MF YYC Politics - there, I mega did it

[Flames0910]

For me the issue is less with a full garage and more inviting folks over (though it will be interesting to see if some of my neighbours decide to move their cars off the street).

My car stays in the garage, but now I have to pay an extra fee for guest permits (previously had two for free) or make my friends pay for parking.

It’s not a massive amount of money but it is a bit frustrating that now I’m going to be paying for parking in my inner city neighbourhood so that my friends from the suburbs can continue to park for free.

[curves2000]

Anybody else get the sense that Calgary is always a city that tries to do a lot of hybrid stuff that is suppose to work well in other markets but just doesn't apply here very well? There is always a lot of an odd mish mash of stuff going on.

Bike Lanes: I am not opposed to bike lanes and I think they serve a great purpose when done correctly, it seems in places like downtown and the Beltline it is always at the expense of street parking. Both can co-exist and you don't need bike lanes on both sides of the street like there is on some.

Calgary's pathways vs Calgary's bike lanes show a significant difference. Calgary's pathways can be busy where you lot's of people, even in the winter, but we don't see a lot of traffic in the winter on the bike lanes. When I hear some city councilors like former Druh Farrel show us videos of busy European cities with busy bike lanes and slowed traffic and trying to compare that to Calgary, it's wild. That volume of people cycling along 12th avenue would just bunch up at each traffic light.

Calgary has a thing with just adding traffic lights everywhere as if that's a great choice for......anybody moving?

We get these programs for the cars ,parking and poor quality transit and we end up with situations like this.

1) Landlord has jacked up rent cause city owned utility rates have skyrocketed, property taxes on landlord parking spot (free or charged) has gone through the roof. Now the soon to be expensive city parking makes car ownership even more expensive but the transit options are piss poor.

2) Now if someone gives up their car, taking transit for the odd shopping trip or visiting their parents, that can take forever. How many trains and buses for a downtown to deep SW trip on a Sunday to visit mama and papa bear? 1-1.5 hour's each way? 3 hour's round trip? We are now almost approaching flight time to Toronto!

On the flip side for those who live in the suburbs and want to do anything downtown, it's a hassle. Visit a specialty downtown and grab $200 in specialty groceries ? Na, the parking is a disaster and I got a ticket last time! Meanwhile the specialty, independent clothing store who's struggling to stay afloat is trying to attract some of the wealthier clients out of downtown but is having trouble reaching them. How much do you really want that store's clothing and how much trouble are you going to go for on transit and or parking for it? Probably just easier to go to Costco.

It's almost like we have an idiot strategy for everything. The suburbs with the same big box stores and chain restaurants are too boring for some, they want the downtown action but with out the hassle. The downtown crew want's to visit family, friends, and other businesses but we make it hard.

Are we growing up, or out? Are we adding bike lanes with actual usage? Calgary is one of the only cities I have ever seen where I can count the amount of Skip/Uber Eat's etc cyclists and motorbike/scooter riders on half my hand.

Why are we approving the same big box and chain crap in every section of the city? Mix it up, offer tax breaks for small business. People who live in the suburbs want cool things and they want some action without a NEED to drive or head downtown.

Anyways, rant over! haha

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

Yeah, giant SUVs aren't some basic human right. People need to understand the consequence (and price) of their decisions.

These behemoth vehicles mean we need to build wider roads, pay for more healthcare for run over pedestrians, suffer in the extra pollution, and have less cars that we can park on every city block.

Maybe it should actually be pretty damn expensive to make these choices instead of bending all of society to accommodating them?

Counterpoint: "i WaNt To SiT hIgHeR uP!!"

[I-Hate-Hulse]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

Yeah, giant SUVs aren't some basic human right. People need to understand the consequence (and price) of their decisions.

Maybe it should actually be pretty damn expensive to make these choices instead of bending all of society to accommodating them?

You're not wrong. But you and I know that light trucks and SUV's are 80% of the sales market now (and climbing). Doesn't that mean "all of society" (or at least a majority) is effectively the opposite of what you speak of?

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by curves2000

Bike Lanes: I am not opposed to bike lanes and I think they serve a great purpose when done correctly, it seems in places like downtown and the Beltline it is always at the expense of street parking. Both can co-exist and you don't need bike lanes on both sides of the street like there is on some.

I'm not sure this is really the case. In the competition for space, something's gotta give. You can take it away from the road or the sidewalk. Most inner city sidewalks are already laughably narrow, so it's the road that needs to yield space (or share it).



When you take it away from cars, it's either travel lanes or parking lanes. Parking spaces can be a mix of full time and part time. When the cycle track was installed, it came at the expense of full time parking stalls, but saw an overall increase of part time stalls (i.e. No parking during rush hour).



The lanes on both sides are basically on the two way streets. 8th Ave and a bit of 9th. The 3rd-4th St SE block on 9th did lose a bit of parking, but that was as much for library access as it was the bike lane, but given that Platform was built, the net gain along 9th Ave went way up for parking. The plan for 14th and 15th Aves is to have a double track on one side of 15th with it being a one-lane one-way street (plus a parking lane) and 14th going back to a two-way street with one travel and one parking on each side.

