Therefore, in this way, the proposal is unable to fulfill the criteria of affordability and acceptability by the practicers of the plan. In addition to increasing public transit affordability, the practicing of cycling infrastructure is also considered not practical and operative. In spite of the fact that cycling infrastructure is environmentally friendly, it is not effective to practice it for long-distance trips because it could be time-consuming. For example, the winter in Alberta is quite long and the weather is unstable with sub-zero temperature and everlasting snowing frequently seen. Riding a bike everyday would become an unpleasant and ineffective trip. Consequently, infrastructure and boulevards for bicycling transportation would simply be dumped in winter months. Given the fact above, investing in cycling infrastructure could be a wise decision in short-term, but not an acceptable and effective proposal in winter.
The second proposal is also considered inappropriate. it is suggested that adequate coverage to new developing regions should be implemented to the bus service and 24 hour, 15 minute frequency bus rapid transit should be established along major arterial roads around the city, it indeed improves the effectiveness of urban transportation. However, the increased frequency of bus traveling on the roads would bring about even severer traffic problems and congestion. In order to increase the effectiveness and reduce the congestions, the major, and its branch roads, would be gradually replaced by freeways. This would, in turn, greatly hinder the activities of pedestrians in the central area of the city, which is not acceptable for the people who are affected by it. Simultaneously, to remove the roads and build up the freeways, the government would have to make huge investment in addition of the six million dollars already spent in five years. This does not meet up the criteria of being affordable.