Calgary Roads

[You Need A Thneed]

Forgot to post the link to that, it's from StoneGate Landing's map page here: http://www.stonegatelanding.ca/maps_r.php

No doubt drawn up long before the downgrade of Métis... though I much prefer the flow of traffic as seen on this map.

Either way, somebody's planning to build CHB to 4 lanes between Stoney and Deerfoot though, right? It's quickly going to become McKnight v2 as these developments start moving forward.

The city's report when they downgraded showed that traffic would actually flow better on Metis despite it being downgraded - thanks to the additional intersections on Metis (as backwards as that might sound. However, lights could be green on Metis for longer periods of time.

CHB is being twinned right now between 36th Street and Metis - along with the twinning of 36th Street between Airport Trail and CHB. remember that these are paid for by the developer, not the city. The rest of CHB will be twinned at the developer's expense when they want to develop the land. Considering that cityscape is starting, that will likely bring about the twinning of CHB between Metis and 60th St (maybe until the community entrance part way) The section between Barlow and 36th Will still need to be done, however, in 9 months or less, a significant portion of that traffic might head down 36th and go through the tunnel instead of continuing on CHB.

CHB is intended to be an urban blvd, not a major arterial, at least East of Metis. The land at the corner of CHB/60th St is zoned to be Zero property line, 20+ story buildings. The LRT station will quite likely be underground, underneath that intersection, similar to 69th St W, but with density around the station like what is planned for Westbrook.

The planned nature of CHB is one of the major problems with relying on it instead of the tunnel. There are something like 4 intersections planned between 36th st and Barlow.

[fusili]

I get the anti-road sentiment and induced demand thing, but the SB basketweave just after Southland Dr would be massively beneficial, require no bulldozing, and not really induce any additional demand. Everything else... yeah. Good luck. :haha:

Fair point. I also agree with the need for the NB Deerfoot to WB Glenmore flyover. But, in general, Alberta Transportation looks at any project, immediately disregards any budgetary constraints, does a couple lines of coke, and just goes nuts.

[Acey]

The traffic on Métis is already bad. I think the lack of an interchange with CHB is going to really hurt 10 years from now.

[Acey]

Fair point. I also agree with the need for the NB Deerfoot to WB Glenmore flyover. But, in general, Alberta Transportation looks at any project, immediately disregards any budgetary constraints, does a couple lines of coke, and just goes nuts.

To be fair, I think the general idea of that particular diagram is to do exactly that, since they call it "long term requirements" as opposed to "long term what we can feasibly build given the sad fact that we have no money". Just disregard any constraints and show the number of lanes that would be required for traffic to flow at an acceptable level in 30 years, or whenever they're predicting.

[You Need A Thneed]

The traffic on Métis is already bad. I think the lack of an interchange with CHB is going to really hurt 10 years from now.

Traffic patterns with the tunnel, fully twinned roads, and actual services in the area with the area built out are going to be significantly different then they are now. A fully built Airport Trail from Harvest Hills Blvd to Stoney makes it the backbone of the roads system for the area. Metis won't have to do that job, and especially not with a two lane stretch. People will also be able to cross CHB on several roads other than Metis.

Metis will still be a road similar to what Anderson Road is right now, able to move lots of traffic.

[Acey]

I must have missed it if you mentioned, what's the timeline for Airport Trail between Métis and Stoney?

[You Need A Thneed]

I must have missed it if you mentioned, what's the timeline for Airport Trail between Métis and Stoney?

60th to Stoney is already there.

36th Street to Metis is currently tied to the construction of interchanges at Airport Trail/Barlow and Airport Trail 19th Street. This came from the city's agreement with the Airport to build the tunnel. Perhaps the city can get the Airport to relent on this somewhat.

Metis to 60th St could be built, there just isn't much use for it without the 36th to Metis section. In the next five years, as Cityscape and likely the half section of land immediately south of Airport Trail between Metis and 60th St develop, the need for it will increase.

I suspect that development growth will push the city to do what it needs to do to get Airport Trail to go all the way through in the next 5 years, whether that means building the interchanges, or making an alternate deal with the airport.

[Acey]

I don't get the airport's leverage with that? The airport wants the interchanges built because connecting Airport Trail all the way to Métis from Deerfoot would create too much through traffic?

[You Need A Thneed]

I don't get the airport's leverage with that? The airport wants the interchanges built because connecting Airport Trail all the way to Métis from Deerfoot would create too much through traffic?

That is their line of thinking, yes.

[Ferreth]

Random statement / question regarding the Memorial - Deerfoot interchange:
Why did they put the LRT tracks at the same level as the auto traffic. They built separate bridges for the LRT, why not take them out of the equasion all together?

IIRC, there was serious consideration given to it at the time of construction to raising the LRT over all turn movements entirely. Even then, concern was raised about traffic FUBAR. In the end it was deemed to expensive, and the upgrade of NB Deerfoot to WB Memorial with the bridge under Memorial EB was all that was built to improve the interchange with LRT additions.

[craner]

In the future, when flyover ramps are built, and all traffic lights are eliminated, it's much simpler to do that when the tracks are at the same level as the roadway.

Assuming that the tracks would have been built 6 metres above the level of Memorial Drive, that means that future flyover ramps would have to be built 12-15 metres above Memorial Drive instead of 6 metres.
Thanks for the explaination, I assume the city didn't expect it to be 30+ years before the flyovers we're built.

[craner]

Why would they spend a fortune on LRT flyovers to avoid a minor delay on a couple of turning movements? The minor delay wasn't enough to justify spending on the flyovers for the roads, so why would it be enough to justify spending for rails.
I'm just asking - they built separate structures for the LRT anyway, would it have cost a "fortune" to raise them above the road.

[MalcolmTucker]

It was the 80s. At one point they laid off police and firefighters to deal with budget problems. Costs were definitely a concern.

[ByeByeBaby]

I'm just asking - they built separate structures for the LRT anyway, would it have cost a "fortune" to raise them above the road.

There are three spans that were built for each track, 90-95m over Nose Creek / CPR, 110-120m over Deerfoot and 40-45m over the NB Deerfoot to EB Memorial ramp. Total about 250 m. In these cases, there were no major earthworks needed, since the interchange exists. The shortest span doesn't even need a support column. If a separate structure would have been built, it would have had to start shortly after the Zoo platform (to climb enough to be over the road), and would be back on solid ground somewhere parallel to 18 St SE. That's roughly 850m, over three times as long. Furthermore, the engineering would be a lot more difficult, since the columns that were built would be much higher; that is, instead of 6.5m to provide clearance on Deerfoot, the LRT bridge deck would be 13 m high to provide clearance over both the turn movement and Deerfoot below. If I remember my structures correctly (note - there's a reason I'm in transportation and not structural engineering), doubling a column length requires squaring the strength to avoid buckling. So that adds an additional measure of cost, on top of the structure being three times as long.

The two movements that cross the LRT are WB Memorial to SB Deerfoot and SB Deerfoot to EB Memorial.
Volumes (2011 count; 7AM-7PM) are:
NB Deerfoot to: WB Memorial - 3,100
NB Deerfoot - 42,200
EB Memorial - 14,300
SB Deerfoot to: EB Memorial - 7,100
SB Deerfoot - 38,800
WB Memorial - 10,200
EB Memorial to: SB Deerfoot - 5,800
EB Memorial - 14,000
NB Deerfoot - 3,200
WB Memorial to: NB Deerfoot - 10,900
WB Memorial - 17,700
SB Deerfoot - 7,800
About 15K vehicles 7AM-7PM, that's only 8.5% of all traffic, and around 20K vehicles per day. Roads with similar volumes include Ogden Road at the Bonnybrook waste water plant, 68 St NE south of McKnight and Elbow Dr. south of Heritage.

[Acey]

It is a critical intersection... connecting Deerfoot to downtown. Shame it's so sub-par.

[craner]

^^Wow! That was thorough - thanks BBB.
Would be nice if that interchange was upgraded.

[MalcolmTucker]

Way less interactions than 45 St at 17th Ave SW, and many were prepared to have that be a level crossing.

[You Need A Thneed]

Tunnel Construction makes deadline. - Calgary Herald Article (http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/calgary/Airport+tunnel+construction+makes+deadline/8733320/story.html)

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BQiJ0xaCEAEvSlm.jpg:large
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BQiJgT0CAAE8ra7.jpg:large
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BQiGJ4gCAAIpCti.jpg:large
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BQiCAyBCQAE-krq.jpg:large
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BQiAhTLCMAIu_m2.jpg:large
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BQiASYyCAAAlbpb.jpg:large

[Dmajackson]

I was looking through the SELRT plans today and I noticed a little corner of the proposed Shepard/Ogden/Glenmore interchange. Does anyone happen to know if it will simply be a standard diamond style interchange on what is currently 24 ST or what is the idea along there?

Also they recently constructed the connector road between Shepard Rd and 24 ST SE. It's not open yet due to some low powerlines.

