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 32 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.

[-] ikidd@lemmy.world -5 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 2 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.