Winnipeg Construction X

[biguc]

https://www.fastcompany.com/3034354/...he-most-reward

Cycling infrastructure is a sound investment.

[Hecate]

I hate cyclists. Bitch constantly about drivers but they never consider their own actions. There’s paved shoulders on Henderson highway north of the city... they still cycle in the vehicular lane. Massive groups of them holding up traffic all along the river, whatever happened to single file... fuckers, and now that I think about it they are all white middle aged men in the latest spandex fashions. Lol. But you also get locals that think they own the highway... there’s two older women who will bike side by side down the middle of the road. On a Saturday. They will not move over for shit. There could be thirty cars behind them being held up and they’re right in the middle of the highway. It’s the worst on the weekends when you can’t pass because it’s a two lane highway. The cyclists do the same shit in birds hill park. There’s a bloody bike path along the highway... they're in the vehicular lane.

[WinCitySparky]

Originally Posted by Hecate

I hate cyclists. Bitch constantly about drivers but they never consider their own actions. There’s paved shoulders on Henderson highway north of the city... they still cycle in the vehicular lane. Massive groups of them holding up traffic all along the river, whatever happened to single file... fuckers, and now that I think about it they are all white middle aged men in the latest spandex fashions. Lol. But you also get locals that think they own the highway... there’s two older women who will bike side by side down the middle of the road. On a Saturday. They will not move over for shit. There could be thirty cars behind them being held up and they’re right in the middle of the highway. It’s the worst on the weekends when you can’t pass because it’s a two lane highway. The cyclists do the same shit in birds hill park. There’s a bloody bike path along the highway... they're in the vehicular lane.

lololol

[buzzg]

Originally Posted by Hecate

I hate cyclists. Bitch constantly about drivers but they never consider their own actions. There’s paved shoulders on Henderson highway north of the city... they still cycle in the vehicular lane. Massive groups of them holding up traffic all along the river, whatever happened to single file... fuckers, and now that I think about it they are all white middle aged men in the latest spandex fashions. Lol. But you also get locals that think they own the highway... there’s two older women who will bike side by side down the middle of the road. On a Saturday. They will not move over for shit. There could be thirty cars behind them being held up and they’re right in the middle of the highway. It’s the worst on the weekends when you can’t pass because it’s a two lane highway. The cyclists do the same shit in birds hill park. There’s a bloody bike path along the highway... they're in the vehicular lane.

They do own the highway, they pay exactly as much tax proportionally as you do for roads, and are equally entitled to use it by law.

If anything, you are explaining exactly why dedicated cycle infrastructure is good and needed. I'm sure 99% of cyclists would prefer not to be riding on a highway, but it's the only option so you have to do what makes it safe. Riding on the shoulder is not safe – usually in poor condition and drivers fly by rarely moving over (contrary to popular belief, the painted line does not protect anyone), chances for accidents are very high.

[Hecate]

Lolololol. They do not pay the same. Bikes do not pay fuel taxes or insurance registration fees. Also Manitoba law dictates cyclists are to ride single file when in groups. So. Yeah. As for the shoulder being dangerous. lol they are located in 60 and 70 km zones and the shoulders were widened and paved specifically for cyclists use. You’re also supposed to be as far to the right curb as possible when travelling on highways. not impeding traffic because you’re worried about your safety. Nothing like going around a blind curve on Henderson at 70 km and having to slam on your breaks because a cyclist is holding up traffic.

[Ando]

It never ceases to amaze me how many dinosaurs continue to exist on this site.

[esquire]

People who claim to be mad at cyclists are really just mad at inadequate infrastructure in general.

[WildCake]

Originally Posted by Hecate

Lolololol. They do not pay the same. Bikes do not pay fuel taxes or insurance registration fees. Also Manitoba law dictates cyclists are to ride single file when in groups. So. Yeah. As for the shoulder being dangerous. lol they are located in 60 and 70 km zones and the shoulders were widened and paved specifically for cyclists use. You’re also supposed to be as far to the right curb as possible when travelling on highways. not impeding traffic because you’re worried about your safety. Nothing like going around a blind curve on Henderson at 70 km and having to slam on your breaks because a cyclist is holding up traffic.

Just gotta point out that EV and city driving hybrid vehicle owners will not pay their "fair share" of fuel tax yet put as much strain on the roadway as a ICE vehicle, so your point about cyclists doesn't hold up.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by WildCake

Just gotta point out that EV and city driving hybrid vehicle owners will not pay their "fair share" of fuel tax yet put as much strain on the roadway as a ICE vehicle, so your point about cyclists doesn't hold up.