[CalgaryLankan]

Airport trail will be connected all the way through to 96th Avenue sometime in the next ten days or so according to CBC Radio. They will be only using the South-side lanes, while the bridge on the North-side that goes over Nose Creek is fixed. First vehicle to cross over will be a route 300 bus.

As per Calgary Transit website it seems to be 11.00 AM on Tuesday, Aug 6th.

http://www.calgarytransit.com/route_maps/rte300.html

[Full Mountain]

Does anyone know if the single lane bridge on Bow Tr/9th Ave over 14th Street is just going to be replaced or are the merging it with the other bridge and removing the separation?

[Chealion]

Does anyone know if the single lane bridge on Bow Tr/9th Ave over 14th Street is just going to be replaced or are the merging it with the other bridge and removing the separation?

Just rehabilitation: http://www.calgary.ca/Transportation/Roads/Pages/Road-Maintenance/Bridge-rehabilitation/9-Ave-bridge-over-14-St-SW-bridge-rehab.aspx

[Full Mountain]

Just rehabilitation: http://www.calgary.ca/Transportation/Roads/Pages/Road-Maintenance/Bridge-rehabilitation/9-Ave-bridge-over-14-St-SW-bridge-rehab.aspx

Seems closer to rebuild than rehab....:cool:

[ByeByeBaby]

Seems closer to rebuild than rehab....:cool:

There's a good reason it has had a heavy truck ban for years and years now.

[mersar]

Sounds like 96 ave extension to harvest hills is good to go. Calgary Transit is rerouting route 300 to use the extension as of Tuesday morning.

[suburbia]

Sounds like 96 ave extension to harvest hills is good to go. Calgary Transit is rerouting route 300 to use the extension as of Tuesday morning.

It is now open:
http://newsroom.calgary.ca/pr/calgary/96-avenue-n-e-extension-opens-247763.aspx

[J-D]

http://calgary.ctvnews.ca/extra-lanes-proposed-for-highway-22x-1.1404537

I thought they were planning on removing those lights? :shrug:

[DoubleK]

http://calgary.ctvnews.ca/extra-lanes-proposed-for-highway-22x-1.1404537

I thought they were planning on removing those lights? :shrug:

They can't without restricting movements. That said, this is a 100% increase in the amount of east-west traffic that can move through the signal on each cycle.

[Yahoo]

What are you talking about? Stoney is a minimum of 3 lanes in each direction in the Ultimate stage, everywhere.

Take a drive on north on Stoney under Deerfoot and you'll see what I'm talking about. Google Streetview shows it perfectly - Stoney curves south under Deerfoot (which is strange in itself having the freeway curve like that) and it's only designed for 2 lanes. https://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&ll=51.174285,-113.970623&spn=0.085776,0.129776&t=m&z=13&layer=c&cbll=51.17406,-114.001836&panoid=T7PGDXfSyXmBP0CwOyt4yw&cbp=12,100.42,,0,0.31

The Deerfoot bridge looks like it could "maybe" support 3 lanes under it, but not easily. Stoney at that point is designed as a 2 lane road - permanently. It's certainly not built to the standard width along the rest of Stoney and doesn't appear to be easily expanded (unless those slopes at the sides don't actually need to be there - which makes me wonder why they'd bother with the dirt slope and concrete if it isn't necessary). Perhaps pulling a "city of Calgary" trick and just repaint the lines and forget about shoulders could easily be done, but that introduces a safety problem the province doesn't like. Certainly not on a brand new freeway one would think.

Driving Stoney there now just seems strange heading north or south - lanes ending, things seeming narrow. In contrast to most of Stoney which seems easy, wide, and obvious. There are no physical reasons why it was built this way that I can tell. It was just a big empty cow field where space is essentially unlimited. Could this be like the famous Crowchild Trail mistake of decades ago where they forgot an on ramp near downtown? (and now we're paying for it). Other mistakes like an entire LRT station being built a foot or two out of place in the NE show that builders, designers, inspectors, and engineers make silly mistakes all the time.

Let's not assume Stoney was properly or perfectly designed. It's mostly good, but look at what was it - Shaganappi and Stoney where they had that insane stop sign on a merge that was fixed about a year ago? They'll never learn, you don't build something that looks and feels like a merge when it's actually a yield or a stop. You just create an extremely dangerous situation - which was fixed when enough people (non planners and non designers) complained I assume. Or perhaps there was a horrific accident that triggered the very simple design fix. (See 16th avenue and Sarcee for a similar dangerous flaw that still isn't fixed)

And as for the future - we all know "ultimate" means nothing. Look at Crowchild or Deerfoot as examples of roads that were built right for the time but have proved to be inadequate. Requirements change and the city grows so building a freeway with the assumption that 3 lanes are all we'll ever need is a big mistake. Especially at an intersection of 2 freeways. If you look at the design of most bridges along North Stoney there is plenty of room for easy lane expansion beyond 3 lanes. Except at Deerfoot. It's true that a lot of traffic will turn onto Deerfoot, but as the city grows and that industrial area fills out who knows. 3 lanes is hardly massive. And they only build it to support 2!

In contrast - the ultimate stage Crowchild trail overpass over Stoney seems overbuilt and very wide (plus there is that extra unneeded mystery lane heading west on Crowchild that will perhaps someday become needed - although I don't see how). The unfortunate design at Scenic Acres and the reluctance to build proper wide bridges over the river means Stoney will narrow at that section forever, but it looks like Stoney at Crowchild could support 8 lanes in each direction easily. I love leaving room for the future, but even if we wanted that many lanes it wouldn't work farther south.

I'm just saying as an uneducated arm chair designer member of the public. Crowchild "looks" like they built too wide of an overpass, and at Deerfoot it seems too narrow. No need to get upset. It's only future generations that will care. IMHO

[Yahoo]

And the bulk of Deerfoot was designed forty years ago. Just be glad Blackfoot didn't become the North/South main thoroughfare as originally planned.

I love to see people whine about stuff built for a city of 500k back when the city was 300k. It makes me laugh.

:shrug: I guess it's whining when someone tries to anticipate the future? All some of the people here do is try to encourage (and complain/whine lol) future thinking. Comments about mistakes or issues are great - especially if they result in better designs in the future.

Sure, when Calgary was a fort a 2 lane road was inconceivable. But when your city is a booming 300k people I don't think it's a stretch to think that someday we'd reach 500k. Sometimes a simple inexpensive - or free - design change could make it easier for the future. But don't you think designers could take 30 minutes to discuss the future when they build things, rather than just think about current traffic?

For example - imagine the cost savings if the LRT platforms would have had utilities built anticipating 4 car stations back in the day? Imagine if they wouldn't have build a relatively new road like CHB with houses inexplicably lining the roadway in some sections. Or when 16th avenue became the TCH someone would have assume the "H" in TCH meant highway. Future generations would thank us. I know sometimes things are build intentionally to prevent further expansion, but thinking 50 years into the future is a no brainer don't you think? Most structures have at least a 50 year lifespan. And future generations often have a change of plans and decide that "Lakeview" or whatever never should have been built without thinking about the future.

I guess you'll be here 30 years from now laughing at all the people complaining about the whiners about projects built in 2013. "who could have predicted we'd have 1.5 million people in Calgary" you'll say. :)

[Mazrim]

Take a drive on north on Stoney under Deerfoot and you'll see what I'm talking about. Google Streetview shows it perfectly - Stoney curves south under Deerfoot and it's only designed for 2 lanes. https://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&ll=51.174285,-113.970623&spn=0.085776,0.129776&t=m&z=13&layer=c&cbll=51.17406,-114.001836&panoid=T7PGDXfSyXmBP0CwOyt4yw&cbp=12,100.42,,0,0.31

The Deerfoot bridge looks like it could "maybe" support 3 lanes under it, but not easily. Stoney at that point is designed as a 2 lane road - permanently.
It's already paved for three lanes and ample shoulders...I'm not sure what you're getting at. In the streeview, the left shoulder is big enough for a lane, easily. I even went to the design drawings and checked the plan and section views to make sure I wasn't off. It's listed for three and will be three in the future. Sorry.

[Full Mountain]

Take a drive on north on Stoney under Deerfoot and you'll see what I'm talking about. Google Streetview shows it perfectly - Stoney curves south under Deerfoot (which is strange in itself having the freeway curve like that) and it's only designed for 2 lanes. https://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&ll=51.174285,-113.970623&spn=0.085776,0.129776&t=m&z=13&layer=c&cbll=51.17406,-114.001836&panoid=T7PGDXfSyXmBP0CwOyt4yw&cbp=12,100.42,,0,0.31

The Deerfoot bridge looks like it could "maybe" support 3 lanes under it, but not easily. Stoney at that point is designed as a 2 lane road - permanently. It's certainly not built to the standard width along the rest of Stoney and doesn't appear to be easily expanded (unless those slopes at the sides don't actually need to be there - which makes me wonder why they'd bother with the dirt slope and concrete if it isn't necessary). Perhaps pulling a "city of Calgary" trick and just repaint the lines and forget about shoulders could easily be done, but that introduces a safety problem the province doesn't like. Certainly not on a brand new freeway one would think.

