Calgary Roads

[Deepstar]

I think there’s some benefit into having speed decrease. The biggest downside is some drivers adding a couple of extra minutes to their drive as opposed to the difference between fatalities or minor injuries.

Here’s what Brent Toderian, a guy who’s smarter than anyone here has to say about the speed reduction.

@brentoderian on Twitter
Dropping the residential speed limit to 30 km/h in Calgary would save lives & improve quality of life — & @DruhFarrell knows that it needs to be combined with street redesign. Kudos on championing this, Druh. #Calgary, read this whole thread to learn why. livewirecalgary.com/

[Corndogger]

I think there’s some benefit into having speed decrease. The biggest downside is some drivers adding a couple of extra minutes to their drive as opposed to the difference between fatalities or minor injuries.

Here’s what Brent Toderian, a guy who’s smarter than anyone here has to say about the speed reduction.

@brentoderian on Twitter

I see you're not paying attention again. There's no proven benefit and the small additional travel time as been shown to be a complete lie. I'm not going to waste my time doing the math because the people that support this are the same people who failed to see the math on how the cycle tracks would add more than just 30 seconds to commute times.

As for Brent Toderian, the guy is a radical planner. Let me remind everyone that not only was he run out of Calgary the same happened to him in Vancouver. Yes, that's how radical the guy is. What makes you think he's smarter than anyone here? He supports Druh--that alone shows that he's not smart!

[accord1999]

I think there’s some benefit into having speed decrease. The biggest downside is some drivers adding a couple of extra minutes to their drive as opposed to the difference between fatalities or minor injuries.
A couple of extra minutes for hundreds of thousands to millions of car trips per day adds up.

Here’s what Brent Toderian, a guy who’s smarter than anyone here has to say about the speed reduction.
Who cites no evidence about saving lives or improving quality of life.

[outoftheice]

Some interesting insight into this discussion here:

https://livewirecalgary.com/2018/09/22/calgary-speed-limit-residential-change-road-design/

Blanket Calgary residential speed limit changes alone aren’t going to have the desired safety impact, says one University of Calgary urban design expert, and efforts should be focused on precision traffic calming and neighbourhood design.

But Ward 7 Coun. Druh Farrell said in order to make widespread, systemic changes to design, the city must first reduce the unposted default residential speed limit.

While they appear contradictory, they’re both right – both in theory and in practice. And further, it appears you can’t have one without the other.

Coun. Farrell doesn’t disagree. But she said it’s a chicken-and-egg situation. If you don’t reduce the default speed limit, you can’t alter the urban roadway design.

At first glance, the reduction in default speed limit to 30km/h seems like a knee-jerk, perhaps even dogmatic, response to addressing pedestrian safety. But, it’s merely the key that unlocks a wide array of urban design changes that builds safer communities.

“Right now, if we have a new community, for example, and we want to slow the speeds and the posted speed is 50, you can’t design for lower than 50,” Farrell said.

“What lowering the speed limit does is allow us to design for a lower speed.”

[milomilo]

No one wants bad policy.

I agree, but good policy should be based on good data that aligns with what the public think is sensible. The proposal as it is now does not do this.

Of course it is.

No, it clearly isn't, you will have to do better than that. Anyone incapable of deciding for themselves whether it is safe to cross the road is quite literally a moron too stupid to be let out in public. Do you walk all the way down the road every time you need to cross the road to get a car outside? If you do, you're an idiot, if you don't, you're a hypocrite.

[milomilo]

Some interesting insight into this discussion here:

Coun. Farrell doesn’t disagree. But she said it’s a chicken-and-egg situation. If you don’t reduce the default speed limit, you can’t alter the urban roadway design.

At first glance, the reduction in default speed limit to 30km/h seems like a knee-jerk, perhaps even dogmatic, response to addressing pedestrian safety. But, it’s merely the key that unlocks a wide array of urban design changes that builds safer communities.

“Right now, if we have a new community, for example, and we want to slow the speeds and the posted speed is 50, you can’t design for lower than 50,” Farrell said.

“What lowering the speed limit does is allow us to design for a lower speed.”

https://livewirecalgary.com/2018/09/22/calgary-speed-limit-residential-change-road-design/

I don't buy this. It cannot be that the only way to build safer roads is to retroactively make all the other roads 30km/h. This is an administrative problem between council and roads and they are using a hammer to fix the wrong problem.

So he's saying a blanket lowering of the limit to 30 does nothing unless you reduce the road's 85th percentile speed? Which is what we've been saying all along? Fantastic.

Agreed.

[Porfiry]

Not once has anybody here stated they have an issue with 30 kph school zones. In fact, I earlier stated that Edmonton should shift photo enforcement to 30 kph school/playground zones instead of their ring road.

No, there was a post (since deleted) by someone who said school zones "piss" everyone off.

You know damn well a driver is far more likely to abide by a 30 kph limit in a speed limit than they would for a wide road where they don't feel the limit is warranted, so that's a meaningless statement.

Plenty of school zones are along wide roads, they don't generally rebuild the road to accommodate the school zone and lower the design speed (though perhaps they should). The point is really very simple, most reasonable people will abide limits that are enforced. Sure, they may moan and complain, but for the most part they will comply, even if the threat of enforcement is the only motivation.

Whether or not the proposed residential speed limit is good policy or not, I do not care. I'm fine either way.

[outoftheice]

One thing I find curious about all of this is how people defend 50 km/h as if it's the be all, end all of driving. What is so special about 50 km/h? True most of our roads are designed around it but why did it become the magic number in the first place? All of the arguments against lowering the speed limit to 30 could easily be made to justify building residential streets to support 60 km/h speed limits but I don't see anyone suggesting that.

So for all those on here who are saying 50 km/h is the hill they want to die on, I'm curious as to why? From what I can see it's simply a case of 'that's the way it's always been so therefore that's the way it always should be.' Without any actual reasoning as to why 50 is the magic number this argument seems to be that people don't like change and can't dream of questioning automotive focused government social engineering from the first half of this century (ie 50 km/h has to be the speed limit because the government said it was going to be the speed limit).

[Corndogger]

One thing I find curious about all of this is how people defend 50 km/h as if it's the be all, end all of driving. What is so special about 50 km/h? True most of our roads are designed around it but why did it become the magic number in the first place? All of the arguments against lowering the speed limit to 30 could easily be made to justify building residential streets to support 60 km/h speed limits but I don't see anyone suggesting that.

