News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.4K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.3K     0 

thommyjo said:
Also, transportation isn’t just about commuting. A ton of trips, especially for women who are more likely to trip chain and have more local trips related to schools/kids/shopping/friends, are done within 3-5kms of their home. These are very bikeable.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
archited said:
Boy... sexist too! You know modern women are very likely to have careers and many men are so-called "house-husbands".
Click to expand...
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?

www.ualberta.ca

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 www.ualberta.ca
 
thommyjo said:
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?

www.ualberta.ca

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 www.ualberta.ca
Click to expand...

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."
 
thommyjo said:
This comments shows a lack of experience about the very topic you’re sharing a lot of opinions on right now.

Also, transportation isn’t just about commuting. A ton of trips, especially for women who are more likely to trip chain and have more local trips related to schools/kids/shopping/friends, are done within 3-5kms of their home. These are very bikeable. Our new suburbs have decent MUPs as a staple now along collectors which is a good first step. Better traffic calming or bike lanes are need between residential streets and those MUPs though. And better intersections are key as many outside the henday are 6-10 lanes wide and have no signage or markings for bikes, so things like right turns on red or left turns become very dangerous for pedestrians and bikers…especially if travelling over 15km/hr on a bike.

The idea the travelling to the henday is a hike is both funny and somewhat true/false. I can bike from 170st to a new home in rosenthal or Edgemont in about 15mins. That’s not that crazy. The fact that you mention that though also shows how silly our sprawl has gotten.

With ebikes, these distances are especially manageable. You could commute from outside the henday to downtown in 30-40mins, which isn’t very different than the time in a car.

All district connectors need to be bike lanes though. Not shared use. Shared use should only be used for local/residential routes. Especially when many of the SUPs are bidirectional because the parallel option is still a sidewalk, you can’t be sharing those easily. 102ave in glenora is a constant problem.
Click to expand...

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!
 
itom987 said:
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!
Click to expand...
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).
 
thommyjo said:
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).
Click to expand...
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.
 
Airboy said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
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!
 
itom987 said:
If there are 12,000 kms of car lanes then there are 24,000+ kms of bike ridable surfaces... and you want moar!
Click to expand...

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?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top