It's already paved for three lanes and ample shoulders...I'm not sure what you're getting at. In the streeview, the left shoulder is big enough for a lane, easily. I even went to the design drawings and checked the plan and section views to make sure I wasn't off. It's listed for three and will be three in the future. Sorry.

See above also once the sloping abutments are removed you can easily fit 2-3 more lanes through those underpasses.

For example - imagine the cost savings if the LRT platforms would have had utilities built anticipating 4 car stations back in the day?

They all were built for that, look at the time period that it took to convert a station like Whitehorn to 4 cars, all the piles have been there since the station opened 25+ years ago, running utilities at that time would have been a waste as the advancement in technology would have rendered them useless and would have required them to be re run now anyway

[Yahoo]

It's already paved for three lanes and ample shoulders...I'm not sure what you're getting at. In the streeview, the left shoulder is big enough for a lane, easily. I even went to the design drawings and checked the plan and section views to make sure I wasn't off. It's listed for three and will be three in the future. Sorry.

Maybe it's paved for 3 lanes now - but that would mean removing the shoulder wouldn't it? Obviously I never stopped and took out a tape measure, but as I said it "seems" narrow there. Maybe there is room for another lane and a wide shoulder. When you're driving it looks and feels like there is only room for 2 lanes. Perhaps the surrounding walls and odd curve in the road make it seem narrower than it looks.

I guess removing the abutments and building retaining walls would also help add even more lanes someday.

But you must agree that it definitely doesn't have the wide - room for expansion - feel that the rest of the road has. It feels like an off ramp, and if you squeeze more lanes in there the narrowness "feel" of the road under deerfoot will be increased.

[Yahoo]

They all were built for that, look at the time period that it took to convert a station like Whitehorn to 4 cars, all the piles have been there since the station opened 25+ years ago, running utilities at that time would have been a waste as the advancement in technology would have rendered them useless and would have required them to be re run now anyway

I'm just suggesting that thinking about the future would be smart, and it doesn't seem like it's always done. Planning seems to focus on the needs of today and perhaps 10 years from now - and as a result we often seem to "fix" things that were built just a few years earlier. I'm sure the tracks and fencing could have been laid to anticipate a 4 car station in the future. I know given the cost it's obviously more difficult than just building a longer platform (why is that? Do the 4 car trains require upgrades to the electrical system?). From what I read they did anticipate underground LRT downtown and have tried to make that a little easier in the future. Even though it might be 100 years until it's built I hope they aren't running utilities in the way when they do new construction.

Look at Stoney Trail north. The first section ever built. They put up light poles. Then moved them over a few feet when another lane was added. Then moved them again. Like they didn't know another lane would be added. Sure, there might be a perfectly good reason not to put them in their ultimate spot - but it's not obvious to the general public. Perhaps putting the light poles in the center would have saved some money and trouble? Especially considering future upgrades were planned from day 1.

[MalcolmTucker]

Take a drive on north on Stoney under Deerfoot and you'll see what I'm talking about. Google Streetview shows it perfectly - Stoney curves south under Deerfoot (which is strange in itself having the freeway curve like that) and it's only designed for 2 lanes. https://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&ll=51.174285,-113.970623&spn=0.085776,0.129776&t=m&z=13&layer=c&cbll=51.17406,-114.001836&panoid=T7PGDXfSyXmBP0CwOyt4yw&cbp=12,100.42,,0,0.31


You can take out the slanted earth with some retaining walls and earth bolting or whatever it is called. Instant alot more room. But for now they are saving maintenance.

Oops, didn't see the additional messages.

[YYCguys]

Not sure if this was posted or not recently, but I see that 96th Avenue NE, connecting to Deerfoot and Airport Trail from the west, is open, albeit not fully. Just a minor-ish construction project that took FOREVER, in true Calgary fashion!

[suburbia]

Not sure if this was posted or not recently, but I see that 96th Avenue NE, connecting to Deerfoot and Airport Trail from the west, is open, albeit not fully. Just a minor-ish construction project that took FOREVER, in true Calgary fashion!

Any construction project involving four bridges, including a couple over tracks that you can't really shut down, can't be considered all that minor-ish.

[DoubleK]

http://calgary.ctvnews.ca/extra-lanes-proposed-for-highway-22x-1.1404537

I thought they were planning on removing those lights? :shrug:

They are set up on 22X and look to be starting on removal of the concrete median.

[You Need A Thneed]

Paving is happening today for the realigned 84th Street north of 17th Ave SE today. The new intersection is further away from Stoney.

36th St NE is coming along south of Country Hills Blvd, looks like paving is imminent. That intersection is going to look vastly different with County Hills Blvd also being widened.

Peigan Trail is also going to be extended so that the Peigan Tr/84th Street intersection is further east. Right now, there is virtually no space between the on/off ramps and the intersection.

[Acey]

Of potential future bottlenecks on Stoney, EB Stoney under Deerfoot doesn't even rank on the list, because it's not a bottleneck. The biggest "holy shit that will be expensive" thing is the 2nd bridge over the Bow, which will be a 3rd the cost of the entire SE leg, give or take?

Also, I'd bet the SB Symons Valley to EB Stoney movement is going to fail at some point. That will be an unpleasant fix. I can't think of any other movements on the whole route subject to imminent failure.

[Blue_Cypress]

I saw this the other day and meant to share.

We could stand to learn a few things from the dutch. (http://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2011/04/07/state-of-the-art-bikeway-design-or-is-it/)

[lineman]

:shrug: I guess it's whining when someone tries to anticipate the future? All some of the people here do is try to encourage (and complain/whine lol) future thinking. Comments about mistakes or issues are great - especially if they result in better designs in the future.

....

I guess you'll be here 30 years from now laughing at all the people complaining about the whiners about projects built in 2013. "who could have predicted we'd have 1.5 million people in Calgary" you'll say. :)

If we're having the same discussion in thirty years, I'll likely ask why you didn't become a civil engineer or planner and do something about it.

[YYCguys]

Blue Cypress, that is such a no brainer idea! Before our bike lanes are built, CofC road engineers should have a peek at this. I'm afraid to ride my bike on most of the busier Calgary streets and would love to see this implemented!

[fusili]

I saw this the other day and meant to share.

We could stand to learn a few things from the dutch. (http://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2011/04/07/state-of-the-art-bikeway-design-or-is-it/)

I have been to the Netherlands a couple of times (my family is from there) and the bicycle infrastructure is absolutely amazing. Amsterdam has a freaking multi-level bicycle parkade outside Centraal Station. Every small town has bike lanes everywhere, and more public bike racks than you can count. I remember going to towns like Zierikzee, Goes and Middleburg and seeing hundreds of bikes locked up in the main square. The cycling culture is fantastic there. Plus, tall Dutch women on bicycles with good posture..... :yes::yes:

[sportsdude]

Hey SSP Posters,

What are your opinions about cheap solutions to ease traffic congestion throughout the city until the capital money can be found from the province and/or feds.

My one suggestion which I see partially coming into effect with the 24th Ave N.W intersection starting soon along with the University semester. I have seen the large improvement on Macleod Trail because of the Lake Fraser Light Trial and was wondering if a more drastic solution could be implemented.

7-9 A.M and 3:30-6:30 P.M Times in Effect

Realistic and would be only in a few hundred thousand dollars to implement and have a significant impact. More money would probably be spent on the traffic studies than the materials and labor required.

Right In/ Right Out for

5 Ave Intersection
23rd Ave Intersection
24 Ave Intersection.

Yes it would be nice to make this complete and include Kensington Road but there is so many buses that it is unrealistic until an overpass can be built which probably will not happen because of NIMBY'S.

[mersar]

Right now I don't think a RIRO at 24th Ave would be a good idea for those hours. They are twinning the left turn lane which will help in afternoon rush, but cutting off that left turn fully would likely overwhelm Brentwood Road (and bring out the "I-told-you-so's" from the community about University City being too much traffic even though it would be unrelated) as there is significant traffic using that turn to reach northbound Crowchild in the PM rush. 23rd Ave may be OK for this type of change though, but once again all the commuters from points north who currently park at McMahon would need to either take 16th Ave to Shaganappi, or cut through the University to reach 32nd and then take either Shaganappi or Brentwood Road again.

[fusili]

Right now I don't think a RIRO at 24th Ave would be a good idea for those hours. They are twinning the left turn lane which will help in afternoon rush, but cutting off that left turn fully would likely overwhelm Brentwood Road (and bring out the "I-told-you-so's" from the community about University City being too much traffic even though it would be unrelated) as there is significant traffic using that turn to reach northbound Crowchild in the PM rush. 23rd Ave may be OK for this type of change though, but once again all the commuters from points north who currently park at McMahon would need to either take 16th Ave to Shaganappi, or cut through the University to reach 32nd and then take either Shaganappi or Brentwood Road again.