So for all those on here who are saying 50 km/h is the hill they want to die on, I'm curious as to why? From what I can see it's simply a case of 'that's the way it's always been so therefore that's the way it always should be.' Without any actual reasoning as to why 50 is the magic number this argument seems to be that people don't like change and can't dream of questioning automotive focused government social engineering from the first half of this century (ie 50 km/h has to be the speed limit because the government said it was going to be the speed limit).

Most of us have been saying the speed limit should be based on the road and surrounding conditions. For the vast majority of cases 30 is way too slow and 50 is about right. Where I live there are a lot of narrow streets with parking on both sides where 30 to 40 is right most of the time but there are a few main collector roads where 60 would not be unreasonable and it's probably what 85%+ of the drivers do most of the time.

I need to state this again because it's the truth: Druh doesn't care about safety. Her end goal is to make driving as unpleasant as possible so people abandon their vehicles and either start walking or move to public transit. That way she and her gang can control other aspects of your life much more easily.

[suburbia]

Some interesting insight into this discussion here:

https://livewirecalgary.com/2018/09/22/calgary-speed-limit-residential-change-road-design/

It is not that there is variation just within each sub-division / city neighbourhood, but also that not all the areas are the same. For the Beltline, as an example, I'd be more than pleased if every second street and avenue became pedestrian only. That would mean that people traveling in vehicles would have to walk "up to" one block to get to their destination, which I think is reasonable and a healthy design outcome. Each group of four Beltline blocks would thus have a perimeter of vehicular roads, and a "+" of pedestrian only roads. Over time pedestrian friendly businesses could animate those, and I think it could be a real success. It works in the Beltline because of the density of people, and frankly, given the narrow streets, making people walk would be as fast for the people as using a vehicle. This same concept, however, would not make sense for other parts of the city.

[Porfiry]

No, the point is not simple, as compliance varies based on how the limit relates to that which is actually appropriate for the road, and how much enforcement drivers know to exist on said road. This has been proven by traffic engineers time and time again, whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

If 10% of drivers slow down that's still a win. If you want to increase compliance then just ramp up enforcement or educate people.

[milomilo]

No, it isn't, it's poor policy if 90% of people disobey a rule. How can you not see that?

[milomilo]

It is not that there is variation just within each sub-division / city neighbourhood, but also that not all the areas are the same. For the Beltline, as an example, I'd be more than pleased if every second street and avenue became pedestrian only. That would mean that people traveling in vehicles would have to walk "up to" one block to get to their destination, which I think is reasonable and a healthy design outcome. Each group of four Beltline blocks would thus have a perimeter of vehicular roads, and a "+" of pedestrian only roads. Over time pedestrian friendly businesses could animate those, and I think it could be a real success. It works in the Beltline because of the density of people, and frankly, given the narrow streets, making people walk would be as fast for the people as using a vehicle. This same concept, however, would not make sense for other parts of the city.

Pedestrianisation is great, and oddly not really talked about much even by urbanists. Pedestrian only streets are far more enjoyable to be on than what is pushed often - mixed use. Mixed use sucks for everyone, with all users getting a substandard experience.

If there was a way to make 17th pedestrian only, it would be fantastic - see how much better it is during the red mile. But it would necessitate giving a bit more to cars somewhere else. What we have now, with 17th both being our number 1 destination road as well as the best option for driving through is a terrible compromise, but we've now doubled down on it so we're stuck with a shitty experience for another 30 years.

[Corndogger]

Pedestrianisation is great, and oddly not really talked about much even by urbanists. Pedestrian only streets are far more enjoyable to be on than what is pushed often - mixed use. Mixed use sucks for everyone, with all users getting a substandard experience.

If there was a way to make 17th pedestrian only, it would be fantastic - see how much better it is during the red mile. But it would necessitate giving a bit more to cars somewhere else. What we have now, with 17th both being our number 1 destination road as well as the best option for driving through is a terrible compromise, but we've now doubled down on it so we're stuck with a shitty experience for another 30 years.

I couldn't agree more that mixed use streets suck for everyone. If the city would allow more parking garages to be built in the Beltline and around 17th Ave. S.W. they could meet the needs of everyone. Same goes for Kensington, etc.

[Corndogger]

If 10% of drivers slow down that's still a win. If you want to increase compliance then just ramp up enforcement or educate people.

What happens if no one complied and everyone fined refused to pay? Should the city then roundup all of the "lawbreakers" and send them to rural reeducation camps? A few months of hard labor coupled with daily torture and <500 calories of food/day would probably due to wonders to get people to drive <30 km/h.

[Tobyoby]

It's great that 9 out of 10 will survive if they get hit by a car going 30 kph. That's great. What Toby refuses to understand is that people won't be going 30 if the road doesn't warrant it, so that statistic is meaningless.

Toby cannot possibly be this stupid, so I'm convinced he's just trolling at this point.

I posted a couple of things showing the reason why some people are pushing to have the speed limit lowered. The video should be all that is needed, as it shows kids getting hit at a slow speed and surviving. Whether the mother is at fault or the kids doesn't matter, all that matters is that they survived the hit.

Maybe it's you who cannot possibly be that stupid. It's not a hard concept to grasp.

[Tobyoby]

You're still bringing up Crowchild and Stoney Trail? Do you realise that neither of those roads have anything to do with the 30km/h limit? Stop wasting time focusing on issues outside the scope of the discussion.

Yes people speed on those roads, and people also get tickets on those roads, whether they feel they should be allowed to speed or not.

No, the point is not simple, as compliance varies based on how the limit relates to that which is actually appropriate for the road, and how much enforcement drivers know to exist on said road. This has been proven by traffic engineers time and time again, whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

To that end, there is far more compliance for 30 kph school zones than there is for a 100 kph Stoney Trail. Close your laptop and go drive for simple evidence of this. You say the word "reasonable", but I don't think a person driving at 90 kph in the flow of traffic on Crowchild north of 24 Ave is being "unreasonable".

[Tobyoby]

If 10% of drivers slow down that's still a win. If you want to increase compliance then just ramp up enforcement or educate people.

Some people on this thread aren't grasping the concept that most people will stick to or stay close to the limit.

[Tobyoby]

A couple of extra minutes for hundreds of thousands to millions of car trips per day adds up.


Who cites no evidence about saving lives or improving quality of life.

1) The speed reduction only applies to streets that aren't divided by lanes, so you're only looking at residential streets. You think everyone spends their whole commute going through residential streets? Only the last part of a commute will be these slower streets.

