6:20 (When talking about the bike lane on Bloor in Toronto) "If you want to build a bike lane. Instead of building it on a heavily traveled major artery that has a lot of traffic, go one street over and build it on a street that's not". That argument may work for Montreal and indeed there are already a lot of bike lanes that do that. But in Toronto that's not possible because streets in that city are not designed in a grid like they are in Montreal. The side streets in Toronto are a labyrinth of dead ends, bends, odd turns that building a bike lane on a side street would just not be be possible.
i paid 60000$ for a vehicle and pay fees to build and upkeep roads bikes worth 2500$ no fees don't, but their paths are better kept it is a clear misappropriation of funds pure and simple. and you wonder why our roads are bad.
Bill and Aaron, I know you are there not as journalists but to contribute to a conversation with your opinions, but come on. We build cycle lanes on heavily travelled roads like Saint-Denis and Bellechasse because: (1) each lane dedicated to cycling has a lot more capacity than each lane dedicated to car traffic for 2 reasons: bikes require less space than cars, and most cars (btw have been getting larger and larger) only carry an average of 1.2 people. (2) Montreal has a lot of obstacles, some natural, some manmade. We don't have a lot of streets crossing the island East-West and North-South - the streets crossing those are the most travelled because they are the most efficient way of getting from A to B. If you build a cycling network through secondary streets, using a bike will be less efficient, more circuitous. So cyclists will still resort to the more efficient heavily travelled arteries - they will just be less safe, more exposed to cars, creating more accidents.
Every bike on a bike path represents a car not on the road or in a parking spot. Drivers who complain about bike paths seem to forget this. As bad as the traffic is, imagine if people stopped biking here due to lack of safe and convenient bike paths. I moved here from San Antonio, Texas, three years ago. Even though the climate was great for biking, it was unsafe due to poor bicycle infrastructure, and biking was not a practical way to commute or shop. Here in Montreal, due to the protected paths, I almost always choose to bike because it is relatively safe and very convenient compared to driving. There is a problem with some cyclists not following the rules of the road, and that does need to be addressed in the same way motorists are held accountable. We all should have an equal right to use the public thoroughfares. Being in a car does not make one more important than a cyclist.
What a brown nosing to Valerie. She has changed Montreal forever the whole configuration of streets so not one thing is fluid see the difference before she took over
6:20 (When talking about the bike lane on Bloor in Toronto) "If you want to build a bike lane. Instead of building it on a heavily traveled major artery that has a lot of traffic, go one street over and build it on a street that's not".
That argument may work for Montreal and indeed there are already a lot of bike lanes that do that. But in Toronto that's not possible because streets in that city are not designed in a grid like they are in Montreal. The side streets in Toronto are a labyrinth of dead ends, bends, odd turns that building a bike lane on a side street would just not be be possible.
At least she knows when to exit, unlike Trudeau or Biden.
Super-interesting conversations, as always!
i paid 60000$ for a vehicle and pay fees to build and upkeep roads bikes worth 2500$ no fees don't, but their paths are better kept it is a clear misappropriation of funds pure and simple. and you wonder why our roads are bad.
Martin Patriquin should remain silent when the other guest is speaking.
Bill and Aaron, I know you are there not as journalists but to contribute to a conversation with your opinions, but come on.
We build cycle lanes on heavily travelled roads like Saint-Denis and Bellechasse because:
(1) each lane dedicated to cycling has a lot more capacity than each lane dedicated to car traffic for 2 reasons: bikes require less space than cars, and most cars (btw have been getting larger and larger) only carry an average of 1.2 people.
(2) Montreal has a lot of obstacles, some natural, some manmade. We don't have a lot of streets crossing the island East-West and North-South - the streets crossing those are the most travelled because they are the most efficient way of getting from A to B. If you build a cycling network through secondary streets, using a bike will be less efficient, more circuitous. So cyclists will still resort to the more efficient heavily travelled arteries - they will just be less safe, more exposed to cars, creating more accidents.
Every bike on a bike path represents a car not on the road or in a parking spot. Drivers who complain about bike paths seem to forget this. As bad as the traffic is, imagine if people stopped biking here due to lack of safe and convenient bike paths. I moved here from San Antonio, Texas, three years ago. Even though the climate was great for biking, it was unsafe due to poor bicycle infrastructure, and biking was not a practical way to commute or shop. Here in Montreal, due to the protected paths, I almost always choose to bike because it is relatively safe and very convenient compared to driving. There is a problem with some cyclists not following the rules of the road, and that does need to be addressed in the same way motorists are held accountable. We all should have an equal right to use the public thoroughfares. Being in a car does not make one more important than a cyclist.
yearning LOL
She fixed nothing she just laughed and laughed her way over her regime years and years and Montreal homeless problem continues worse and worse!
What a brown nosing to Valerie. She has changed Montreal forever the whole configuration of streets so not one thing is fluid see the difference before she took over