Good points.

[shevallo]

Hey SSP Posters,

What are your opinions about cheap solutions to ease traffic congestion throughout the city until the capital money can be found from the province and/or feds.

My one suggestion which I see partially coming into effect with the 24th Ave N.W intersection starting soon along with the University semester. I have seen the large improvement on Macleod Trail because of the Lake Fraser Light Trial and was wondering if a more drastic solution could be implemented.

7-9 A.M and 3:30-6:30 P.M Times in Effect

Realistic and would be only in a few hundred thousand dollars to implement and have a significant impact. More money would probably be spent on the traffic studies than the materials and labor required.

Right In/ Right Out for

5 Ave Intersection
23rd Ave Intersection
24 Ave Intersection.

Yes it would be nice to make this complete and include Kensington Road but there is so many buses that it is unrealistic until an overpass can be built which probably will not happen because of NIMBY'S.

I was thinking the same thing. 24th Ave NW is a perfect example. They could do even more. It should be right-in, right-out ONLY in all directions but one. People could access 24th Ave and Crowchild via the University Drive / 24th Ave intersection for all directions except Crowchild South to 24th Ave East. That would make the commute in and out a lot quicker with minimal cost until an intersection is warranted. I think simple solutions like this should be considered at multiple locations around the city. Sure it would be a bit slower for the local residents but I'm sure they would rather detour a bit than sit in a line of cars that stretches blocks and blocks waiting for the light at Crow and 24th to change.

[Fuzz]

I use westbound 24th to southbound Crowchild all the time. How do you propose handling that route with 24th closed?

I also often come east on 24th straight across Crowchild. There is a lot of traffic that backs up on 24th in both directions. I think you would have a lot of unhappy people if you did that. They could probably speed things up a bit by adding dual turn lanes from 24th to Crowchild in both directions, and either shortening the light cycle for 24th, or lengthening the Crowchild one. There seams to be enough room now that they have taken all those houses out NW of 24th. Not sure what the plan is for that land...

[shevallo]

I use westbound 24th to southbound Crowchild all the time. How do you propose handling that route with 24th closed?

I also often come east on 24th straight across Crowchild. There is a lot of traffic that backs up on 24th in both directions. I think you would have a lot of unhappy people if you did that. They could probably speed things up a bit by adding dual turn lanes from 24th to Crowchild in both directions, and either shortening the light cycle for 24th, or lengthening the Crowchild one. There seams to be enough room now that they have taken all those houses out NW of 24th. Not sure what the plan is for that land...

Sorry, I meant right-in, right-out in all directions should be allowed. Only left turns removed.

[You Need A Thneed]

Small detail, there is now a traffic light for the first time ever at the 52nd St/16th Ave NE interchange. It became operational a few weeks ago, and let's the WB to SB traffic have a dedicated green signal. It's always just been go when there is room until now.

[Cage]

Yes it would be nice to make this complete and include Kensington Road but there is so many buses that it is unrealistic until an overpass can be built which probably will not happen because of NIMBY'S.

Out of all the intersections, Kensington Rd and Crowchild Tr is the easiest to make RIRO on a permanent basis. My reason is that Memorial Crowchild interchange can handle the traffic. Or perhaps I have completely missed something really obvious (attributed to taking Finance in Uni and not Traffic Engineering).

Bus routes most affected by the change to Kensington intersection are 1 and 305. Both these routes could be transitioned over to Memorial Drive, leaving 405 to collect local traffic on Kensington.

The lights at 5th Ave would have to remain to allow for access into both Hillhurst/kensington and Parkdale.

Biggest issue would be that Parkdale Blvd would not be able to go onto Crowchild North. As Spock says, "Needs of ther many outweigh the needs of the few". This would increase 29th street traffic and probably 5th avenue as well.

The bigger and more costly fix for Crowchild bridge would be to install traffic meters onto Bow Trail WB and 10th Avenue WB to Crowchild NB. A decent traffic light set up that would restrict people getting onto NB crowchild to 1 car every 5-10 seconds during rush hour. This would mitigate the problem of people transitioning accross two lanes of traffic on the bridge so that they can get from 10th Avenue or Bow Trail and onto Parkdale Blvd (this traffic would be incentivized onto Memorial at either 10th Street or 14th Street.

[Fuzz]

Sorry, I meant right-in, right-out in all directions should be allowed. Only left turns removed.
That's the problem.. removing left turns makes westbound 24th to southbound Crowchild tough.

[fusili]

Out of all the intersections, Kensington Rd and Crowchild Tr is the easiest to make RIRO on a permanent basis. My reason is that Memorial Crowchild interchange can handle the traffic. Or perhaps I have completely missed something really obvious (attributed to taking Finance in Uni and not Traffic Engineering).

Bus routes most affected by the change to Kensington intersection are 1 and 305. Both these routes could be transitioned over to Memorial Drive, leaving 405 to collect local traffic on Kensington.

The lights at 5th Ave would have to remain to allow for access into both Hillhurst/kensington and Parkdale.

Biggest issue would be that Parkdale Blvd would not be able to go onto Crowchild North. As Spock says, "Needs of ther many outweigh the needs of the few". This would increase 29th street traffic and probably 5th avenue as well.

The bigger and more costly fix for Crowchild bridge would be to install traffic meters onto Bow Trail WB and 10th Avenue WB to Crowchild NB. A decent traffic light set up that would restrict people getting onto NB crowchild to 1 car every 5-10 seconds during rush hour. This would mitigate the problem of people transitioning accross two lanes of traffic on the bridge so that they can get from 10th Avenue or Bow Trail and onto Parkdale Blvd (this traffic would be incentivized onto Memorial at either 10th Street or 14th Street.

Good point. I think ultimately Crowchild/Kensington can simply be a four lane overpass for Kensington with right turns only, a large traffic circle at Kensinton/Memorial and a U-Turn flyover from Memorial eastbound to memorial westbound just east of the existing overpass. I can't explain it all briefly, but that would handle all turning movements well.

As for the buses in the short term a small detour from 19th street works well and shouldn't add too much time.

[lubicon]

RIRO intersections along Crowchild PLUS the conversion of Crowchild so that more than one lane actually was continuous from 24th Avenue south would be huge and very simple to do. The lane thing in particular. Crowchild NB bogs down in a massive way because there is only ONE continuous lane over the river, through Kensington and up to 24th Avenue. All the traffic headed north of 24th has to make multiple lane changes just to keep going in a straight direction which really slows things down.

[shevallo]

That's the problem.. removing left turns makes westbound 24th to southbound Crowchild tough.

Not really. If you drive a few blocks further and turn left on University Drive South it merges onto Crowchild South.

[Fuzz]

Not really. If you drive a few blocks further and turn left on University Drive South it merges onto Crowchild South.

Either you are really confused, or I am. If you are coming west on 24th, from, say, 14th st and want to turn south on Crowchild, you can't get to University drive. Unless you are suggesting keeping 24th open straight through, and just not allowing left turns. But I don't see how that improves the situation much...

[speedog]

I use westbound 24th to southbound Crowchild all the time. How do you propose handling that route with 24th closed?

I also often come east on 24th straight across Crowchild. There is a lot of traffic that backs up on 24th in both directions. I think you would have a lot of unhappy people if you did that. They could probably speed things up a bit by adding dual turn lanes from 24th to Crowchild in both directions, and either shortening the light cycle for 24th, or lengthening the Crowchild one. There seams to be enough room now that they have taken all those houses out NW of 24th. Not sure what the plan is for that land...
Rumour has it that the nearby Catholic Church bought up and bulldozed all those homes for their future new church there.

[Dmajackson]

Sorry if this seems a bit off topic but I'm seriously wondering about this;

Why are drivers in Calgary so unbelievably rude to cyclists? And why is road rage so common in this city?

Living in the Beltline I ride along 17th Ave almost everyday. As many forumers will know because of endless parked cars there is only one usable travel lane in each direction so for my own safety I ride 1 metre from the car doors which places me in the travel lane. Every time I do this cars will fly by me (occasionally scrapping my bike with their mirrors) and some will just stay behind and lay on their horn and scream obscenities at me.

Just today I was riding home (eastbound) on 17th across from National when a minivan pulls up behind me and lays on the horn. He started screaming obscenities so already being pissed at this point from other close calls i flip him the finger and keep on going. Well this a**hole pulls up next to me and says the standard "get off the road" and demands that I fight him (and BTW this guy had his family in the car with him). He actually turns onto 6 Street and walks over to the corner thinking I'm going to stop! (Of course I just went pass him and kept watching my back until I got off the road).