2) Here's the link to the group who says slower speeds save lives. https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/transport/speed-management_9789282103784-en#page1 The lowering of the speed limit isn't aimed at improving the quality of life of fat lazy drivers, it's aimed at saving people's lives.

[Deepstar]

And again, a road is a road. The 85th percentile speed applies to a 30 kph zone the same way it does to anything else. We have to use other examples of roads where the speed limit is too low because we have no data points for 30 zones as it hasn't happened yet. Obviously. Without using other examples this discussion is merely theoretical.

Is going 40 in a 30 zone unreasonable if it's a location where the reduction to 30 was unjust? Probably not, but as of now that's theoretical. Hence other examples.

Maybe it isnt unjust, but people speeding in zones because they feel they should be able to is the whole reason this has come about. I see idiots going ~60km/h though roads that are 50 all the time. Part of the reason for lowering the speed to 30, is the expectation that people might do 40 at times, but that’s much better than people speeding and doing 60.

[Deepstar]

That’s exactly it. This doesn’t affect people’s quality of life, it only adds another 80 seconds or so to their commute. That’s the unfortunate mentality of drivers in this city. I can’t live a normal life without having a car and getting from point A to point B in a hurry. It would be great if some of these people would actually get out of their car and go for a walk or a bike ride for once in their life.

1) The speed reduction only applies to streets that aren't divided by lanes, so you're only looking at residential streets. You think everyone spends their whole commute going through residential streets? Only the last part of a commute will be these slower streets.

2) Here's the link to the group who says slower speeds save lives. https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/transport/speed-management_9789282103784-en#page1 The lowering of the speed limit isn't aimed at improving the quality of life of fat lazy drivers, it's aimed at saving people's lives.

[jc_yyc_ca]

I agree here on these points. A law is one thing, morally correct or a law that is the right thing to do is different for sure. One only has to look at the recent legalization of marijuana. It was against the law and now it isn't, yet nothing from the moral right or wrong side has changed.
Same goes for alcohol. 80 years ago it was illegal, yet people still drank it. People won't respect a law if it doesn't make sense.

Morality aside there was a reason pot and alcohol have been illegal at times. People consuming alcohol have been known to harm others when drunk, and actually it happens all the time. Just because it's legal doesn't make it right or good. Same for pot. Yeah, yeah, people say it's harmless, but just wait until we have to pay welfare for all those potheads who can't keep a job, just like we have to pay medical costs and court/police costs for all those idiots who can't handle their alcohol.

[BlaineN]

Morality aside there was a reason pot and alcohol have been illegal at times. People consuming alcohol have been known to harm others when drunk, and actually it happens all the time. Just because it's legal doesn't make it right or good. Same for pot. Yeah, yeah, people say it's harmless, but just wait until we have to pay welfare for all those potheads who can't keep a job, just like we have to pay medical costs and court/police costs for all those idiots who can't handle their alcohol.
Welfare for all those potheads who lose their jobs? that's hilarious :haha: All I was trying to point out was that those two substances have been illegal and legal at varying times, but the morality of it has always been the same.

[Porfiry]

No, it isn't, it's poor policy if 90% of people disobey a rule. How can you not see that?

I didn’t say it was good policy. I said it’s effective, in that the average speed would go down. Simple math.

Whether a policy is good or bad is between the politicians and the electorate. Your opinion is irrelevant to me.

[Corndogger]

I didn’t say it was good policy. I said it’s effective, in that the average speed would go down. Simple math.

Whether a policy is good or bad is between the politicians and the electorate. Your opinion is irrelevant to me.

Why is the average speed going down a good thing? It has nothing to do with simple math. Are you incapable of seeing the bigger picture?

By the way, your often touted claim that this will only apply to residential streets is wrong. Just like I've been saying, Druh's already talking about expanding it some collectors. This has fuck all to do with safety!

[milomilo]

I didn’t say it was good policy. I said it’s effective, in that the average speed would go down. Simple math.

Whether a policy is good or bad is between the politicians and the electorate. Your opinion is irrelevant to me.

Good policy is effective, bad policy isn't, that's what is simple. You are promoting bad policy for bad reasons, and it will waste polical capital on a cause that may not improve safety. You have zero evidence this will cause a statistically significant increase in safety, that's a fact. Please prove me wrong, I'd love to see the data.

[suburbia]

There's very little data to prove it in Calgary, but there is some elsewhere. That's what I gathered from council last night. My issue remains with Calgary's inevitably flawed and revenue-driven plan of implementation.

I do get where you are coming from generally, but I believe the vote was for city staff to investigate and report. Let's see what they come up with. I very much doubt it will be overly a revenue-driven outcome.

[milomilo]

I do get where you are coming from generally, but I believe the vote was for city staff to investigate and report. Let's see what they come up with. I very much doubt it will be overly a revenue-driven outcome.

That might be how this ends up, but it isn't how we got there. What happened was a few councillors, vocally supported by the usual types, decided on a particular policy they wanted, and hoped that the investigation could be made to fit the outcome. This isn't how science works, and it shouldn't be how public policy works either. We should be first measuring data to figure out where and what the problem is and then implement the best policy to mitigate it.

[Porfiry]

You are promoting bad policy for bad reasons, and it will waste polical capital on a cause that may not improve safety. You have zero evidence this will cause a statistically significant increase in safety, that's a fact. Please prove me wrong, I'd love to see the data.

You are confusing me for someone else. I never “promoted” the policy. Whether they lower the limit or leave it alone, I don’t care. It’s utterly inconsequential to me. My position is that a) council has every right to limit speeds and b) unlike scofflaws like yourself, people in general will abide and the policy will have the intended effect.

[milomilo]

OK, well I'd prefer the city based its policy on good data rather than emotion. 'Intended effect' should be improved safety not 'people driving 30km/h whether necessary or not'.

[YYCguys]

Must be a slow week in the Roads thread with many many pages about “The Great 30kph vs 50kph Debate! :|

[Tobyoby]

Kind of old news but I guess everyone has seen this by now.

https://globalnews.ca/news/4482729/calgary-residential-speed-limit-study/

Calgary City Council votes to move forward with study of residential speed limit reduction

Cooler heads are prevailing :)

[Tobyoby]

There's very little data to prove it in Calgary, but there is some elsewhere. That's what I gathered from council last night. My issue remains with Calgary's inevitably flawed and revenue-driven plan of implementation.

Let me ask you a simple question. Do you think you have a better chance of surviving getting hit by a car at 30km/h or 50km/h? Studies have shown that to be the case, do you question that?