Well, that is being addressed as SK has imposed a user fee on EVs and I'm sure other provinces will follow suit as they need to replace fuel tax revenues that will inevitably decline over time.

But that said, it would be useful to get a clear picture of the relative costs of car vs. cycling infra. Even a basic residential street is many times wider than a bike path and has to be constantly maintained. Major arterials get rebuilt fairly frequently. By contrast, a bike path is cheap (don't need much of a base beyond a thin layer of gravel, no rebuilds needed for many decades). The only expensive part is AT bridges.

If revenue from a bike tax was a) in line with actual costs and b) was actually used to build proper paths across the city, I suspect most cyclists would be on board with it.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by Kinguni

A road with marked lanes is different. Residential streets down't have marked lanes. Just like Arlington between Portage and Notre Dame being 1 lane each way with parking space on both sides. Too many drivers treat it as a 4 lane street. Take this from a professional city driver. And when my 40' vehicle is coming at you and I have nowhere to pull out you're either going to wait by a space I can pull out into or you'll be backing up.

https://youtu.be/XGmFfmZd760

There are rules for roadways with marked lanes, but section 112 applies to all roadways. You must yield to oncoming traffic if you have parked cars in your lane. Obviously if you were driving a larger vehicle on a narrow street with parked cars it would be reasonable to let you proceed as it is much harder for a large truck or a vehicle hauling a trailer to pull into a vacant parking space on a street. I would think that this would not only be reasonable, but just plain common sense. Unfortunately too many people here are passive aggressive and that has become worse in recent years . Drivers almost always used to wave to thank another driver for letting them in or when a driver allowed a vehicle to proceed when it really wasn't their right of way, but this seems to me anyways becoming more rare. It really is time to take the "Friendly" off of the plates and go back to "Sunny" or "100,000 lakes", whatever Minnesota might say about that.

As for Arlington that's an old streetcar route so although it is two lanes it is wide enough in spots to be used as a four lane roadway. So for example, northbound at Ellice or Sargent or N. Dame there is room for vehicles to go around the traffic that is turning left. I see nothing wrong with that.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by buzzg

They do own the highway, they pay exactly as much tax proportionally as you do for roads, and are equally entitled to use it by law.

If anything, you are explaining exactly why dedicated cycle infrastructure is good and needed. I'm sure 99% of cyclists would prefer not to be riding on a highway, but it's the only option so you have to do what makes it safe. Riding on the shoulder is not safe – usually in poor condition and drivers fly by rarely moving over (contrary to popular belief, the painted line does not protect anyone), chances for accidents are very high.

Everybody owns the highways but everybody also has to use them according to the law.

So yes, cyclists riding in tandem, as I encountered on PR204 (Henderson) while heading into the City on Sunday morning, 3 of them using the whole lane, is not only unlawful but it is dangerous. Cyclists have to be conscious that should they be involved in a collision with a motor vehicle they will 100% of the time be the party that is for the worse. That is just a fact! I also think cyclists should be prohibited on all PTHs, much as they are prohibited on Interstates in the U.S. (Henderson is a Provincial Road). It's just too dangerous with traffic travelling at 100-120 km/h. And then of course there are still cyclists on sidewalks which is unsafe for pedestrians as they come up behind them unheard, and often at a good clip. I know cyclists feel unsafe on busy streets but if they feel they need to use the sidewalk for their own safety they might be more considerate of pedestrians.

And yeah, from a cyclist's perspective there are many asshole drivers, I get that.

[3de14eec6a]

Originally Posted by esquire

Well, that is being addressed as SK has imposed a user fee on EVs and I'm sure other provinces will follow suit as they need to replace fuel tax revenues that will inevitably decline over time.

But that said, it would be useful to get a clear picture of the relative costs of car vs. cycling infra. Even a basic residential street is many times wider than a bike path and has to be constantly maintained. Major arterials get rebuilt fairly frequently. By contrast, a bike path is cheap (don't need much of a base beyond a thin layer of gravel, no rebuilds needed for many decades). The only expensive part is AT bridges.

If revenue from a bike tax was a) in line with actual costs and b) was actually used to build proper paths across the city, I suspect most cyclists would be on board with it.

Hell yes I would pay a bike tax that hit your a and b. I'd pay it separately for every bike I own. And I own multiple bikes.


