And even still, women overall are saddled with the majority of household duties. It's not sexist to observe this
|
|
|
- Thread starter Daveography
- Start date
ChazYEG
Senior Member
EXACTLY! not unusual for women to have double-duties most of the time, because their partners are a-holes. Acknowledging this is actually a goo step towards changing it.
Garneau2Go
Active Member
This is a lot more compelling argument I think for getting support for bike infrastructure than straight commuting. Add in safety and independence for kids biking and dedicated lanes in suburbs make a lot of sense. When the neighborhood matures or densifies, the infrastructure is already there too.
dkazzed
Active Member
I agree, it's sadly the norm for women to bear the responsibility of kids/house which in itself is practically a full time job, despite also being a modern woman having a full time job. That's the sexist part.
thommyjo
Senior Member
Lol. You sure love to be selective in your hate.
It’s literally a central part of urban planning conversations buddy. The sexism is designing cities around male commuting patterns from the 80s and not recognizing that many of our city users aren’t 9-5 employees…and yes…a higher proportion of those are women. That’s just a fact man haha. Show me a data point that more women work FT than men and I’ll retract the comment, but it’s very well known that women are still on average stay at home parents more than men.
And therefore, to not account for their needs and lived experiences of moving around a city…that’s the real sexism. You’re saying we should ignore women’s needs I guess?
Public transit services in Canadian cities not meeting many women’s travel needs: report
The first report of its kind in Canada suggests that public transit service models and planning aren’t meeting the needs of many women riders, and that gender-based data would help make services more equitable.
www.ualberta.ca
TAS
Senior Member
Lol. You sure love to be selective in your hate.
It’s literally a central part of urban planning conversations buddy. The sexism is designing cities around male commuting patterns from the 80s and not recognizing that many of our city users aren’t 9-5 employees…and yes…a higher proportion of those are women. That’s just a fact man haha. Show me a data point that more women work FT than men and I’ll retract the comment, but it’s very well known that women are still on average stay at home parents more than men.
And therefore, to not account for their needs and lived experiences of moving around a city…that’s the real sexism. You’re saying we should ignore women’s needs I guess?
Public transit services in Canadian cities not meeting many women’s travel needs: report
The first report of its kind in Canada suggests that public transit service models and planning aren’t meeting the needs of many women riders, and that gender-based data would help make services more equitable.
From the link in the above post:
"The report showed that women had distinct patterns of behaviour on transit: off-peak and midday travel, short stops on trips to and from work, short-distance trips and a higher frequency of trips. This wasn’t served effectively by the standard transit services and planning."
itom987
Active Member
You claim that I have a lack of experience on this subject in spite of me being older than you? LOL Look in the mirror.
I live in the very suburbs you are talking about and those MUPs mindlessly meander around ponds and parks. They were never designed to efficiently go from point A to point B. Those trails are designed for dog walkers, fitness nuts and leisure.
In spite of those paths you still have an easier time commuting in older neighbourhoods that have none. Traffic calming will end up doing more harm than good. Safety begins with you, look both ways, observe the traffic etc. Making it to the bottom of 170th street from Rosenthal/Edgemont in 15 minutes is not impossible, but there is nothing at the southern point of 170th street, you still have a ways to go before reaching anything of substance. I have rode my bike from the Hamptons to downtown and back it takes 1 1/2 hour to reach downtown. I was exhausted at the end of the 3 hour trip, and I am not the kind of cyclist that wears ridiculous cloths and rides as if doing the Tour de France. Of course, ebikes improves things but majority will never be in the mood to race all the time. Sidewalks need to be widened to allow people to pass, painting lanes on the sidewalks is also possible but we gotta not talk about that or all hell will break loose! Gotta keep bashing the car!
thommyjo
Senior Member
Pretty bad at biking if it takes you 90mins to do what google says is 55mins. And google paces are often below avg for biking, especially e-bikes.
It’s 17kms. So you were basically riding 10km/hr? That’s basically a jogging pace.
17-22km/hr would be normal biking for many, 25-30 for road bikes or e-bikes. Or 40mins.
“bashing the car”? Lol. 12,000kms of car lanes and less than 100kms of bike lanes in this city. Until we see hundreds of kms of bike lanes in each quadrant of our city, we are no where close to “favouring bikes” over cars, no matter what nickel and his “common sense” crowd cries victim on…
You’re missing the forest for the trees. We need good bike infrastructure everywhere in our city because it enables a plethora of trip types to switch modes. Kids going to school and friends’ houses. Families heading to rec centres and to eat out. Older couples enjoying an evening ride to get ice cream or twenty somethings grabbing drinks at a bar. Commuting is a big part of transportation planning, but there’s so much more to see bike lanes as useful for. I do 5-8 trips a week by bike that aren’t work related, and still own a vehicle for a number of other trips. The future is multi-modal. So let’s stop spending the majority of our budget on car infrastructure. (Our LRT spending has been a bright spot in this the last decade in terms of shifting priorities).
archited
Senior Member
Airboy
Senior Member
When my commute is 22 km on way. I have never been able to get it below 50 min. That is because of all of the lights along my route. 137ave, Yellowhead. 127st, 118 ave 111 and 107 ave, 116 st and the 105-105 bottle neck. I pretty much keep up with some ebikes but the lights are what kills a fast commute. the Gaurneaban and 102 ave are just as slow.
thommyjo
Senior Member
You mean dumbz da dumbz dumbz?Dumb-da-dumb-dumb
Romanov
Active Member
I always wondered about why they call it the oliverbahn and garneaubahn. You are able to go much faster on periphery routes like 121 Street or 105 Ave. Still fun names though
itom987
Active Member
thommyjo, I did that bike ride 10 years ago and I was exploring the city as I went, not in a hurry to get anywhere 'running' on a bike has never been my thing.
Biking underpasses (preferably the scramble kind) at intersections will solve a lot of the travel time problems related to biking and walking and give those transportation modes a solid advantage over the car.
If there are 12,000 kms of car lanes then there are 24,000+ kms of bike ridable surfaces... and you want moar!
Biking underpasses (preferably the scramble kind) at intersections will solve a lot of the travel time problems related to biking and walking and give those transportation modes a solid advantage over the car.
If there are 12,000 kms of car lanes then there are 24,000+ kms of bike ridable surfaces... and you want moar!
TAS
Senior Member
How much do you suggest that sidewalks need to be widened to safely and efficiently allow for a mix of active transportation uses?
Many sidewalks run right along the street - so are you thinking they get widened to take over some of the street/parking space or widened on the other side to potentially take some of where front lawns are located?
In some core neighbourhoods, there are boulevards in between the sidewalks and the street but big trees are located with very little space to expand the sidewalk so just trying to envision how that would work.
And if 24,000kms of sidewalks are expanded for multi-use, what do you expect that to cost?