[milomilo]

Let me ask you a simple question. Do you think you have a better chance of surviving getting hit by a car at 30km/h or 50km/h? Studies have shown that to be the case, do you question that?

You haven't read anything we have wrote, have you?

[Corndogger]

You haven't read anything we have wrote, have you?

Of course he hasn't. People like him are driven by infographics based on outdated info.

[Bad Grizzly]

They only voted to look at it some more. In other words they only voted to waste more taxpayer money. We already spend enough taxpayer money on schools, schools that should be teaching people how to cross a street. The accidents happening aren’t little kids getting hit in residential streets, they’re adult and teenage dumb asses who cross the street at busier intersections without looking or cross even when a car is coming, because I think the car is going to stop.
Kind of old news but I guess everyone has seen this by now.

https://globalnews.ca/news/4482729/calgary-residential-speed-limit-study/

Calgary City Council votes to move forward with study of residential speed limit reduction

Cooler heads are prevailing :)

[suburbia]

the problem is that it's easier to ticket people for speeding than it is to do distracted driving stings... given that the goal is to make it look like you're having a big impact on road safety by generating ticket revenue, it's not difficult to see why they're going this way.

Police chief has warned that reducing speed limits will have operational cost implications on them IE city will have to pay for more police, and the tax burden will increase and not decrease.

[Corndogger]

Police chief has warned that reducing speed limits will have operational cost implications on them IE city will have to pay for more police, and the tax burden will increase and not decrease.

That's what I said before. Next on Druh's agenda will be we need to increase taxes to hire more police.

[Corndogger]

Earlier today Sean Chu tweeted the following which is really interesting.

City admin stated 2-3 years ago during the same debate that the average speed in all residential areas was 40-41km/h. Maybe you drive faster but not most of the people.

https://twitter.com/seanchucalgary/status/1045360266421067778

If that's the case which it probably is, people are not doing 60+ as Druh and her gang are trying to make people believe. Most people are responsible drivers--a lower speed limit is not going to change anything. If someone speeds recklessly through a neighborhood now they will continue to do so even if the speed limit is cut by 40%.

[Corndogger]

But the roads will be safer, Druh said... while the moron in the white Corolla rips across CHB on Harvest Hills going 70 through a red light cause he's texting.

Exactly.

[X_ting_on]

Except you two aren't listening either. I've read through the last few pages of this thread only to see the same people same the same thing over and over again. Yes, Toby has done that, but you two and others on here are no different, only the usual hooray for my side.

As someone who rarely drives I couldn't care less if they drop it to 30km/h, and in fact hope they do. It only adds a couple of minutes to the commute of the average suburbanite, but those fat, lazy, sloths still feel they'd need that extra minute or so over despite the obvious safety advantages.

People on here will disagree with me, and that's fine. This is a roads thread, not a thread for pedestrians or cyclist, and people here are suburbanites who cant live without a car. They don't understand any other way of thinking.

The audacity he has to introduces "studies" while failing to acknowledge things that have long been proven by studies and traffic engineers on the other side, and some on his own side.

I should adopt Toby's method of debate going forward in my life. I'd never lose.

"We found the murder weapon in the suspect's basement"
Toby be like, "let me ask you a simple question, is the sky blue?"

You haven't read anything we have wrote, have you?

[X_ting_on]

That's what I said before. Next on Druh's agenda will be we need to increase taxes to hire more police.

But the roads will be safer, Druh said... while the moron in the white Corolla rips across CHB on Harvest Hills going 70 through a red light cause he's texting.

Nothing wrong with hiring more police and handing out more tickets. Cars and roads are already a tremendous waste of money and a blight on our city. Taxpayers have already spent millions supporting a habit for lazy peeps who don't know what they'd do without a car, and now they can't stand the idea of having to slow down a bit because it might save someone's life.

[rotten42]

Nothing wrong with hiring more police and handing out more tickets. Cars and roads are already a tremendous waste of money and a blight on our city. Taxpayers have already spent millions supporting a habit for lazy peeps who don't know what they'd do without a car, and now they can't stand the idea of having to slow down a bit because it might save someone's life.

After this sentence I can't take anything you say serious. Many people are not lazy because they drive a car. Sometimes your job/livelihood depends on it. But let's not let that stop you from being all superior.

[accord1999]

Taxpayers have already spent millions
That directly benefit themselves since Calgary taxpayers overwhelmingly get around by car.

for lazy peeps who don't know what they'd do without a car
Not lazy, just people who don't want to be limited in where they can live, work and other trips they want to make.

[Corndogger]

Exactly. I don't have 3.5 hours a day to spend on transit when the same trips collectively take ~45 minutes out of my day by car. If X_ting_on's predicament is such that he has 3.5 hours in a day to piss away, that's fine. But I don't.

And he's probably in way worse shape than you because of it.

[Bad Grizzly]

:haha::haha::haha::haha: This is hilarious.

Except you two aren't listening either. I've read through the last few pages of this thread only to see the same people same the same thing over and over again. Yes, Toby has done that, but you two and others on here are no different, only the usual hooray for my side.

As someone who rarely drives I couldn't care less if they drop it to 30km/h, and in fact hope they do. It only adds a couple of minutes to the commute of the average suburbanite, but those fat, lazy, sloths still feel they'd need that extra minute or so over despite the obvious safety advantages.

People on here will disagree with me, and that's fine. This is a roads thread, not a thread for pedestrians or cyclist, and people here are suburbanites who cant live without a car. They don't understand any other way of thinking.

[Bad Grizzly]

Exactly. I don't have 3.5 hours a day to spend on transit when the same trips collectively take ~45 minutes out of my day by car. If X_ting_on's predicament is such that he has 3.5 hours in a day to piss away, that's fine. But I don't.

Exactly. What a waste of someone's life spending hours on a bus or walking so they can be a martyr, when they can get back and forth from work to home quicker, and then have more time to go out and get exercise with their kids rather than spending a few hours each day with a bunch of body odor smelling, bad breath strangers crammed in a bus.

[Bad Grizzly]

Nothing wrong with hiring more police and handing out more tickets. Cars and roads are already a tremendous waste of money and a blight on our city. Taxpayers have already spent millions supporting a habit for lazy peeps who don't know what they'd do without a car, and now they can't stand the idea of having to slow down a bit because it might save someone's life.

Absolutely ridiculous.

[Mazrim]

I spoke with Robson Fletcher at the CBC, who is doing a series on the history of Alberta's roads. The first is below, and there are meant to be one a day all week:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alberta-roads-highways-statistics-data-history-1.4824736

This is a great read! It's a good history lesson for Alberta. I loved the road network map for Canada too.