[Fuzz]

I love that there are still people complaining about bike lanes. Next up for discussion, The Peace Bridge.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by curves2000

Why are we approving the same big box and chain crap in every section of the city? Mix it up, offer tax breaks for small business. People who live in the suburbs want cool things and they want some action without a NEED to drive or head downtown.

Suburbs are the epitome of big box chain crap. Recognizable, replicable, and safe. If people who moved to the suburbs wanted action, they would have moved somewhere else. If they wanted cool things they wouldn’t have moved to the least cool place any city has to offer.

The demand for a yard and a garage that doesn’t fit the too big and too long SUV is more important than zoning that promotes cool things and action, and especially goes against planning and design that eliminates the need to drive anywhere, much less downtown.

[Weitz]

Sometimes I wonder if anyone actually talks to real people and what they want.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

Suburbs are the epitome of big box chain crap. Recognizable, replicable, and safe. If people who moved to the suburbs wanted action, they would have moved somewhere else. If they wanted cool things they wouldn’t have moved to the least cool place any city has to offer.

The demand for a yard and a garage that doesn’t fit the too big and too long SUV is more important than zoning that promotes cool things and action, and especially goes against planning and design that eliminates the need to drive anywhere, much less downtown.

The challange for planners is to create an environment that maintains the yard and garage but attracts cool stuff. You are correct that the demand for those two items overrides good zoning when faced with a cost question.

In the inner city the demand is for houses with garages with tiny yards they are just unaffordable so their is more profit to be made by subdividing and building duplexes and 4 plexes with garages.

When people choose burb they are choosing house over condo. They might be choosing house over duplex but rarely are the choosing house over house. They are making the same decision that many of the inner city families have made. Bought a house that fits their family as close to downtown as they could afford.

The disdain from the latte sippers is always funny to see. Better planning in suburbs to crate walkable communities is important

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Sometimes I wonder if anyone actually talks to real people and what they want.

What is a real person and how does one distinguish them from fake people?

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by GGG

The challange for planners is to create an environment that maintains the yard and garage but attracts cool stuff. You are correct that the demand for those two items overrides good zoning when faced with a cost question.

In the inner city the demand is for houses with garages with tiny yards they are just unaffordable so their is more profit to be made by subdividing and building duplexes and 4 plexes with garages.

When people choose burb they are choosing house over condo. They might be choosing house over duplex but rarely are the choosing house over house. They are making the same decision that many of the inner city families have made. Bought a house that fits their family as close to downtown as they could afford.

The disdain from the latte sippers is always funny to see. Better planning in suburbs to crate walkable communities is important

Walkable communities with cool stuff dominated by single family detached houses are not mutually compatible. This is as true in inner city as it is in the suburbs. Cool stuff and amenities within walking distance requires enough people within walking distance to make such businesses viable. While suburb design is meant to get as many houses into a plot of land as possible, that's also what makes it not suitable for walking: the cul-de-sac and boulevard design is great for getting more houses, and making it easier for cars to drive there faster than a grid system would allow. But a different system would mean developers can't make as much money off their land, and the places would take longer to get to by vehicles and transit.

The old grid system is really the only thing that creates the illusion of walkable neighborhoods in the inner city that maintains their detached SFH landscape. But when you start looking at some of the great areas, it's happening because those houses are going away, not because they're still there and other factors are taking over.

[The Fisher Account]

Calgary kind of has to hybrid every progressive thing it does because it is constantly in an eternal struggle to implement good ideas from older, geographically constrained world class cities', into it's younger, non-geographically constrained reality that has a taxpayer base that bitches about every single nickel and dime.

That's why everything that get's implemented here is only like 80% fully-realized.

We want walkable communities, but everyone still wants a garage and backyard.

We want cheap, reliable transit, but no one wants their taxes to go up.

We want a revitalized downtown but don't want to pay to build the things that are going to want to help make people live there.

We want biking infrastructure but not to the detriment of car commuters.

And on and on and on

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by I-Hate-Hulse

You're not wrong. But you and I know that light trucks and SUV's are 80% of the sales market now (and climbing). Doesn't that mean "all of society" (or at least a majority) is effectively the opposite of what you speak of?

If you essentially subsidize and cater to a choice that makes people's lives more convenient, absolutely they're going to go for it.

If driving an SUV was hellaciously and personal helicopters had public infrastructure catering to them all over and no user fees, we'd see a city full of personal helicopters, I'm sure.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

If you essentially subsidize and cater to a choice that makes people's lives more convenient, absolutely they're going to go for it.

If driving an SUV was hellaciously and personal helicopters had public infrastructure catering to them all over and no user fees, we'd see a city full of personal helicopters, I'm sure.

