Thursday, May 19, 2011

Been there, done that

I didn't attend the Traffic Bridge forum last night as I had attended the previous one and thought a decision had been made based on the several models presented at that time. I found very little value to the format used, which was anonymous post-it notes responding to questions printed on cardboard. Some people were responding several times to the same question so there was no way to determine whether the support for an option was wide spread or just a handful of people imposing their views through numerous postings.

I don't quite understand why these types of constructions have to become multi-purpose. Can we not simply have an attractive river crossing to serve its purpose? I agree that there should be separate pedestrian/bike ways and viewing platforms would be a nice attraction. But does this bridge need to have bells and whistles so that once or twice a year some organization can host an event?

River Landing, including the Farmer's Market was designed for that very purpose. Each area in the city centre already lends itself to festivals and events - A Taste of Saskatchewan, Cruise Night, The Children's Festival, etc. Realistically, due to weather, we have about one-third of our year for the majority of these events to happen. Anyone who has walked this bridge in the dead of winter and felt the wind and cold bite would realize people are not going to congregate on this bridge during the winter season, even if someone suggests the construction of fire pits to huddle around.

The majority of area residents simply want reasonable access to their residences. If Council can't build the bridge that was green-lighted at the last forum, then re-design the existing roadways to provide the necessary access.

Just get on with the show!


  1. The show cannot go on until all the extreme groups have another round of say in this.

    It's funny was having a beer at the Yard last night and some young person was telling me about how much time is being wasted on installing the recycling program, to just do it already. I said I agreed and said same with the bridge. Whoops.... turns out he is one of those insane bikers who need their own bridge. So I got a half hour of how everything was wrong with the plans and we need another round of consultations before we rush into a decision.

    Just build the damn thing already and make sure I can drive my car on it.

  2. I thought the proposed bridge would include lanes on both sides for bikers and walker?

  3. You should have been at the forum last night, they still want traffic off the bridge.

    Will people not learn that traffic is a necessity on any new bridge, like it or not.

  4. The problem is somebody at city hall enpowered the cyclists and they took it serious. Only 1 or 2% of the total population of the city can be called regular bike users and they want to lead the rest of the population around by the nose. Build the bridge and soon and make it capable of handling the 7-12000 cars a day it will be carrying. Quit having public input on everthing and make decisions. They now want their own pathway along 33rd street from SIAST to Spadina with a round about intersection where the three way stop is now this little group of cycle thugs is going to cost us millions unless someone puts a stop to them.

  5. cycle thugs? that's a bit over the top.

    As an FYI, the City is the one who planned and funded the pathway that will one day go along 33rd.

    the stat was 2.6% (as of 2006) year-round communters - 2nd most in all of Canada - that doesn't include all the other cyclists who bike 6-8 months per year.

    Why wouldn't we want to separate bikes and cars? makes it safer for everyone...Not to mention that by making the conditions safer for those who want to cycle will booth decrease traffic congestion and increase the lifespan of our roadways.

  6. Over the top? What else would you call people that disobey the current laws, riding down the sidewalks on the bridges at break neck speed and not yield to pedestrians, ride on the sidewalks downtown and in Riversdale again not yielding to pedestrians or more of the same on the Meewasin trail system. If you mention to them there is a law in place for them to yield you are on the recieving end of a blast of bad language usualy ending with a suggestion that for the most part is physically impossible. They are vehicles when it's convenient but ride their bikes on pedestrian ways when it is more convenient. I stand corrected on the persentage by .6 percent or 12-1500 riders. Their are some incredably good cyclists in Saskatoon but the bad ones make a very lasting impression that makes me reluctant to spend any money on them til they grow up and get some manners. There is a pecking order; pedestrians at the top, then bicycles, transit and finally cars, before we start making accomodation to cyclists they need to make better accomdation to pedestrians and the rules coutessy and rules of the road!

  7. Where is the outcry about driving thugs and walking thugs?

  8. It's really funny. I do know see cyclists on the sidewalk fairly frequently, but at the same time, I've never had a run in with one, nor have they endangered me. I'm still annoyed that they are there, but then I think about how, as a pedestrian and occaissonal cyclist, I've been nearly run over countless times and have had motorists speed up when I'm about to walk into a cross walk to try to intimidate me or recklessly beat me through the cross walk. And similarly I've had motorists yell at me for riding in a lane or tail gate me and threaten to run me off the road.

    Sooooooooo, by the logic above, we should stop spending money on roads until all those reckless, angry, aggressive drivers shape up???

    Makes sense right?

    Or wait, maybe we should provide space for cyclists and clearly mark it or seperate it so it's safe to ride on the roads and people don't feel the need to ride on the sidewalks.........then those angry, aggressive drivers will only have pedestrians to yell at.

  9. I hate to speak for anyone, but the impression I get from those above against the idea of expanding the 33rd to include cycling lanes is that in a rush to accommodate everybody we are going to leave everyone happy.

    I support cyclists, enjoy leisurely cycling in the summer with my family. However, this attitude that we need to bend over backwards to accommodate 2.6% of the population is absurd. Having some cycling lanes on popular routes makes some sense, but up heaving and altering significant chunks of major roadways to meet cyclist demands is dumb. This isn't warmer climate places where those changes will be utilized and made worth it. The 33rd street bicycle lane will go days on days without a single rider on it during the frigid winter months.

    We need to recognize what we are as a city and plan accordingly.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.