Of course idiotic drivers are not just in Calgary (I was hit on my bike in Halifax a few years back) but they seem to be much more frequent. I'm wondering what other forumers thoughts are about this extensive road rage? poor drivers traning? underbuilt roads? bad attitude?

[Jimby]

^ You're lucky to be alive! I would never ride my bike down 17th Ave. I don't even want to drive my car along there!
From about 9 St to 13 St SW I ride down the alley on the south side of 17th and it is clear sailing with few hassles or killer drivers.

[You Need A Thneed]

Country Hills Blvd is now rerouted onto the new lanes that were built, between Metis and 36th Street NE.

[MasterG]

Sorry if this seems a bit off topic but I'm seriously wondering about this;

Why are drivers in Calgary so unbelievably rude to cyclists? And why is road rage so common in this city?

Living in the Beltline I ride along 17th Ave almost everyday. As many forumers will know because of endless parked cars there is only one usable travel lane in each direction so for my own safety I ride 1 metre from the car doors which places me in the travel lane. Every time I do this cars will fly by me (occasionally scrapping my bike with their mirrors) and some will just stay behind and lay on their horn and scream obscenities at me.

Just today I was riding home (eastbound) on 17th across from National when a minivan pulls up behind me and lays on the horn. He started screaming obscenities so already being pissed at this point from other close calls i flip him the finger and keep on going. Well this a**hole pulls up next to me and says the standard "get off the road" and demands that I fight him (and BTW this guy had his family in the car with him). He actually turns onto 6 Street and walks over to the corner thinking I'm going to stop! (Of course I just went pass him and kept watching my back until I got off the road).

Of course idiotic drivers are not just in Calgary (I was hit on my bike in Halifax a few years back) but they seem to be much more frequent. I'm wondering what other forumers thoughts are about this extensive road rage? poor drivers traning? underbuilt roads? bad attitude?

Oil-money fueled testosterone monkeys used to small towns is a big problem. There is a definite lack of understanding of cycling here, we are many years behind from a cultural perspective despite infrastructure improvements. It's changing, but painstakenly slowly.

The good news is that cycling is growing far faster in the inner city than any other mode and that drivers will get used to it like they have in more progressive cities. Congestion and traffic will help. the 400-hp Ram trucks that are racing to get every inch are eventually going to run out of room to behave that way. In the inner city anyways. Hopefully not too many cyclists will have to become martyrs to expedite this process.

It is amazing the hate for cyclists though. Its more than just a frustration, its genuine hatred. The intolerance is unbelievable, despite the amazing strides made for other communities and groups in the city in the past 10 years.

Btw, call the police next time. That behaviour is dangerous and unacceptable.

[fusili]

Sorry if this seems a bit off topic but I'm seriously wondering about this;

Why are drivers in Calgary so unbelievably rude to cyclists? And why is road rage so common in this city?

Living in the Beltline I ride along 17th Ave almost everyday. As many forumers will know because of endless parked cars there is only one usable travel lane in each direction so for my own safety I ride 1 metre from the car doors which places me in the travel lane. Every time I do this cars will fly by me (occasionally scrapping my bike with their mirrors) and some will just stay behind and lay on their horn and scream obscenities at me.

Just today I was riding home (eastbound) on 17th across from National when a minivan pulls up behind me and lays on the horn. He started screaming obscenities so already being pissed at this point from other close calls i flip him the finger and keep on going. Well this a**hole pulls up next to me and says the standard "get off the road" and demands that I fight him (and BTW this guy had his family in the car with him). He actually turns onto 6 Street and walks over to the corner thinking I'm going to stop! (Of course I just went pass him and kept watching my back until I got off the road).


Take 15th avenue, it is a much, much more preferable and safer route. Or 14th or 13th for that matter. I bike a lot too, but mostly on the pathways, but I understand the frustration.

However, if somebody was being an ass like this guy, putting me in physical danger and actually got out of their car to pick a fight with me, I would get off my bike and drop the guy.

[Dmajackson]

...

Btw, call the police next time. That behaviour is dangerous and unacceptable.

It's good to hear it's growing its share of the transportation modes.

I didn't call the cops because today was very long and I was already at the point of fustration that I didn't want to deal with them. In Halifax though after my "accident" (definitely not a opps I didn't see you thing) I started carrying my camera around and I would snap photos of license plates.

However, if somebody was being an ass like this guy, putting me in physical danger and actually got out of their car to pick a fight with me, I would get off my bike and drop the guy.

It didn't help the guy was 5X larger than me. He seriously looked like he could be a bouncer at Cowboys!

I do use 15 AVE from time to time but the issue with that road is the disregard for parking rules especially at intersections. The lack of visibility at most of the cross roads requires a complete stop. Also most of my destinations are on 17 AVE (I was returning from Shoppers Drug Mart today).

It should be noted that I drive a larger than normal vehicle for work so I'm in no way saying that cyclists are the only road rage targets. A five minute drive down Deerfoot in the afternoon rush will quickly confirm this.

On the flip side though I absolutely love the new 7 ST SW bike boulevard. That is a great connection to the Peace Bridge and river pathways. Hopefully there's a plan to continue the path south under the rail tracks to 10 AVE (MEC).

[Fuzz]

On the flip side though I absolutely love the new 7 ST SW bike boulevard. That is a great connection to the Peace Bridge and river pathways. Hopefully there's a plan to continue the path south under the rail tracks to 10 AVE (MEC).


Fill out the City survey,

http://fluidsurveys.com/s/calgarycentrecitycycletracknetwordsurvey1/

they are taking suggestions on locations for more cycle tracks.

[MichaelS]

I do use 15 AVE from time to time but the issue with that road is the disregard for parking rules especially at intersections. The lack of visibility at most of the cross roads requires a complete stop.


This is a big problem for motorists too. When I occasionally drive through the Beltline, I feel like I can't see any traffic as I leave an intersection. I drive a smaller, slightly lower to the ground car so visibility can be very tricky. I nose out very, very slowly and even then can't feel completely comfortable due to cars blocking my vision.

[mwalker_mw]

I'm a strong believer that a cyclist should either ride specifically in the parking lane where there is adequate room or completely take the traffic lane when there is not. Riding half-in half-out (and frequently switching back and forth) just causes confusion for everybody. As a cyclist one has the right to fully occupy a lane of traffic - where vehicles or other obstacles make safe travel in the parking lane impossible it would be better for everyone if all cyclists would do this consistently (signalling properly when doing so).

I suspect there are far fewer drivers willing to drive straight through a cyclist centred in the lane in front of them than the number who are willing to pass way to closely to one riding on the side. On the other hand I do see a number of cyclists who put themselves in this situation by riding up beside traffic queuing at a light leaving the motorist unaware there is a cyclist who has snuck up in the 12" between them and the curb on their right side.

The other side of this is the cyclist's responsibility to be making the most efficient use of that traffic lane while they are occupying it - peddling at a brisk pace and leaving it promptly when it becomes safe to do so. Too many "I'm so cool" types ambling about in traffic with no safety gear on cruiser bicycles completely ill equipped for moving and maneuvering in any sort of brisk manner.

I don't cycle as much as I'd like anymore and that is at least partly due to the high risk of becoming roadkill in this city.

[MasterG]

I'm a strong believer that a cyclist should either ride specifically in the parking lane where there is adequate room or completely take the traffic lane when there is not. Riding half-in half-out (and frequently switching back and forth) just causes confusion for everybody. As a cyclist one has the right to fully occupy a lane of traffic - where vehicles or other obstacles make safe travel in the parking lane impossible it would be better for everyone if all cyclists would do this consistently (signalling properly when doing so).

I suspect there are far fewer drivers willing to drive straight through a cyclist centred in the lane in front of them than the number who are willing to pass way to closely to one riding on the side. On the other hand I do see a number of cyclists who put themselves in this situation by riding up beside traffic queuing at a light leaving the motorist unaware there is a cyclist who has snuck up in the 12" between them and the curb on their right side.

The other side of this is the cyclist's responsibility to be making the most efficient use of that traffic lane while they are occupying it - peddling at a brisk pace and leaving it promptly when it becomes safe to do so. Too many "I'm so cool" types ambling about in traffic with no safety gear on cruiser bicycles completely ill equipped for moving and maneuvering in any sort of brisk manner.

I don't cycle as much as I'd like anymore and that is at least partly due to the high risk of becoming roadkill in this city.

Simple, painted bike-lanes can solve all the problems you listed. A reminder that not all cyclists are the 50km/h carbon fibre types. Some will saunter (i.e. the cool types), some are old, some are young and some are not in a hurry. A typically bike is 15 - 25 km/h and cars have to get used to that until dedicated infrastructure is built like bike lanes. Separated is even better, albeit probably more cost-effective in only tight high-collision areas with lots of traffic and speed (i.e. 7th street).

I am a cyclist you describe that rides straight at speed in a travel lane where I have to. It sometimes stops cars from passing or who don't mind going 20 - 30 km/h, however on a bike you are put in risk but jerks who get extra mad because passing you is harder now. All my close calls have been when I take up the lane and someone gets frustrated they can't go 50km/h in the beltline on streets like 15th ave so they try to pass me anyways at full speed when there is no room.