That is true, but people elect governments to enact the policies that they want, to serve their desired lifestyles. If the 'North American dream' truly was to live in a multiplex in a dense city and fat tire bike around town through the snow with kids in tow in the winter, then there wouldn't be as many barriers in the way of creating that all over Calgary. Fact is for many families the basic living standard they espouse to is 4 walls, a yard, and a garage and moving away from that is more about making tradeoffs due to the realities of cost of living increases rather than desired choice.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by The Fisher Account

We want walkable communities, but everyone still wants a garage and backyard.

We want cheap, reliable transit, but no one wants their taxes to go up.

We want a revitalized downtown but don't want to pay to build the things that are going to want to help make people live there.

We want biking infrastructure but not to the detriment of car commuters.

And on and on and on

"We".

Pray tell, who the hell is we?

Here's the problem: no one all wants the same things yet it's always espoused as though everyone wants or even cares about these things.

Sure, I want cheap reliable transit. Someone living in Aspen Estates driving downtown in an F150 Platinum with a company-paid heated parking stall doesn't give a crap about cheap reliable transit, it doesn't even register to them.

And yeah, you bet I want a revitalized downtown. Yet I know plenty of people who have ZERO desire to even go downtown because it's too far from their McMansion and traffic is scary.

I want biking infrastructure, and yet I also want biking infrastructure that doesn't completely screw up traffic in the core because both are important, yet it seems like the only way we can build cycling infrastructure is if the proposal has "spite car commuters" as a principle design element.

Cowboy89 nailed it. The reason so many people get up in arms over this stuff is because it doesn't fit the lifestyle that they want. Lifestyle is everything.

[The Fisher Account]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

"We".

Pray tell, who the hell is we?

Here's the problem: no one all wants the same things yet it's always espoused as though everyone wants or even cares about these things.

Sure, I want cheap reliable transit. Someone living in Aspen Estates driving downtown in an F150 Platinum with a company-paid heated parking stall doesn't give a crap about cheap reliable transit, it doesn't even register to them.

And yeah, you bet I want a revitalized downtown. Yet I know plenty of people who have ZERO desire to even go downtown because it's too far from their McMansion and traffic is scary.

I want biking infrastructure, and yet I also want biking infrastructure that doesn't completely screw up traffic in the core because both are important, yet it seems like the only way we can build cycling infrastructure is if the proposal has "spite car commuters" as a principle design element.

Cowboy89 nailed it. The reason so many people get up in arms over this stuff is because it doesn't fit the lifestyle that they want. Lifestyle is everything.

“We” is the majority of Council we elect to represent us that is championing all the things I just spoke about in one form or another.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

"We".


Sure, I want cheap reliable transit. Someone living in Aspen Estates driving downtown in an F150 Platinum with a company-paid heated parking stall doesn't give a crap about cheap reliable transit, it doesn't even register to them.

But you can’t optimize for what you want.

Society as a whole is better off with cheap reliable transit. Low income people don’t need to divert a large amount of their funds to private vehicle ownership. They spend more time with their kids, helping them with their homework or sports. That leads to more opportunities for those kids. That drops crime rates, increases GDP etc.

Making decisions based purely on things that align closely to our immediate interests will not solve things like the opioid epidemic and related crime.

It’s totally fine that someone wants to drive an F150 from Aspen to downtown, but those choices need associated costs and trade offs that serve society as a whole.

Many in Asia want a house with a yard too, with all else equal, but they know it’s not likely, because it takes significant wealth or other life trade offs to achieve that in the way their society operates.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

I want biking infrastructure, and yet I also want biking infrastructure that doesn't completely screw up traffic in the core because both are important, yet it seems like the only way we can build cycling infrastructure is if the proposal has "spite car commuters" as a principle design element.

How else would you built it when car infrastructure is "spite everything else" as a principle design element?


Serious question. Who are you taking the space away from so that cars don't have to deal with the "spite"?

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

I want biking infrastructure, and yet I also want biking infrastructure that doesn't completely screw up traffic in the core because both are important, yet it seems like the only way we can build cycling infrastructure is if the proposal has "spite car commuters" as a principle design element.

Cowboy89 nailed it. The reason so many people get up in arms over this stuff is because it doesn't fit the lifestyle that they want. Lifestyle is everything.

Can you give some example(s) of the bolded? Beyond the inevitable loss of some % of pavement of course...

It seems to me the principle design element is that drivers can't be otherwise inconvenienced, at all. Driveways cut through bike lanes everywhere, and intersections - the conflict zone where cyclists could actually use a bit more protection - are generally still a bit of a free for all.

A rare example I can think of is 5 St SB lost the ability to turn left on red onto EB 12 Ave ( a pretty rare scenario where 2 cycle tracks meet on two roads that happen to be 1-way).

[timun]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

A rare example I can think of is 5 St SB lost the ability to turn left on red onto EB 12 Ave ( a pretty rare scenario where 2 cycle tracks meet on two roads that happen to be 1-way).

SB 7th Street to EB 5th Ave also doesn't allow left on red anymore, although the no-left-on-red sign doesn't stop lots of drivers...