Ongoing Calgarians complaining about pedestrian bridges thread

[LeftWing]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

How is that silly?
Stephen Ave is a multi million dollar project that get's virtually no use durring those same hours, and durring those same weather conditions, so why no opposition to that?

Clearly that space could be used to reduce congestion in the core right?

Totally get your point. During morning or afternoon hours there must be roughly 10 - 15 people using the shops and restaurants along 8th ave. What 30 tops? I don't know that I'd use it to reduce congestion since its probably one of the larger tourist draws in the core. But I'm sure the bridge will be even bigger someday!

Again, my original point was that comparing the bridge to interchanges was just a silly comparison. I think context is important. I was simply saying that there are thousands or even tens of thousands of people that use interchanges to help get a lot of the suck out of the commute, and there are, I'm sure, thousands or even tens of thousands of people who think the bridge looks nice.

So you're right to get angry about it, I should have thought of all the wonderful experiences three or four hundred people are going to have on there in the next month alone! You just can't put a price on good times like that.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by LeftWing

Totally get your point. During morning or afternoon hours there must be roughly 10 - 15 people using the shops and restaurants along 8th ave. What 30 tops? I don't know that I'd use it to reduce congestion since its probably one of the larger tourist draws in the core. But I'm sure the bridge will be even bigger someday!

Again, my original point was that comparing the bridge to interchanges was just a silly comparison. I think context is important. I was simply saying that there are thousands or even tens of thousands of people that use interchanges to help get a lot of the suck out of the commute, and there are, I'm sure, thousands or even tens of thousands of people who think the bridge looks nice.

So you're right to get angry about it, I should have thought of all the wonderful experiences three or four hundred people are going to have on there in the next month alone! You just can't put a price on good times like that.

The bolded part is the crux of your argument, and the one you made before. Not how nice the bridge looks. You are essentially saying that no one is going to use the bridge, and therefore, a failure because there is no traffic on it during down hours, when clearly this is not the case.

An interchange and a pedestrian bridge are two different things, but lets find some similarities:
- They are both throughputs for Calgary traffic
- They serve to feed people efficient modes of transportation
- They both cost money that benefits a select portion of citizens

You say thousands more people use interchanges, but their destinations are much different than downtown pedestrians, and therefore we see a major difference. Joggers and pedestrians use the bridge for exercise and entertainment in addition to being a throughput, whereas no one uses interchanges for "entertainment." It serves a particular function. The bridge serves a completely different purpose than an interchange, and one that should be respected for its intended use. Stephen Avenue has a similar purpose - the downtown crowd and tourists. Not necessarily (and not only) commuters in and out of the city.

[Barnes]

Is someone going to change the name of this thread to New Pedestrian Bridge To Be Red... So helicopters don't crash into it.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by LeftWing

Again, my original point was that comparing the bridge to interchanges was just a silly comparison. I think context is important. I was simply saying that there are thousands or even tens of thousands of people that use interchanges to help get a lot of the suck out of the commute, and there are, I'm sure, thousands or even tens of thousands of people who think the bridge looks nice.

You do know that the bridge is 1/5 - 1/6th the cost of an interchange, right? By proportions alone, you can't make that comparison.

Even so, why can't there be thousands of people using the bridge, especially in the summer? There's thousands of people in the inner city, which is even more dense than the areas new interchanges serve. For the 'thousands' that use these new interchanges, there's 10x the amount that don't. That goes for the same for all infrastructure across the city - inner or outer.

Just because the inner city doesn't need interchanges doesn't mean we're not allowed to have infrastructure upgrades. Not all monies have to go to outer city projects. We're at the point now where we can upgrade infrastructure and look good doing it. If you don't like that, move to the inner city... where you don't need a new interchange, but rather a bridge that serves multiple purposes for the residents that live in the area.

[LeftWing]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

Why not do away with the entire bike path system while you are at it?

Well obviously I would never say anything like that. Bike path systems are very useful.

[LeftWing]

Originally Posted by Muta

You do know that the bridge is 1/5 - 1/6th the cost of an interchange, right? By proportions alone, you can't make that comparison.

Well, first of all it's not my comparison, I keep saying over and over that the comparison is silly. Second, no I don't know what fraction of an interchange a Peace bridge costs, because I've never built an interchange before and everyone on this thread has a completely different idea of what both the bridge and an interchange cost. But let's say you're right about the interchange costing 150 - 180 million, a traffic / $ can easily be made, and not in favor of the bridge I think. So yeah the comparison blows, Peace bridge fans should stop using it.

[shermanator]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

Pave it. Memorial should be 8 lanes and 100km/h.

Just think of the stink the Bow River Flow will cause then! Bahahaha Druh Farrell FTW!