Really what it will take is a cultural shift to thinking cars aren't supposed to go 50km/h in the beltline (except maybe 11th and 12th). There are too many people, pedestrians, cyclists and cars to drive faster than 20 - 40 safely on the back roads.

The douches acting aggressively around bikes will eventually lose out, the Beltline increases to densify and that kind of recklessness will no longer be possible given increasing congestion of cycling and peds.

[mersar]

Construction has begun as of this past weekend on two small 'lets make 14th Street SW move a bit better in the rush hour' projects. Re-designing the intersection at Heritage (new longer turn lanes into the park and a dual left onto east bound Heritage) and turning the current double left turn from 90th onto northbound 14th into a triple left turn (probably the only one in the city except maybe somewhere downtown). Scheduled for completion in late October.

14th and 90th
(http://www.calgary.ca/Aldermen/Documents/Ward-offices/Ward-11/Website%20PDFs/14%20St-90%20Av%20SW-intersection-work.pdf)
14th and Heritage (http://www.calgary.ca/Aldermen/Documents/Ward-offices/Ward-11/Website%20PDFs/14%20St-Heritage%20Dr%20SW-intersection-work.pdf)

Maps thanks for Alderman Pincott's Ward 11 website.

[Boris2k7]

^ You're lucky to be alive! I would never ride my bike down 17th Ave. I don't even want to drive my car along there!
From about 9 St to 13 St SW I ride down the alley on the south side of 17th and it is clear sailing with few hassles or killer drivers.

Yeah, same here. I go out of my way to avoid driving on 17th. I'd sooner walk the entire length of it. Too many pedestrians staring at their phones, inattentive drivers, and cyclists who seem to have a death wish. I take a lot of care when passing cyclists, but nothing is going to save your ass if you swerve right in front of my Jeep...

[lubicon]

Why are drivers in Calgary so unbelievably rude to cyclists? And why is road rage so common in this city?

Drivers are just plain rude, not just to cyclists but to everyone. This City has a 'me first' attitude that has found it's way into many parts of life including driving (and I include cyclists in this as well, they are not immune). There is a complete lack of either knowledge or caring when it comes to driving in this City. I see so many people who would gladly run over their grandma if it would get them 10 seconds ahead in traffic.

[fusili]

Simple, painted bike-lanes can solve all the problems you listed. A reminder that not all cyclists are the 50km/h carbon fibre types. Some will saunter (i.e. the cool types), some are old, some are young and some are not in a hurry. A typically bike is 15 - 25 km/h and cars have to get used to that until dedicated infrastructure is built like bike lanes. Separated is even better, albeit probably more cost-effective in only tight high-collision areas with lots of traffic and speed (i.e. 7th street).

I am a cyclist you describe that rides straight at speed in a travel lane where I have to. It sometimes stops cars from passing or who don't mind going 20 - 30 km/h, however on a bike you are put in risk but jerks who get extra mad because passing you is harder now. All my close calls have been when I take up the lane and someone gets frustrated they can't go 50km/h in the beltline on streets like 15th ave so they try to pass me anyways at full speed when there is no room.

Really what it will take is a cultural shift to thinking cars aren't supposed to go 50km/h in the beltline (except maybe 11th and 12th). There are too many people, pedestrians, cyclists and cars to drive faster than 20 - 40 safely on the back roads.

The douches acting aggressively around bikes will eventually lose out, the Beltline increases to densify and that kind of recklessness will no longer be possible given increasing congestion of cycling and peds.

I want a 50km Carbon Fiber bike!! I got a stupid Kona Dew right now, it does the trick, but I don't think anyone really goes that fast cycling on city roads. I would say 25km is pretty fast for street cycling. I can really cook it on a straight, flat segment, but that is usually on a highway or on the path. It is hard to get up to speed cycling in the city because of all the starting/stopping. Hell, even professional cyclists only average about 40km on a race (they will get up to 70km on a long flat portion, but that is absolutely insane in my opinion). The fastest I've gone on a none-downhill is probably about 40km, and that was with a mean tailwind and a long flat segment.

I agree about the cycling lanes though. I am a pretty confident street cyclist, and I will go on most secondary roads, but there are areas where we just need cycle lanes and painted lanes are probably the best start.

[MalcolmTucker]

Kona Dews are pretty sweet. But on flat roads hitting anything above 40 km/h is only possible for a short burst. Dews are pretty indestructible. Have almost 5000 km on mine and still on the original tubes.

[Cage]

Sorry if this seems a bit off topic but I'm seriously wondering about this;

Why are drivers in Calgary so unbelievably rude to cyclists?

Comparisons between Calgary and Halifax WRT cyclists don't result in a lot of comparable roads. For example; Halifax's comparable to 17th Avenue is perhaps Quinpool Rd. for about 4 blocks with about quarter of the traffic problems with alternatives (Pepperelll and Shirley) that are reasonably easy to handle. 17th Avenue is 12 blocks long and does not have a ready available detour (10th Avenue is the closest viable alternative).

I do however see rudeness on both sides for the driver cyclist equation. The drivers are rude in their reaction to cyclists presence, but the cyclist is also rude in putting their desires ahead of others needs for efficient transport (this being the cyclist knowly causes harm to others on the road by slowing down traffic and forcing others to make accomodations). In other cities this is not a major issue because the amount of motorist harm is infrequent enough that it is tolerable for the motorist.

[MasterG]

Comparisons between Calgary and Halifax WRT cyclists don't result in a lot of comparable roads. For example; Halifax's comparable to 17th Avenue is perhaps Quinpool Rd. for about 4 blocks with about quarter of the traffic problems with alternatives (Pepperelll and Shirley) that are reasonably easy to handle. 17th Avenue is 12 blocks long and does not have a ready available detour (10th Avenue is the closest viable alternative).

I do however see rudeness on both sides for the driver cyclist equation. The drivers are rude in their reaction to cyclists presence, but the cyclist is also rude in putting their desires ahead of others needs for efficient transport (this being the cyclist knowly causes harm to others on the road by slowing down traffic and forcing others to make accomodations). In other cities this is not a major issue because the amount of motorist harm is infrequent enough that it is tolerable for the motorist.

I largely agree. The solution is dedicated road space for cyclists. Calgary is falling way behind on cycling infrastructure compared to most of North America. 7th street cycletrack is a start, but it is expensive and only is needed in specific cooridors downtown. So much would be accomplished with painted lines throughout the Beltline. Hell, 11th and 12th are wide enough for one each without even losing any auto-lanes. Same goes with 10th ave (both directions).

17th Ave westbound really could fit one too, its too narrow for 2 travel + parking, its really a 2.5 lane road pretending to fit 3 lanes of cars.

There really needs to be a whole-hearted effort for the inner city to recieve bike lanes. The numbers are already there to justify lanes throughout, they would only grow once people actually feel safe on a bike.

[fusili]

Kona Dews are pretty sweet. But on flat roads hitting anything above 40 km/h is only possible for a short burst. Dews are pretty indestructible. Have almost 5000 km on mine and still on the original tubes.

Really? I've popped at least 5 tubes on mine now. I think each time its been the rear tube too. Damn. It is a pretty sturdy bike though.

They are pretty good for a hybrid, but I want a nice carbon fibre road bike next year for the Ride to Conquer Cancer. I did it this year and two years ago on the Kona. This year I did really well, but I would get passed on the flats by my friends on road bikes. But then I would crush them on the hills. LOL.


Maybe not the right thread for this, but anyone have recommendations on a good entry-level road bike? I am looking at sub $1500, and I need a big frame (62cm).

[MalcolmTucker]

Painted lanes aren't any safer than no lanes. But is the perception of safety worth it?

[MasterG]

Painted lanes aren't any safer than no lanes. But is the perception of safety worth it?

They do improve ridership though, significantly. More cycling = more awareness and less accidents in the long run.

[Rusty van Reddick]

Drivers on any stretch like 17th are going to be rude to cyclists just as they are rude to other drivers. It's not made for cycling. If you persist in cycling on it, you're going to have problems. Same as on any similar road in any city.

I've mentioned that I'll take 17th from 14 to 11 St but I learned my lesson on one attempt to head the opposite direction. Never again. Bike down a parallel street or walk. Has NOTHING to do with Calgary drivers being ruder than those in other cities.

[DizzyEdge]

Really? I've popped at least 5 tubes on mine now. I think each time its been the rear tube too. Damn. It is a pretty sturdy bike though.

They are pretty good for a hybrid, but I want a nice carbon fibre road bike next year for the Ride to Conquer Cancer. I did it this year and two years ago on the Kona. This year I did really well, but I would get passed on the flats by my friends on road bikes. But then I would crush them on the hills. LOL.