[X_ting_on]

Yes there is. It's a waste of money. A better idea would be to have the speed limit be appropriate for the road so you don't throw money down the drain for no reason on enforcement. This is consistent with our above position that we want speed limits to be appropriate for the road on a case-by-base basis.



It's a not a waste of money except for the people paying the tickets. If people can't slow down, and end up getting a ticket it's their own fault, and they should pay up.

[X_ting_on]

What does this even mean. Do you live in the real world?



Let me re-phrase. The amount of roads in Calgary are a complete waste of money, not roads in general. I'm always very amazed so much of Calgary is covered in concrete and asphalt to support people and their driving habit.





A "habit". People driving to work and living a normal North American suburban life is a "habit" and means they're fat and lazy? Gotcha.
Yes that's the impression. I spend half my time between Calgary and Singapore. When I'm here in Singapore I don't drive, nor do I need to drive. I mostly walk. A number of people here think North Americans as lazy and I suppose fat as well. When I am in Calgary I drive sometimes, but most of the time walk or use my bike. I realize those in the suburbs cannot do anything without a car. When you go to the suburbs and everything is extremely spread apart, all you see is paved roads everywhere, and 90% don't have active cars on them. what a waste!

[X_ting_on]

Exactly. What a waste of someone's life spending hours on a bus or walking so they can be a martyr, when they can get back and forth from work to home quicker, and then have more time to go out and get exercise with their kids rather than spending a few hours each day with a bunch of body odor smelling, bad breath strangers crammed in a bus.

In Calgary I don't use transit. It's 20 minutes walk to work, the same as many drivers, and I suppose less in most case, and extra benefit of being healthier.

[milomilo]

It's a not a waste of money except for the people paying the tickets. If people can't slow down, and end up getting a ticket it's their own fault, and they should pay up.

Tickets should be issued because people are driving unsafely, not because X_ting_on couldn't care less that the speed limit is changed to 30km/h. As I've said to others, you have zero evidence that the proposal will significantly improve safety - literally nothing. Until you find that evidence, you're spouting hot air.

[milomilo]

In Calgary I don't use transit. It's 20 minutes walk to work, the same as many drivers, and I suppose less in most case, and extra benefit of being healthier.

Making up bullshit doesn't help your argument.

[BlaineN]

Making up bullshit doesn't help your argument.

Just curious, what makes you think it's bullshit that he has a 20 minute walk to work? I have a 15 minute walk to my work.

[BlaineN]

It's not uncommon for someone to have a 20 minute walk to work. Thousands of people who work downtown and live in or around downtown, it's 20 minutes or less for a walk to work.



Nah. In a city that is literally bigger than the country I came from, everybody can walk to work in 20 minutes but instead choose to be fat and lazy. Darn.

[BlaineN]

I'm not saying he doesn't have a 20 minute walk, I don't give a shit how long his walk is. Milo I think is talking about the "the same as many drivers, and I suppose less in most case" part. His whole spiel here has been that people are driving when transit or walking would be faster... but the number of people who have 15 minute walks into work is clearly less than he thinks, else there wouldn't be 170,000 vehicles a day on Deerfoot.

Should Calgary be denser and our ridiculous sprawl contained? Yes. But that is a separate argument to the hilariously false notion that people are choosing to sit in traffic because they're too fat and lazy to walk.

I took it that he (xting) had a 20 minute walk to work, which is probably the same or less time for Calgary drivers. Though he might have meant something else.

[milomilo]

I might have misinterpreted what he said, but I'm fairly confident most people in Calgary don't live within a 20 minute walk to work. I live in an inner city neighborhood, and even if I worked downtown, which I don't, it would still be more than 20 minutes walk. For people further out, there's no chance.

I suppose I could move to a place where I could walk to work, but then I'd basically have to live next door to a horrible industrial area and ruin my quality of life in other ways. Not everyone can, or should, live and work downtown.

[rotten42]

They don't understand any other way of thinking.

Apparently you don't understand (or tolerate) any other way of thinking either. You seen lazy to me.

[rotten42]

Apparently you don't understand (or tolerate) any other way of thinking either. You seen lazy to me.


So I live in the Royal Oak area of the city. Ya I know it gets trashed but I like it regardless. Great neighbours. Not hear to debate that. My work is in the NE near Memorial drive and 36th street. For that reason I have to drive to get to work. It usually takes 25-30 minutes for me to drive there if I leave at around 6:30 am. If I take transit? 1hr 13 minutes. To walk there Google says it will take 4hrs and 55 mins. Seems stupid and a complete waste of time to take transit or walk.

Now someone might say, live where you work. Hmm? let's see the closest community is Radisson Heights. Considering my ex-wife (child social worker) did the bulk of her investigations in that area, I'm going to have to say that's a hard no. Besides, I've worked hard to live in a nicer area.

Then add to the picture that I have client/job visits all over the place. Telus Sky.....Imperial Quarry Park.....Atco campus...etc.



Oh...and trying to compare a city/culture/geographic layout like Calgary to Singapore is just plain stupid.

[Deepstar]

I had no trouble interpreting what he said. He said it takes him 20 minutes to walk to work. It's not unbelievable that someone could walk to work in 20 minutes if they live in the Beltline or Bridgeland, etc...

He also said that it's about the same time as most drivers in Calgary, which is probably the only thing that's not true. The average commute time in Calgary is actually 27 minutes.

He never once said that all walkers have a 20 minute commute. Here's his post for those who need a memory refresh. If you read the sentence carefully it doesn't say anything about Calgary pedestrian having a 20 minute commute. Only that He doesn't use transit because it's a 20 minute walk to work.
In Calgary I don't use transit. It's 20 minutes walk to work, the same as many drivers, and I suppose less in most case, and extra benefit of being healthier.

I'm not saying he doesn't have a 20 minute walk, I don't give a shit how long his walk is. Milo I think is talking about the "the same as many drivers, and I suppose less in most case" part. His whole spiel here has been that people are driving when transit or walking would be faster... but the number of people who have 15 minute walks into work is clearly less than he thinks, else there wouldn't be 170,000 vehicles a day on Deerfoot.

Should Calgary be denser and our ridiculous sprawl contained? Yes. But that is a separate argument to the hilariously false notion that people are choosing to sit in traffic because they're too fat and lazy to walk.

No idea what he meant, but this city is 320 square miles. The "most" "some" "many" descriptions of anybody's commute are meaningless.