[SebC]

Originally Posted by LeftWing

Well, first of all it's not my comparison, I keep saying over and over that the comparison is silly. Second, no I don't know what fraction of an interchange a Peace bridge costs, because I've never built an interchange before and everyone on this thread has a completely different idea of what both the bridge and an interchange cost. But let's say you're right about the interchange costing 150 - 180 million, a traffic / $ can easily be made, and not in favor of the bridge I think. So yeah the comparison blows, Peace bridge fans should stop using it.

The difference between the Peace Bridge and suburban interchanges is that the inner city pays enough taxes to support the infrasctructure it gets, while the surburbs don't.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by LeftWing

Well, first of all it's not my comparison, I keep saying over and over that the comparison is silly. Second, no I don't know what fraction of an interchange a Peace bridge costs, because I've never built an interchange before and everyone on this thread has a completely different idea of what both the bridge and an interchange cost. But let's say you're right about the interchange costing 150 - 180 million, a traffic / $ can easily be made, and not in favor of the bridge I think. So yeah the comparison blows, Peace bridge fans should stop using it.

Then do it. I'm waiting.

Bridge costs apprx. $25 million. An interchange costs apprx. $150 million. The bridge serves, for the most part, city residents. Outer-city interchanges, less so. The dynamics of why they're used are so diverse, you'd be hard-pressed to find a calculation using your formula that justifies all user groups and situations into a simple number.

What exactly are you expecting out of a pedestrian bridge? An LA freeway?

[transplant99]

Interchanges are necessary all over the city including getting into downtown....this debacle of a bridge was and is completely unecessary.

[LeftWing]

Originally Posted by Muta

What exactly are you expecting out of a pedestrian bridge? An LA freeway?

Yep, a 16 laner would be great - it would go right to my parking spot too. Very useful, ... Do you think it's too late?

[LeftWing]

Originally Posted by SebC

The difference between the Peace Bridge and suburban interchanges is that the inner city pays enough taxes to support the infrasctructure it gets, while the surburbs don't.

Because your place is all built you expect no one else should build anywhere else? That's not really fair. If there was 200000 more people trying to live in your community I wonder if you would have even found a place.

[V]

Originally Posted by Muta

Then do it. I'm waiting.

Bridge costs apprx. $25 million. An interchange costs apprx. $150 million. The bridge serves, for the most part, city residents. Outer-city interchanges, less so. The dynamics of why they're used are so diverse, you'd be hard-pressed to find a calculation using your formula that justifies all user groups and situations into a simple number.

What exactly are you expecting out of a pedestrian bridge? An LA freeway?

You've said it a few times, but an interchange doesn't cost close to $150 million. Not even remotely close.

[Joborule]

Maybe Calgary shouldn't have nice things since too many people bitch about a bridge being fancied up for once. Shouldn't bother improving our pedestrian/cyclist infrastructure with a bit of art to it to add a bit of variety and culture. Gotta save save save!!!

[The Goon]

Man, those are some nice pictures of the bridge. It's beautiful.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Joborule

Maybe Calgary shouldn't have nice things since too many people bitch about a bridge being fancied up for once. Shouldn't bother improving our pedestrian/cyclist infrastructure with a bit of art to it to add a bit of variety and culture. Gotta save save save!!!

I think the budget was like $25k to spruce up the electrical boxes around town with some local artistic touch. Somebody call the auditor, that could have gone towards a Falconridge interchange!

[Muta]

Originally Posted by LeftWing

Yep, a 16 laner would be great - it would go right to my parking spot too. Very useful, ... Do you think it's too late?

Cool story bro. Are you going to take a stab at that calculation you seem so sure of, or not?

[Magnum PEI]

Most interchanges are only necessary during rush hour, the rest of the time a traffic light wouldn't slow traffic much (most interchanges have one or two lights on the collector road anyways).
It's not surprising that on a dreary snowy day a bike/pedestrian bridge would have few users during working hours. On a nice day it will get a lot of use. The bridge at the north end of Prince's Island is always busy in the summer and it doesn't have a bike lane (nor does the LRT bridge).

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Magnum PEI

Most interchanges are only necessary during rush hour, the rest of the time a traffic light wouldn't slow traffic much (most interchanges have one or two lights on the collector road anyways).
It's not surprising that on a dreary snowy day a bike/pedestrian bridge would have few users during working hours. On a nice day it will get a lot of use. The bridge at the north end of Prince's Island is always busy in the summer and it doesn't have a bike lane (nor does the LRT bridge).

But still necessary....this bridge was not....nor will it likely ever be.

Whether or not one likes the look of the thing, it truly was/is redundant in it's practicality....never mind the cost associated.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by transplant99

But still necessary....this bridge was not....nor will it likely ever be.

Whether or not one likes the look of the thing, it truly was/is redundant in it's practicality....never mind the cost associated.

just curious, do you live near the bridge?