Quote:
Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut
That's assuming empty buses and empty trains. Canada Line: 140k passengers/day over 13 years against $2 billion = $3/user; Burrard: 3k bikers/day over a similar period against $58 million = $4/user (though in fairness, it drops down to $3/user if you count summers).
'Cause we're looking to make the most out of limited road space... and as long as the most efficient transportation is one of the least efficient uses of the road, bike lanes aren't always the most. They have their uses. People-moving is not one of them.
Edit: I'd also be interested to see how we got to 2000 mpg. Most sources I can find are giving me 600-1000 at best. |
They didn't spend $58m on building bike lanes on Burrard Bridge. That was the estimated cost of widening the bridge to add bike lanes, (in 2009 that had risen to $63m, but $25 to $30 million was the cost of needed maintenance, repair and infrastructure upgrades.) The decision was taken to re-allocate existing road space instead, initially as a trial. That cost
just under $1.5m.
The subsequent addition of a permanent second lane and reinstatement of the sidewalk for pedestrians, and the reconfiguration of the roads ant the northern end of the bridge
cost $35m in, but included all the other work to the bridge that had to be completed whether there were bike lanes or not (1. Concrete railing replacement, Roadway lighting electrical replacement, Sidewalk overlay, Concrete repairs (soffits), Access improvements for marine spans, East side duct bank repair, and suicide prevention fencing and crisis phone installation). Only a proportion of the costs were related to the bike lanes.
Prev
Linear Mode
