Calgary Bike Lanes and Bike Paths

[trtcttc]

Did you read the ruling? it's all quite logical and reasonable - there are a couple of fairly simple legal tests that the government's bill failed. The government was acting against all expert advice and could not bring anything to justify the bill. The bill even included provisions to insulate the government from liability lawsuits for the deaths and injuries that would inevitably come after the removal, which made one aspect of the challenges a slam dunk.

Yes, I’m not saying the argument is wrong, that bike lanes do indeed save lives, and I do support them in general. But we live in a democracy, we have elections. Infrastructure decision should be made by elected leaders, not unelected judges. It may be a decision you like now, but it can also go the other way. Can the government repeal the dental care law? People will for sure be harmed and may limit their access to life and liberty. But these are decisions for elected leaders, not for judges, and these over broad interpretation of the charter is not democratic.

 

[lemongrab]

Yes, I’m not saying the argument is wrong, that bike lanes do indeed save lives, and I do support them in general. But we live in a democracy, we have elections. Infrastructure decision should be made by elected leaders, not unelected judges. It may be a decision you like now, but it can also go the other way. Can the government repeal the dental care law? People will for sure be harmed and may limit their access to life and liberty. But these are decisions for elected leaders, not for judges, and these over broad interpretation of the charter is not democratic.

What makes it an over broad interpretation?

IMO it's a check/balance working as it should. The government is free to appeal this decision or try the bill again in a less hamfisted way. It is certainly clear that there is no real urgency here.

I believe Alberta's anti-trans healthcare bill is currently stalled under a court injunction before the case is heard. Is this judicial overreach, too? Or should elected leaders be free to implement this harmful bill that runs afoul of the consensus* of expert medical advice?

When do you think the judiciary should play a role?

 

[darwink]

Check out this Ontario Court ruling that concludes the Ford governments law to remove protected bike lanes puts people at an increased risk of losing their lives, and is therefore unconstitutional. I hope this also sends a message to our provincial government.

It isn’t that removing the lanes is directly unconstitutional.

Doing it arbitrarily is. A traffic study of any kind is needed, that connects the removal to achieving something. The government can weigh the facts and decide reduced safety is worth it for less congestion. But it has to have fact to consider to make that choice.

 

[darwink]

The government is free to appeal this decision

They’ll loose the appeal. But that doesn’t mean the government can’t create a constitutionally valid process. The government just needs to be a bit more competent.

 

[trtcttc]

What makes it an over broad interpretation?

IMO it's a check/balance working as it should. The government is free to appeal this decision or try the bill again in a less hamfisted way. It is certainly clear that there is no real urgency here.

I believe Alberta's anti-trans healthcare bill is currently stalled under a court injunction before the case is heard. Is this judicial overreach, too? Or should elected leaders be free to implement this harmful bill that runs afoul of the consensus* of expert medical advice?

When do you think the judiciary should play a role?

That section 7 of the charter applies to roadway design. The government isn’t trying very hard to fight it, and probably for good reason because bike lanes are in general, good.

Yes, I believe so. There is a lot of controversy in that area and probably not for this forum. But when the NHS and some leading medical research institutions (like a Karolinka Institute) have adopted those same practices, it is definitely not something approaching a medical consensus. I’m not super invested in the issue, and can see both sides of the argument, and certainly it is not the place for the unelected judiciary to find that adopting policies similar to leading global institutions is unconstitutional.

 

[Cowtown]

"In 2011, Calgary city hall rolled out a cycling strategy “to become one of the premier cycling cities in North America.” That strategy set a goal of building 30 kilometres of protected cycle tracks, “physically separated from traffic and pedestrians,” by 2020.

Five years after that target date, city hall has yet to meet that goal. Today, Calgary has 26.2 kilometres of cycle tracks.

The same strategy called for 180 kilometres of painted bike lanes by 2020. Today Calgary has a quarter of that, with 45.6 kilometres of painted lanes, according to city hall. To put those numbers in context, Calgary has nearly 7,700 kilometres of roads."

The boom and bust of Calgary’s bike lanes | The Sprawl

No one is leading the cycling file at city hall.

www.sprawlcalgary.com

Sad to see the momentum stall. When I first started this thread a few years back there was so much promise.

 

[Red Star]

Sad to see the momentum stall. When I first started this thread a few years back there was so much promise.

I wouldn't say momentum have stalled. I would be nice to see more cycling projects go ahead, but 15th Ave. is getting cycle tracks this year, there have been many pathway improvements throughout the city and cycling improvements are on the books for large parts of Forest Lawn and the NE.

 

[Mountain Man]

So dipshit Rob Ford is going to use the notwithstanding clause to overrule the courts and rip out bike lanes. I expect dumbass Dreeshan to follow suit. I hate this mindless populist age we live in...

 

[lemongrab]

They’ll loose the appeal. But that doesn’t mean the government can’t create a constitutionally valid process. The government just needs to be a bit more competent.

Ya, that's why I said "or try the bill again in a less hamfisted way." It will actually be very interesting to see how it plays out if the government presents a crappy plan based on dubious evidence (instead of basically no plan based on no evidence). To overcome the decision as written, they'd likely need to demonstrate a lot more benefit (congestion reduction/travel time savings - good luck with that) and/or significant risk mitigation/alternatives (the ruling lays out a number of difficulties with this).

That section 7 of the charter applies to roadway design. The government isn’t trying very hard to fight it, and probably for good reason because bike lanes are in general, good.

It doesn't. It applies to people...