I might have misinterpreted what he said, but I'm fairly confident most people in Calgary don't live within a 20 minute walk to work. I live in an inner city neighborhood, and even if I worked downtown, which I don't, it would still be more than 20 minutes walk. For people further out, there's no chance.

I suppose I could move to a place where I could walk to work, but then I'd basically have to live next door to a horrible industrial area and ruin my quality of life in other ways. Not everyone can, or should, live and work downtown.

[rotten42]

Comparing the third densest country on the planet to the city of Calgary is like comparing the Edmonton Oilers to a professional hockey team.


lol...they will be out of the playoffs by US Thanksgiving.

[milomilo]

I had no trouble interpreting what he said. He said it takes him 20 minutes to walk to work. It's not unbelievable that someone could walk to work in 20 minutes if they live in the Beltline or Bridgeland, etc...

He also said that it's about the same time as most drivers in Calgary, which is probably the only thing that's not true. The average commute time in Calgary is actually 27 minutes.

He never once said that all walkers have a 20 minute commute. Here's his post for those who need a memory refresh. If you read the sentence carefully it doesn't say anything about Calgary pedestrian having a 20 minute commute. Only that He doesn't use transit because it's a 20 minute walk to work.
In Calgary I don't use transit. It's 20 minutes walk to work, the same as many drivers, and I suppose less in most case, and extra benefit of being healthier.
Yes, I did read exactly what he posted. 'The same as many drivers' implies a significant portion of the city, which is not going to be true. Maybe 10% of people here live within walking distance, I'd guess, which might be 'many' in an absolute sense, but it's not many as a proportion of residents of the city.

[Deepstar]

Yes, I did read exactly what he posted. 'The same as many drivers' implies a significant portion of the city, which is not going to be true. Maybe 10% of people here live within walking distance, I'd guess, which might be 'many' in an absolute sense, but it's not many as a proportion of residents of the city.

I don't think you understand. He's saying that he walks 20 minutes to work, and that is about the same commute time as most drivers in the city. Which is true, as the average commute time for drivers is just under 30 minutes. Nowhere did he say that other 'walk to work' commuters take 20 minutes.

[Deepstar]

Yes, and that's the section of that post that I addressed and dismissed... so what's the problem?

His position appears to be that Calgarians are fat and lazy slobs compared to Singaporeans. That doesn't contribute much to this discussion... do you not agree?

It's a known fact that people who walk or cycle to work are less obese than their driving counterparts. Very few if any suburbanites walk to work. Some cycle, but it's a very low amount, and thus it makes sens e that people in the burbs would be fatter. Maybe not lazy, but more obese, yes.

[rotten42]

It's a known fact that people who walk or cycle to work are less obese than their driving counterparts. Very few if any suburbanites walk to work. Some cycle, but it's a very low amount, and thus it makes sens e that people in the burbs would be fatter. Maybe not lazy, but more obese, yes.



Or maybe we go to the gym before or after work. Or ride after work and on weekends in the mountains. You've taken I pretty big leap of faith with your conclusion. Kind of like saying All vegans are healthier than people that have meat in their diet. It is short sighted and just not true.

You've been pretty clear about your biases about people who life in the suburbs so this doesn't surprise me.


Hey...go check out the Rockyridge YMCA in the morning or after work to see all the fat, lazy people that drive cars.

[suburbia]

It's a known fact that people who walk or cycle to work are less obese than their driving counterparts. Very few if any suburbanites walk to work. Some cycle, but it's a very low amount, and thus it makes sens e that people in the burbs would be fatter. Maybe not lazy, but more obese, yes.

It's a known fact that people who live in single family homes are less obese than their condo dwelling counterparts. Very few if any apartment occupants cut the grass or shovel snow. Some make snowmen on public land, but it's a very low amount, and thus it makes sense that people in condos would be fatter. Maybe not lazy, but more obese, yes.

[milomilo]

Where are either of you getting these 'facts'? The amount of made up statistics and data for the last 10 or so pages has been immense.

[milomilo]

I'm sure both think their positions are 'probably' true, but that is just an opinion. Saying something is 'a well know fact' without any evidence does not make something a fact.

And I'll be the first to put my hand up and say I'm guilty of doing the same thing.

[milomilo]

Yeah, there's a pretty clear cause and effect when you break it down to drivers vs cyclists... just not when you abstract that out to 'suburbanites are healthier than condo dwellers because they mow the lawn'.

I can't even remember how we got here. Something along the lines of if you question the effectiveness of blanket 30km/h zones then you must constantly speed, live in the suburbs, hate children and are fat... apparently.

[suburbia]

I'm sure both think their positions are 'probably' true, but that is just an opinion. Saying something is 'a well know fact' without any evidence does not make something a fact.

And I'll be the first to put my hand up and say I'm guilty of doing the same thing.

You guys do realize I was yankin' Deepstar's chain, right?

If anything, I used exactly the same wordings he used with a different context, just to demonstrate how dumb he sounded.

[milomilo]

Crap. Yep that's pretty obvious reading it now, apologies.

[X_ting_on]

Yes, as is the case with you, English is not my first language, but that's not why the sentence didn't make sense. It was because of a typo.

I'm not sure English is your first language, as this sentence doesn't make sense but... we've discussed the idea that Calgary's police chief said the increased enforcement would be a net loss, which means the increased ticket revenue would not be enough to offset the higher cost of the enforcement.

What that means is that ALL taxpayers, including you who only ride your bike because your entire life is reachable in 20 minutes, would be shouldering the cost to make up that difference. So as much as you hate cars, it's in YOUR best interest for CPS to not throw money down the drain.



Nah. In a city that is literally bigger than the country I came from, everybody can walk to work in 20 minutes but instead choose to be fat and lazy. Darn.

[X_ting_on]

It's a known fact that people who walk or cycle to work are less obese than their driving counterparts. Very few if any suburbanites walk to work. Some cycle, but it's a very low amount, and thus it makes sens e that people in the burbs would be fatter. Maybe not lazy, but more obese, yes.

I don't know the specific facts but from looking around I see people in the inner city less obese than suburban people. This must be because they do more walking and cycling.

[DizzyEdge]

I spoke with Robson Fletcher at the CBC, who is doing a series on the history of Alberta's roads. The first is below, and there are meant to be one a day all week:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alberta-roads-highways-statistics-data-history-1.4824736

This was cool but I was hoping it would be more specific about things. I've been very curious about what roads existed in the 1910-1930s range and their exact routes.

