A group of Edmonton residents asked Alberta's government to stop bike lanes and traffic calming measures supported by the Edmonton city council. (www.ctvnews.ca)

submitted 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) by dwazou@lemm.ee to c/canada@lemmy.ca

27 comments fedilink hide all child comments

“I see no need for it” said a local man named Tom Ogonoski.

“The only people riding bikes around here are the ones stealing your stuff in the middle of the night” he added.

“We want the Alberta government to interfere and protect us” said resident Kimberlee Dawn.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 33 points 1 day ago

I wish this report made mention of the fact that all the residents on the affected roads have their own garages and special access road to those garages behind their homes.

They are against bike lanes because they are selfish individuals who want to park on public property instead of on their own property.

They'd rather have this:

Instead of using this:

There should be zero need to have on-street parking on both sides of a residential street, when garages and driveways remain empty! If they end up cancelling these bike lanes, the city should be charging for parking at a rate of $100 per day per resident.

Traffic calming measures, also being opposed by the residents

This makes no sense. At all. No matter how big of an asshole you might be.

[+] Hastur@lemmy.ca -14 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

There should be zero need to have on-street parking on both sides of a residential street, when garages and driveways remain empty! If they end up cancelling these bike lanes, the city should be charging for parking at a rate of $100 per day per resident.

I guarantee you most garages are not empty, even if not used for vehicles people store stuff in them. And filling the driveway with a car in the garage is dumb because then you have to shuffle vehicles if you need to use the one in the garage.

Those "traffic calming" measures suck donkey balls. Unneccesary concrete islands and out juttings that prevent people parking, and the city expect the homeowners to mow/shovel those spaces

Also, why don't the cyclists use the alley ways? There is little car traffic there.

[-] HikingVet@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 day ago

They have driveways and garages. The street isn't a fucking parking lot.

Why don't you just get the fuck out the way?

[-] snoons@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 day ago

what if my garage is full of crap and i can't park my car

what if i have more then one car and i can't park my car

what if i can't park my car right in front of an intersection

cyclists should use the shitty alleyways meant for parking cars because the people that own cars don't park there

Why don't drivers park in the alleyways? There's little car traffic there.

Also, the alleyways in Edmonton rarely connect to anything as they are meant for... parking cars.

[-] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 day ago

I guarantee you most garages are not empty, even if not used for vehicles people store stuff in them.

Their storage problem shouldn't be everyone's problem, though.

When I look, I see garages + driveways, and the driveways are empty. Also, how many cars would each of those homes have? The residents are all apparently elderly and/or disabled, so it would be unbelievable to me that they would have 3 - 5 cars per home.

Regardless, public roads are NOT the place for them to be parking on a permanent basis.

And filling the driveway with a car in the garage is dumb because then you have to shuffle vehicles if you need to use the one in the garage.

Again, this is a self-created problem. The personal inconvenience of one shouldn't be the inconvenience of all. If front-entry parking is needed, the homeowners should be allowed to convert their lawn into a driveway (via by-law).

Those “traffic calming” measures suck donkey balls. Unneccesary concrete islands and out juttings that prevent people parking, and the city expect the homeowners to mow/shovel those spaces

Funny, because this would have come up during the city's extensive public consultation rounds, and alternatives would have been provided for feedback.

Also, why don’t the cyclists use the alley ways? There is little car traffic there.

Those alleys are designed for residents to be able to access their parking area, and not as a road for transportation. While I'm sure you could take a detour through those alleys on a bike, it would be inappropriate to assign them as "bike lanes". Also, it would create conflict for people who actually want to visit the front of homes, forcing them to use the road anyway. Not ideal for anyone.

[+] ikidd@lemmy.world -6 points 1 day ago

You'll just be adding to the cost of things like basement suite rentals, exacerbating urban densification efforts, because those rentals wouldn't include a parking space, typically.

[-] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 day ago

because those rentals wouldn’t include a parking space, typically.

All the more reason to flesh out the cycling and public transportation network.

The point is, taxpayers should not be paying for these residents to have on-street (public) parking, while they leave their (private) garages and driveways empty.

For residents that absolutely "must have" parking at the back and front of their property, by-law provisions should allow them to be able to create a second driveway on their front lawn.

Just the sight of those streets with cars lining both sides of the curb just screams entitlement.

[-] snoons@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 day ago

Your comment is a great example of a car-centric mindset, in that everyone has or wants to have a vehicle which is not true at all.

If bylaws require supplying parking lots for each suite/tenant, then that extra cost of buying the land (and more often removing land because the lots have to go underground) is tacked on to the total rent.

So you're comment is factually untrue and honestly makes no sense.