Maybe not the right thread for this, but anyone have recommendations on a good entry-level road bike? I am looking at sub $1500, and I need a big frame (62cm).

You should start a Calgary bike thread, I'd be interested in the conversation.

[MalcolmTucker]

Really? I've popped at least 5 tubes on mine now. I think each time its been the rear tube too. Damn. It is a pretty sturdy bike though.

They are pretty good for a hybrid, but I want a nice carbon fibre road bike next year for the Ride to Conquer Cancer. I did it this year and two years ago on the Kona. This year I did really well, but I would get passed on the flats by my friends on road bikes. But then I would crush them on the hills. LOL.


Maybe not the right thread for this, but anyone have recommendations on a good entry-level road bike? I am looking at sub $1500, and I need a big frame (62cm).
MEC is really good. Should have reasonable end of season deals soon too.

[Yahoo]

Sharing a lane of traffic between vehicles and bikes just isn't possible. Lanes aren't designed to have room for both. Anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional. We have to live with the realities of life, not how we hope things should be. Bikes simply shouldn't be allowed to take a lane of traffic - for their own safety. It just isn't safe outside of uncongested residential areas. I'll go to great lengths to stay off of main roads when biking. It's just common sense.

As for taking over traffic lanes and giving them to bikes - that's just wrong too. I walk by one of these downtown every day and it's a huge flop. I've counted 3 bikes, 2 skateboarders and 2 joggers since it opened. (Lol, I can't wait for bikers to start protesting people jogging and skateboarding in their lanes! It works both ways hahaha). I cross the lane as a pedestrian every day - 4 times a day, and it's crazy how no bikes use it! I even saw one bike rider taking up a lane of traffic instead of driving in the bike lane. This kind of arrogance doesn't help the situation.

People get frustrated because bikes are slower, harder to see, are unpredictable, and yes - they frequently break laws and are rude to drivers. Many act as if it's up to everyone else to watch out for them - when they don't seem to care about driving safely themselves.

I know there will be lots of people mad about this post, but bike lanes shouldn't be in traffic. Our city is growing, so there isn't room to get rid of vehicle lanes. Bike paths need to be built away from roads - and yes, if there is a bike path in the area then bikes need to be outright banned from roads.

The situation is becoming worse since engineers, planners, and designers claim that safety is a #1 priority, but most new roads in Calgary have little to no shoulders. Provincial roads like Stoney and Deerfoot have them, but main roads in Calgary rarely do - likely to save money at the expense of safety. Leaving bikes no choice but to drive in traffic. If roads had proper shoulders then this issue would be easy. Just tell bikes to drive in the safer shoulders - which I'm sure most riders would prefer anyway.

If people insist on driving on busy main roads with their bikes they should be trained, licensed, registered and insured - just like every other vehicle on the road.

Remember, drivers get mad because they don't want to get in an accident. It doesn't matter if it's a person on a bike or in a car. If you are causing an unsafe situation then people get mad at you.

If people are always honking at you then you need to look at one person - yourself - since it's pretty likely you who are acting like the jerk. Seriously, people don't honk at people when they're being safe. People honk because you're creating an unsafe situation and expect others to protect you even though you're causing the danger. (this goes for bike riders AND drivers who get honked at a lot). Nobody has ever honked at me - in a car or on my bike. Because I drive safely.

One bike rider in our elevator comments about how he likes to drive on the dashed lines between the cars "and people sure get mad at me". He didn't have a clue that people were mad because they didn't want to kill someone on their way to work. Man what a fool.

Pitting vehicles (and pedestrians) against bikes is wrong, but mayor N seems to be fueling the conflict by encouraging unsafe interaction. Wishing it was safe doesn't make it safe. Telling people to all get along won't make it safe. Think of it this way. If you walked in a lane of traffic and got hit people would think you're an idiot. A bike in traffic is no different than a pedestrian, skateboarder, or roller skater in traffic.

[fusili]

Sharing a lane of traffic between vehicles and bikes just isn't possible. Lanes aren't designed to have room for both. Anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional. We have to live with the realities of life, not how we hope things should be. Bikes simply shouldn't be allowed to take a lane of traffic - for their own safety. It just isn't safe outside of uncongested residential areas. I'll go to great lengths to stay off of main roads when biking. It's just common sense.

As for taking over traffic lanes and giving them to bikes - that's just wrong too. I walk by one of these downtown every day and it's a huge flop. I've counted 3 bikes, 2 skateboarders and 2 joggers since it opened. (Lol, I can't wait for bikers to start protesting people jogging and skateboarding in their lanes! It works both ways hahaha). I cross the lane as a pedestrian every day - 4 times a day, and it's crazy how no bikes use it! I even saw one bike rider taking up a lane of traffic instead of driving in the bike lane. This kind of arrogance doesn't help the situation.

People get frustrated because bikes are slower, harder to see, are unpredictable, and yes - they frequently break laws and are rude to drivers. Many act as if it's up to everyone else to watch out for them - when they don't seem to care about driving safely themselves.

I know there will be lots of people mad about this post, but bike lanes shouldn't be in traffic. Our city is growing, so there isn't room to get rid of vehicle lanes. Bike paths need to be built away from roads - and yes, if there is a bike path in the area then bikes need to be outright banned from roads.

If people insist on driving on busy main roads with their bikes they should be trained, licensed, registered and insured - just like every other vehicle on the road.

Remember, drivers get mad because they don't want to get in an accident. It doesn't matter if it's a person on a bike or in a car. If you are causing an unsafe situation then people get mad at you.

If people are always honking at you then you need to look at one person - yourself - since it's pretty likely you who are acting like the jerk. Seriously, people don't honk at people when they're being safe. People honk because you're creating an unsafe situation and expect others to protect you even though you're causing the danger. (this goes for bike riders AND drivers who get honked at a lot)

Pitting vehicles (and pedestrians) against bikes is wrong, but mayor N seems to be fueling the conflict by encouraging unsafe interaction. Wishing it was safe doesn't make it safe. Telling people to all get along won't make it safe. Think of it this way. If you walked in a lane of traffic and got hit people would think you're an idiot. A bike in traffic is no different than a pedestrian, skateboarder, or roller skater in traffic.

This is so many kinds of wrong I don't know where to start.

[MasterG]

Sharing a lane of traffic between vehicles and bikes just isn't possible. Lanes aren't designed to have room for both. Anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional. We have to live with the realities of life, not how we hope things should be. Bikes simply shouldn't be allowed to take a lane of traffic - for their own safety. It just isn't safe outside of uncongested residential areas. I'll go to great lengths to stay off of main roads when biking. It's just common sense.

As for taking over traffic lanes and giving them to bikes - that's just wrong too. I walk by one of these downtown every day and it's a huge flop. I've counted 3 bikes, 2 skateboarders and 2 joggers since it opened. (Lol, I can't wait for bikers to start protesting people jogging and skateboarding in their lanes! It works both ways hahaha). I cross the lane as a pedestrian every day - 4 times a day, and it's crazy how no bikes use it! I even saw one bike rider taking up a lane of traffic instead of driving in the bike lane. This kind of arrogance doesn't help the situation.

People get frustrated because bikes are slower, harder to see, are unpredictable, and yes - they frequently break laws and are rude to drivers. Many act as if it's up to everyone else to watch out for them - when they don't seem to care about driving safely themselves.

I know there will be lots of people mad about this post, but bike lanes shouldn't be in traffic. Our city is growing, so there isn't room to get rid of vehicle lanes. Bike paths need to be built away from roads - and yes, if there is a bike path in the area then bikes need to be outright banned from roads.

If people insist on driving on busy main roads with their bikes they should be trained, licensed, registered and insured - just like every other vehicle on the road.

Remember, drivers get mad because they don't want to get in an accident. It doesn't matter if it's a person on a bike or in a car. If you are causing an unsafe situation then people get mad at you.

If people are always honking at you then you need to look at one person - yourself - since it's pretty likely you who are acting like the jerk. Seriously, people don't honk at people when they're being safe. People honk because you're creating an unsafe situation and expect others to protect you even though you're causing the danger. (this goes for bike riders AND drivers who get honked at a lot)

Pitting vehicles (and pedestrians) against bikes is wrong, but mayor N seems to be fueling the conflict by encouraging unsafe interaction. Wishing it was safe doesn't make it safe. Telling people to all get along won't make it safe. Think of it this way. If you walked in a lane of traffic and got hit people would think you're an idiot. A bike in traffic is no different than a pedestrian, skateboarder, or roller skater in traffic.

Yikes.

It's not like Deerfoot or Macleod Trail is getting bike lanes, you have to relax. Getting them out of your way is exact what lanes are designed to do.

Cycling is up 40% in 5 years in the downtown core. Deal with it. The city needs that infrastructure because the bikes are coming. If you don't like bikes, pedestrians, traffic, congestion, don't drive in the inner city.

You'll hate it there.