[ST1]

It's a very generic statement especially with no specific data to say that suburbanites are more obese, but on the other hand this has also been my own observation. I would be willing to bet that inner city folks walk and cycle more and thus are less likely to be obese.

Many people in the burbs do go to gyms and cycle the odd time on weekends etc, but I find that people who build in exersize as part of a daily routine are going to stay in better health. The gym is good as a short term solution, but it's not sustainable. People aren't going to go to the gym forever. It takes up a ton of time. Aside from the gym being mind numbingly boring, you're already burning up a lot of time commuting in your car, and now you're going to burn up more time driving to the gym, working out for an hour or two and driving back home again. That's not sustainable.

Aside from all the health issues, roads are also a financial drain. IMO the biggest single downfall to North American cities. I get that we can't do much about it now, but at least the various governments are aware the issue.

I don't know the specific facts but from looking around I see people in the inner city less obese than suburban people. This must be because they do more walking and cycling.

I don't keep tabs on where obese people live in Calgary, so I suppose I can't corroborate that and nor can you. My point was only that there will be people in the inner city who walk to work and are still out of shape, and there are people in the suburbs in great shape. Who'd a thunk it.

[rotten42]

It's a very generic statement especially with no specific data to say that suburbanites are more obese, but on the other hand this has also been my own observation. I would be willing to bet that inner city folks walk and cycle more and thus are less likely to be obese.

Many people in the burbs do go to gyms and cycle the odd time on weekends etc, but I find that people who build in exersize as part of a daily routine are going to stay in better health. The gym is good as a short term solution, but it's not sustainable. People aren't going to go to the gym forever. It takes up a ton of time. Aside from the gym being mind numbingly boring, you're already burning up a lot of time commuting in your car, and now you're going to burn up more time driving to the gym, working out for an hour or two and driving back home again. That's not sustainable.


First of all going to the gym is sustainable. Been doing it for 36 years now. Secondly, in the interest of not escalating this much further I suggest you look up the benefits of weight training especially as people age. Being slim doesn't always mean healthy. JC there are so many stupid conclusions in here based on nothing.

[Tobyoby]

I will agree with Rotten42 that going to the gym has it's benefits. Some people can keep it up for long periods but the problem is most can't. I agree with Deepstar that people are still better off building excersize into a productive routine like a commute if they can.

As for the suggestion that inner city folks are healthier, well it's true. I've known it for years, but studies prove it.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/oct/06/inner-city-living-makes-for-healthier-happier-people-study-finds
Inner-city living makes for healthier, happier people, study finds
Residents of higher-density areas are more active, more socially engaged – and less obese – than people who live in the sprawl of suburbia

[Corndogger]

I will agree with Rotten42 that going to the gym has it's benefits. Some people can keep it up for long periods but the problem is most can't. I agree with Deepstar that people are still better off building excersize into a productive routine like a commute if they can.

As for the suggestion that inner city folks are healthier, well it's true. I've known it for years, but studies prove it.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/oct/06/inner-city-living-makes-for-healthier-happier-people-study-finds
Inner-city living makes for healthier, happier people, study finds
Residents of higher-density areas are more active, more socially engaged – and less obese – than people who live in the sprawl of suburbia

This study makes extensive use of BMI which isn't exactly the best measure of obesity or of how healthy someone is. I believe most pro athletes have high BMI scores yet the vast majority of them would be considered to be healthy and fit. What really jumped out at me about this U.K. study is that the study participants were all between 37 and 73 years of age with 99.9% being between 40 and 69. Why that age range? This study doesn't prove anything other than with a ton of data you can get any result you want.

[CTrainDude]

Roads? Anyone?

[jc_yyc_ca]

This study makes extensive use of BMI which isn't exactly the best measure of obesity or of how healthy someone is. I believe most pro athletes have high BMI scores yet the vast majority of them would be considered to be healthy and fit. What really jumped out at me about this U.K. study is that the study participants were all between 37 and 73 years of age with 99.9% being between 40 and 69. Why that age range? This study doesn't prove anything other than with a ton of data you can get any result you want.

Using an age range of 40 to 69 is probably the best range to use actually. Most people in the 20's and early 30's still have a higher metabolism, it's when you hit 40 that it slows down and the risk of being overweight starts to become a reality.

[jc_yyc_ca]

You don't have to be in a sweat infested gym to get some exercise. I get out and go for a jog once a day, and it works. I also enjoy it.

I will agree with Rotten42 that going to the gym has it's benefits. Some people can keep it up for long periods but the problem is most can't. I agree with Deepstar that people are still better off building excersize into a productive routine like a commute if they can.

As for the suggestion that inner city folks are healthier, well it's true. I've known it for years, but studies prove it.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/oct/06/inner-city-living-makes-for-healthier-happier-people-study-finds
Inner-city living makes for healthier, happier people, study finds
Residents of higher-density areas are more active, more socially engaged – and less obese – than people who live in the sprawl of suburbia

[YYCguys]

Roads? Anyone?

:tup: Thank you! So I’m not the only one noticing how this thread has totally taken the other fork in the road! :koko:

[Deepstar]

This nicely sums up why going to the gym isn't sustainable for most people, and thus why people in the burbs aren't as healthy as their inner city counterparts over the longterm. It doesn't take a genius to see why either.

When you consider the downsides of road it's obvious they're necessary evil. They cost a lot of money, and they aren't doing people any favors. It's true that driving everywhere is convenient, but the financial cost is high, and then you can add in the health cost. Also don't forget the cost to the environment
- the millions of tons upon tons of plastic and steel used to build the cars themselves...only to have that all get junked 15 years later.

It's a very generic statement especially with no specific data to say that suburbanites are more obese, but on the other hand this has also been my own observation. I would be willing to bet that inner city folks walk and cycle more and thus are less likely to be obese.

Many people in the burbs do go to gyms and cycle the odd time on weekends etc, but I find that people who build in exersize as part of a daily routine are going to stay in better health. The gym is good as a short term solution, but it's not sustainable. People aren't going to go to the gym forever. It takes up a ton of time. Aside from the gym being mind numbingly boring, you're already burning up a lot of time commuting in your car, and now you're going to burn up more time driving to the gym, working out for an hour or two and driving back home again. That's not sustainable.

Aside from all the health issues, roads are also a financial drain. IMO the biggest single downfall to North American cities. I get that we can't do much about it now, but at least the various governments are aware the issue.

[Deepstar]

:tup: Thank you! So I’m not the only one noticing how this thread has totally taken the other fork in the road! :koko:

This is after all, a roads thread and those who frequent this thread love their cars and the roads they drive on. Trying to get people to understand both sides of slowing down to 30km/h is a tall order.