And fuel tax rates haven't kept up with road costs at all. They're nearly meaningless.
And they don't cover the fucking atrocious work they do on the environment.
The people driving in their dinosaurmobiles should pay more than current the fuel tax just for that.


Cyclists get a lot of hate. Some of it is earned. There are plenty of people on bikes that I want to yell at when I'm walking or cycling too. Because not everyone follows the rules, and it's unsafe.
But drivers deserve a lot of hate too. They're the ones who are most likely to kill someone when they don't follow the rules.

[BAKGUY]

Would the cycling issue not be better served on the Roads thread? I thought this was predominantly for construction of buildings?

[Hecate]

Good to know. Gonna take my quad and dirt bike on the highways and bike lanes. I pay too.

[Ando]

Originally Posted by esquire

Well, that is being addressed as SK has imposed a user fee on EVs and I'm sure other provinces will follow suit as they need to replace fuel tax revenues that will inevitably decline over time.

But that said, it would be useful to get a clear picture of the relative costs of car vs. cycling infra. Even a basic residential street is many times wider than a bike path and has to be constantly maintained. Major arterials get rebuilt fairly frequently. By contrast, a bike path is cheap (don't need much of a base beyond a thin layer of gravel, no rebuilds needed for many decades). The only expensive part is AT bridges.

If revenue from a bike tax was a) in line with actual costs and b) was actually used to build proper paths across the city, I suspect most cyclists would be on board with it.

The not paying their “fair share” argument is circulating rapidly among republican right circles right now (so not surprising Saskatchewan is doing it). The argument misses important factors such as the benefits from a carbon emissions standpoint that EVs offer, and the disincentive a user fee would bring to already expensive vehicles. If the ultimate objective is to transition into an electric vehicle economy, then there is some price to pay. Oil and gas producing jurisdictions like Saskatchewan aren’t really at the forefront of EV promotion.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Ando

The not paying their “fair share” argument is circulating rapidly among republican right circles right now (so not surprising Saskatchewan is doing it). The argument misses important factors such as the benefits from a carbon emissions standpoint that EVs offer, and the disincentive a user fee would bring to already expensive vehicles. If the ultimate objective is to transition into an electric vehicle economy, then there is some price to pay. Oil and gas producing jurisdictions like Saskatchewan aren’t really at the forefront of EV promotion.

Yeah, I get the political angle, but it's a fight that guys like Scott Moe can't win. They just have to make it look like they're doing something to help the oil sector in the short term... by sticking it to those uppity EV drivers.

But in the longer term, there will have to be a way to replace those fuel tax revenues. And I don't think a flat registration fee is necessarily the greatest way to do it because people who drive less pay proportionately more. Fuel taxes are at least somewhat equitable in that people who drive more pay more. So perhaps we will have transponders logging KMs with payment on that basis.

[Ando]

Originally Posted by 3de14eec6a

Hell yes I would pay a bike tax that hit your a and b. I'd pay it separately for every bike I own. And I own multiple bikes.


And fuel tax rates haven't kept up with road costs at all. They're nearly meaningless.
And they don't cover the fucking atrocious work they do on the environment.
The people driving in their dinosaurmobiles should pay more than current the fuel tax just for that.


Cyclists get a lot of hate. Some of it is earned. There are plenty of people on bikes that I want to yell at when I'm walking or cycling too. Because not everyone follows the rules, and it's unsafe.
But drivers deserve a lot of hate too. They're the ones who are most likely to kill someone when they don't follow the rules.

Can we all agree then that there are f***tards and asshats in cars and on bikes ( and some walking on streets) and that it all evens out?

[buzzg]

Sure so side by side is not legal, but as a single cyclists I'm entitled to use a full lane (and always do so people don't try to sneak by me within a foot), so it makes no difference.

Also gas taxes are federal and provincial, in Winnipeg the city builds roads.

Even if drivers were paying more directly for roads (they're not), they also require significantly more money per user. If a cycle path was built independent of a road, it doesn't need nearly the level of underground work and support that roads do. So the point is moot.

[Arcticwolf]

I was going to say the same thing about this cycling bit. This is suppose to be a construction thread BAKGUY..


I haven't been here in a longtime. If the one thread was still used about Transit and infrastructure..... something along this line. This wouldn't be an issues.

[Arcticwolf]

I haven't been here in a longtime. If the one thread was still used about Transit and infrastructure..... something along this line. This wouldn't be an issues.

Originally Posted by BAKGUY

Would the cycling issue not be better served on the Roads thread? I thought this was predominantly for construction of buildings?