Calgary Bike Lanes and Bike Paths

[The ChosenOne]

Sometimes I wish Calgary was split into two semi-autonomous cities - inner Calgary and outer Calgary, let's them Calgary, Urbgary and Burbgary

Urbgary would be roughly a 5km radius from the center of downtown. In Urbgary, blanket zoning is still in effect, there is a focus is on a bike lanes, pedestrian path networks and maybe even the revival of the old Beltline streetcar line. The rest of the city, Burbgary can be as suburban as they want to be, and pay for it however they see fit.

Segregation in 2026?

 

[trtcttc]

Sometimes I wish Calgary was split into two semi-autonomous cities - inner Calgary and outer Calgary, let's them Calgary, Urbgary and Burbgary

Urbgary would be roughly a 5km radius from the center of downtown. In Urbgary, blanket zoning is still in effect, there is a focus is on a bike lanes, pedestrian path networks and maybe even the revival of the old Beltline streetcar line. The rest of the city, Burbgary can be as suburban as they want to be, and pay for it however they see fit.

I am curious what is the reason for amalgamation in Alberta specifically. Vancouver is split into multiple cities, so is the GTA and Montreal. Unfortunately, I don't think it'll have the intended results. There's this idea that subsidization is inner city to suburbs but that's not true in reality. The average taxation of Vancouver is not lower than Burnaby or Richmond. In Calgary it might be worse, because our commercial tax base is lower and more spread out. All the industrial tax base will go to Burbgary. And a lot of the social and amenity cost will be concentrated to Urbgary. Even if these social issues or amenities are not exclusive to the urban area, they end up being the ones paying for it.

 

[CalgaryTiger]

I am curious what is the reason for amalgamation in Alberta specifically. Vancouver is split into multiple cities, so is the GTA and Montreal. Unfortunately, I don't think it'll have the intended results. There's this idea that subsidization is inner city to suburbs but that's not true in reality. The average taxation of Vancouver is not lower than Burnaby or Richmond. In Calgary it might be worse, because our commercial tax base is lower and more spread out. All the industrial tax base will go to Burbgary. And a lot of the social and amenity cost will be concentrated to Urbgary. Even if these social issues or amenities are not exclusive to the urban area, they end up being the ones paying for it.

You cannot forget about the inefficiency of suburban communities versus the efficiency of the inner-city communities because of their density and the density of services.

It might not change the tax burden that much but that's not the point, it is about aligning the priorities.

Segregation in 2026?

It isn't segregation... All you're doing is redrawing boundaries to better align civic priorities. It is fine that people want to live different lifestyles, it just makes sense to group those lifestyles together.

Personally, I think the City does a decent job of balancing priorities but there does need to be a little bit more give and take between the two. The issue is suburban Calgarians interact with the inner-city much more than inner-city Calgarians interact the suburbs, which is be design in a way.

The question is then, who should have a greater say the people living in that area or everyone who uses that area. My answer would be it depends on what you're talking about. Something like a bike lane, a thing used by the people living there should be the choice of those living there.

If that bike lane affects everyone equally in that someone's commute is slower and they can't find parking because a lane of traffic has been removed, which is debatable, then the answer is to improve other means of getting into the area. I would argue the LRT serves suburban Calgarians far more than it serves me, because it is realistic for me to bus into downtown. I'm not going to sit here and complain about all the spending on LRT instead of improving buses, because I get not everything is for me. More people need to be told, this isn't for you, we'll hear from you when something that affects you comes up.

 

[Surrealplaces]

I am curious what is the reason for amalgamation in Alberta specifically. Vancouver is split into multiple cities, so is the GTA and Montreal. Unfortunately, I don't think it'll have the intended results. There's this idea that subsidization is inner city to suburbs but that's not true in reality. The average taxation of Vancouver is not lower than Burnaby or Richmond. In Calgary it might be worse, because our commercial tax base is lower and more spread out. All the industrial tax base will go to Burbgary. And a lot of the social and amenity cost will be concentrated to Urbgary. Even if these social issues or amenities are not exclusive to the urban area, they end up being the ones paying for it.

It's not so much about the inner city saving money or tax allocation, more of just how nice it would be for the inner city to be able to get the things they want that would be good for the inner city.