[Tobyoby]

Excellent points about roads in general. Drivers in Calgary , and most of North America have the mentality that roads are a god given right. I would compare them to gun owners in the U.S.

Someone wants to lower the speed for the health and safety of others and people treat it like it's an infraction on their rights. Folks need to understand that driving is a privilege and everyone pays dearly for it.

This nicely sums up why going to the gym isn't sustainable for most people, and thus why people in the burbs aren't as healthy as their inner city counterparts over the longterm. It doesn't take a genius to see why either.

When you consider the downsides of road it's obvious they're necessary evil. They cost a lot of money, and they aren't doing people any favors. It's true that driving everywhere is convenient, but the financial cost is high, and then you can add in the health cost. Also don't forget the cost to the environment
- the millions of tons upon tons of plastic and steel used to build the cars themselves...only to have that all get junked 15 years later.

[milomilo]

Completely ignoring the counter arguments, yet again, purely to rant against car use. Some folks need to understand that not all car drivers are mindless murderers and actually do care about safety, but believe in policy that is based on evidence and sound reasoning rather than emotion.

[Corndogger]

Using an age range of 40 to 69 is probably the best range to use actually. Most people in the 20's and early 30's still have a higher metabolism, it's when you hit 40 that it slows down and the risk of being overweight starts to become a reality.

Lots of people are overweight according to the BMI scale but that doesn't mean their not healthy.

[milomilo]

So in actual road news, apparently the 22A/1A interchange in Cochrane is approved and funded as well as twinning the 1A in that area. Construction starting fall next year.

[YYCguys]

So in actual road news, apparently the 22A/1A interchange in Cochrane is approved and funded as well as twinning the 1A in that area. Construction starting fall next year.

That is good news! That intersection has been overcapacity for years! What is the expected opening date?

[X_ting_on]

Lots of people are overweight according to the BMI scale but that doesn't mean their not healthy.

There is no perfect way to measure a population health, but BMI is one that gives general indication. Those people with higher BMI on average are not as healthy. Therefore on average suburbanites are not as healthy. North Americans will discover that the suburbs design are causing a generation of less healthy people. They won't be as healthy as the previous generation who walked more.

[milomilo]

That is good news! That intersection has been overcapacity for years! What is the expected opening date?

I heard construction would take 2 years. So 2021. I heard this on CBC radio, but it's corroborated elsewhere.

[Bad Grizzly]

This is after all, a roads thread and those who frequent this thread love their cars and the roads they drive on. Trying to get people to understand both sides of slowing down to 30km/h is a tall order.

Some people love pizza some love chocolate and some love cars. I don't love my car, but it sure beats walking somewhere in -30C weather, and it blows away public transit. That's good enough for me.

[Bad Grizzly]

People who drive cars pay for them. Since almost everyone except a few martyrs here and there drives a car, the cost of the roads are covered by the users. as for the environment, don't even bother giving me that bullcrap. Everyone who exists has an effect on the environment somehow. Ever consider of all the concrete that goes into the millions of kilometers of sidewalks to support only a few people who use them.

This nicely sums up why going to the gym isn't sustainable for most people, and thus why people in the burbs aren't as healthy as their inner city counterparts over the longterm. It doesn't take a genius to see why either.

When you consider the downsides of road it's obvious they're necessary evil. They cost a lot of money, and they aren't doing people any favors. It's true that driving everywhere is convenient, but the financial cost is high, and then you can add in the health cost. Also don't forget the cost to the environment
- the millions of tons upon tons of plastic and steel used to build the cars themselves...only to have that all get junked 15 years later.

[Bad Grizzly]

One stupid ass study (from the Guardian of course), and suddenly it becomes fact lol. :haha: Give me a break.

I will agree with Rotten42 that going to the gym has it's benefits. Some people can keep it up for long periods but the problem is most can't. I agree with Deepstar that people are still better off building excersize into a productive routine like a commute if they can.

As for the suggestion that inner city folks are healthier, well it's true. I've known it for years, but studies prove it.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/oct/06/inner-city-living-makes-for-healthier-happier-people-study-finds
Inner-city living makes for healthier, happier people, study finds
Residents of higher-density areas are more active, more socially engaged – and less obese – than people who live in the sprawl of suburbia

[Corndogger]

One stupid ass study (from the Guardian of course), and suddenly it becomes fact lol. :haha: Give me a break.

No kidding. If inner city living was so great then blacks would be healthier, happier, etc. on average than whites in America. I'm looking forward to X-ting, etc. trying to explain why their "fact" doesn't hold true in this case.

[rotten42]

This nicely sums up why going to the gym isn't sustainable for most people, and thus why people in the burbs aren't as healthy as their inner city counterparts over the longterm. It doesn't take a genius to see why either.





Again with the stupid generalisations?


so...gyms are too hard
people in the burbs are fat and lazy
inner city people are smart, healthy and not at all delusional.


got it!!

[ST1]

No kidding. If inner city living was so great then blacks would be healthier, happier, etc. on average than whites in America. I'm looking forward to X-ting, etc. trying to explain why their "fact" doesn't hold true in this case.

I'd like to take this opportunity to pass along a bit of information. We live in Canada not the United States. You can't compare the inner city situations between the two countries Try using cities like Vancouver or Montreal. You might as well be adding Tokyo and Reykjavik to the comparison, they would be a better comparison the the U.S.

[ST1]

Around 95% of people who get a gym membership give up on it within a year. For some it's too hard, but the most common reason is because it's a colossal waste of time. Imagine all the time you spend going to the gym, getting changed, working out, then taking shower, and getting changed again, and then going back home. On top of this, it costs you money. You're burning up time and money, getting the same benefit someone could get walking to and from work. Those walking to and from work also aren't wasting money on a car.

You can see why people who walk to work like it and are always trumpeting the benefits. For the record, I drive to work, but wish I was in a situation where I could walk to work.

Again with the stupid generalisations?


so...gyms are too hard
people in the burbs are fat and lazy
inner city people are smart, healthy and not at all delusional.


got it!!

[milomilo]

For the record, I drive to work, but wish I was in a situation where I could walk to work.

You're not alone. I'd far rather spend 20 minutes each way walking than driving, especially if it was a nice walk. Unfortunately, reality gets in the way. My place of work is not located anywhere close to a nice community, and would be a horrible walk regardless. And truth be told, even though it's a nice to have, being able to walk to work is way down the list of priorities for me in deciding jobs.