(11-03-2020, 01:21 PM)westwardloo Wrote: Well 4 months is a bit of an exaggeration. Obviously side walks are clearer when the city provides that surface, but is it worth the cost to do so? in my opinion, the cities staff and councils opinion, it is not. Certain areas of the city where winter walking is more prevalent like downtown receives this service, it works well and cost to the city are minimal (890K per year in 2016). That is for 193km of sidewalk. there are over 1,200km of sidewalk in the city, which would cost the city 3.6million per year + 4.0million the capital expense of purchasing equipment. There would also be costs associated with complaints/ damages. Kitchener's winter sidewalk report concluded that residential complaints went up when the city took over the service. Personally that money is better spent expanding permanent separated bike lanes.
We’ve been over this. City sidewalk clearing is typically estimated to cost a pittance per property per year; there is no way you can even remotely hire somebody to clear your sidewalk for the amount (can’t remember actual number). To increase the headline tax rate in order to take responsibility for sidewalk clearing would be an overall tax reduction (by the difference between the cost of everybody individually hiring somebody to clear their sidewalk and the cost for the City to do the same work), while actually providing sidewalks that are consistently clear. Why are so many people opposed to efficiency?
And it’s not a matter of opinion that the present system doesn’t result in consistently and reliably clear sidewalks. It doesn’t, period. I still say somebody should try an AODA lawsuit.
Edit: I just noticed that you both claimed that $890k to clear maybe 15% of the sidewalks is “minimal”; meanwhile paying about 4 times as much to clear 100% of the sidewalks would somehow be excessive. You might want to re-think your calculations. Also, maybe part of the reason winter walking is more prevalent is because the City does the clearing.