past, plus he'll purchase countless goods that will have been transported on the roads he says he'll never use. That he's saying he's being generous by paying 1/2 of his share for the roads is actually quite comical.
If the provider of the goods he consumes pays their full transportation costs, wouldn't he pay for it via higher cost of goods?
Quote:
Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed
He dreams of a car free city? I suppose anyone can dream, but how exactly are any goods going to be transported, at least for any kind of remotely reasonable cost? If you want to triple the price for everything, then fine.
Personally, I'd be very happy for Calgary if it achieved a modal split of 50% automobiles and 50% everything else.
__________________
“Such suburban models are being rationalized as ‘what people want,’ when in fact they are simply what is most expedient to produce. The truth is that what people want is a decent place to live, not just a suburban version of a decent place to live.”
Did you read his whole thing? When it comes to things like the ring-road and some other infrastructure he says he won't use he decides to still pay 1/2 of the cost to him. So he is not completely eliminating it from his personal calculation.
Pretty sure he was just trying to make a point, and show how ridiculous the whole cost of the bridge thing got.
I intentionally left this part out wondering if anyone would comment on their own but I'm too impatient.
Given the he probably drives to do his mountaineering and his bike parts get shipped to MEC Calgary on some sort of large road infrastructure, the students that pay his salary likely don't all live a bike ride away and take busses and cars from far away lands... It's much too complicated an issue to just say "I'll give you $8 for $400" and he should know better. How the frack did he think the bridge parts got to Calgary.
I like this guys way of thinking. I rarely go downtown (maybe once or twice every few months) so I'm not paying anything for the downtown infrastructure except for my fair share of usage. I drive Glenmore every day, so that's all I'm willing to pay for.
I'm no economist, and I can't find population density charts or downtown worker numbers online, but I'm pretty sure his usage fees just went up for the roads he enjoys. (Again, I'm making an assumption)
I like this guys way of thinking. I rarely go downtown (maybe once or twice every few months) so I'm not paying anything for the downtown infrastructure except for my fair share of usage. I drive Glenmore every day, so that's all I'm willing to pay for.
I'm no economist, and I can't find population density charts or downtown worker numbers online, but I'm pretty sure his usage fees just went up for the roads he enjoys. (Again, I'm making an assumption)
Right. Because he only wants to pay half for the things he doesn't use. But why would he think other people might not want to pay their full share for the things he uses and they don't. That would just be ridiculous.
I like the Peace bridge, but some of the self-righteous attitude about inner city living going around gmg. My ideal neighbourhood to live in would be Sunnyside, but I can't afford the amount of space I want there. So I traded out to a NW suburb. That's a perfectly valid choice (and the infrastructure for my house was paid for decades ago). I don't begrudge the inner city types their lifestyle, why should they begrudge mine?
The Following User Says Thank You to bizaro86 For This Useful Post:
They don't begrudge you, they're just better than you. Some of them fail to realize those neighbourhoods weren't always there and other people likely subsidized their roads utilities when they were being developed.