Did you see the YYC airport runway is empty most of the time? The most I ever see on it is one plane! Think of all that pavement that could have gone to widening Deerfoot to 30 lanes! I drive by one of these every day and it's a huge flop.

[MalcolmTucker]

I have insurance covering the damage I could do while biking (and anywhere else really). Though I can't imagine causing a million dollars of damage to 3rd parties as a cyclist. :rolleyes:

[sim]

Sharing a lane of traffic between vehicles and bikes just isn't possible. Lanes aren't designed to have room for both. Anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional. We have to live with the realities of life, not how we hope things should be. Bikes simply shouldn't be allowed to take a lane of traffic - for their own safety. It just isn't safe outside of uncongested residential areas. I'll go to great lengths to stay off of main roads when biking. It's just common sense.

As for taking over traffic lanes and giving them to bikes - that's just wrong too. I walk by one of these downtown every day and it's a huge flop. I've counted 3 bikes, 2 skateboarders and 2 joggers since it opened. (Lol, I can't wait for bikers to start protesting people jogging and skateboarding in their lanes! It works both ways hahaha). I cross the lane as a pedestrian every day - 4 times a day, and it's crazy how no bikes use it! I even saw one bike rider taking up a lane of traffic instead of driving in the bike lane. This kind of arrogance doesn't help the situation.

People get frustrated because bikes are slower, harder to see, are unpredictable, and yes - they frequently break laws and are rude to drivers. Many act as if it's up to everyone else to watch out for them - when they don't seem to care about driving safely themselves.

I know there will be lots of people mad about this post, but bike lanes shouldn't be in traffic. Our city is growing, so there isn't room to get rid of vehicle lanes. Bike paths need to be built away from roads - and yes, if there is a bike path in the area then bikes need to be outright banned from roads.

The situation is becoming worse since engineers, planners, and designers claim that safety is a #1 priority, but most new roads in Calgary have little to no shoulders. Provincial roads like Stoney and Deerfoot have them, but main roads in Calgary rarely do - likely to save money at the expense of safety. Leaving bikes no choice but to drive in traffic. If roads had proper shoulders then this issue would be easy. Just tell bikes to drive in the safer shoulders - which I'm sure most riders would prefer anyway.

If people insist on driving on busy main roads with their bikes they should be trained, licensed, registered and insured - just like every other vehicle on the road.

Remember, drivers get mad because they don't want to get in an accident. It doesn't matter if it's a person on a bike or in a car. If you are causing an unsafe situation then people get mad at you.

If people are always honking at you then you need to look at one person - yourself - since it's pretty likely you who are acting like the jerk. Seriously, people don't honk at people when they're being safe. People honk because you're creating an unsafe situation and expect others to protect you even though you're causing the danger. (this goes for bike riders AND drivers who get honked at a lot). Nobody has ever honked at me - in a car or on my bike. Because I drive safely.

One bike rider in our elevator comments about how he likes to drive on the dashed lines between the cars "and people sure get mad at me". He didn't have a clue that people were mad because they didn't want to kill someone on their way to work. Man what a fool.

Pitting vehicles (and pedestrians) against bikes is wrong, but mayor N seems to be fueling the conflict by encouraging unsafe interaction. Wishing it was safe doesn't make it safe. Telling people to all get along won't make it safe. Think of it this way. If you walked in a lane of traffic and got hit people would think you're an idiot. A bike in traffic is no different than a pedestrian, skateboarder, or roller skater in traffic.


It's ok not to post too.

[Chealion]

Anecdotally, a baby windshield on the front of a bike does all kinds of things to command respect. (Yes on 17th as well) :)

[pulkit10]

@Yahoo: Two major gripes:

- Only recently has the city started to put the necessary infrastructure in place for bike riding. Needless to say, it'll take a little while before it takes hold in the culture of the city. Thing is, it is pretty obvious that there is a genuine demand as people definitely like using their bikes for short commutes in the inner city so it'd be pretty foolish for city planners to not incorporate this in their plans. Sure, some lanes are empty now but a gradual increase in usage is likely.

- Your argument about "bike lanes being useless since they are always empty" is not a very convincing one. Most residential streets barely see a car go by for most of the day - does that mean they are useless too? Bikers will come - there is an obvious demand for it.

That said, I do agree that some basic manners in riders will do wonders for everyone. There is nothing more nerve wrecking than a biker that thinks it is okay to constantly switch between the road and the pathway at his/her leisure. Seriously. Drove on Copperfield Blvd today and this imbecile had his earphones plugged in and kept going on and off between the road and the pathway. If that wasn't bad enough, he decided to stop on the road right before the crosswalk and wait for traffic to stop before crossing the street like a pedestrian - all the while blocking me and the other 3 vehicles behind me from turning right. Honestly, get your act together - you don't get to switch between three roles on a busy street.

[Chealion]

Sharing a lane of traffic between vehicles and bikes just isn't possible. Lanes aren't designed to have room for both. Anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional. We have to live with the realities of life, not how we hope things should be. Bikes simply shouldn't be allowed to take a lane of traffic - for their own safety. It just isn't safe outside of uncongested residential areas. I'll go to great lengths to stay off of main roads when biking.

Bikes should and are allowed to take a lane of traffic for their safety. Riding too far to to the right is actually more dangerous and causes more congestion than taking the lane. For an example of what I mean, see the video on http://cyclingsavvy.org/hows-my-driving/

It's just common sense.

If I had a penny for every time this phrase is used...

As for taking over traffic lanes and giving them to bikes - that's just wrong too. I walk by one of these downtown every day and it's a huge flop. I've counted 3 bikes, 2 skateboarders and 2 joggers since it opened. (Lol, I can't wait for bikers to start protesting people jogging and skateboarding in their lanes! It works both ways hahaha). I cross the lane as a pedestrian every day - 4 times a day, and it's crazy how no bikes use it! I even saw one bike rider taking up a lane of traffic instead of driving in the bike lane. This kind of arrogance doesn't help the situation.

Your anecdotal evidence and my anecdotal evidence are the exact opposite of each other. I'm constantly amazed at how many cyclists I see using 7th St.

There is no reason someone should be forced to use the bike lane/cycle track. eg. a right turn from the track onto 6th Ave isn't possible - you need to leave the cycle track and move two lanes over to make a safe right turn. Or if the location you want to go to is on the W side of 7th St. The cycle track is on the E side.

People get frustrated because bikes are slower, harder to see, are unpredictable, and yes - they frequently break laws and are rude to drivers. Many act as if it's up to everyone else to watch out for them - when they don't seem to care about driving safely themselves.

Replace bike with vehicles and it's still the same.

I know there will be lots of people mad about this post, but bike lanes shouldn't be in traffic. Our city is growing, so there isn't room to get rid of vehicle lanes. Bike paths need to be built away from roads - and yes, if there is a bike path in the area then bikes need to be outright banned from roads.

You're assuming that all bike lanes must replace vehicle lanes (there can only be 1!) - that's not true. Narrowing other lanes (which also reduces speed) to fit in a bike lane works as well.

I disagree entirely that cyclists should be forced to use a path when available. Multi-Use pathways have a speed limit of 20 km/h (or 10 in some places) and have many different users - pedestrians, dog walkers, rollerbladers, etc. Nor do they scale well once a certain amount of traffic is on them.

If people insist on driving on busy main roads with their bikes they should be trained, licensed, registered and insured - just like every other vehicle on the road.

Only busy main roads? Licensing/insuring bicycles is a rabbit hole of pain full of red herrings and wasted time and money. (What about those under 18, the fact a bike isn't a thousand pound projectile, registration doesn't actually pay for what people think it does, etc.)

It doesn't matter if it's a person on a bike or in a car. If you are causing an unsafe situation then people get mad at you.

Exactly

If people are always honking at you then you need to look at one person - yourself - since it's pretty likely you who are acting like the jerk. Seriously, people don't honk at people when they're being safe.

Anecdotally, the only time I've been honked at cycling is when a driver is being impatient and trying or creating an unsafe situation. Wanting to get around me to make a right instead of the 10 more seconds left in the light sequence, or weaving around me to gun it down a playground zone.

Pitting vehicles (and pedestrians) against bikes is wrong, but mayor N seems to be fueling the conflict by encouraging unsafe interaction. Wishing it was safe doesn't make it safe. Telling people to all get along won't make it safe. Think of it this way. If you walked in a lane of traffic and got hit people would think you're an idiot. A bike in traffic is no different than a pedestrian, skateboarder, or roller skater in traffic.

Except for the pesky fact that a bike is a vehicle and is legally entitled to be ridden on the road and not the sidewalk? (Unless that sidewalk is labelled a pathway and good luck telling the difference)

[Yahoo]

It's ok not to post too.

I know. :-) But when someone asks a question it's only polite to respond. Especially when only one side of the story is being told.

You see - lots of people have different viewpoints. I like to hear all viewpoints, as do others. Even if I don't agree with them, it helps you understand the world.

I'm a detail oriented person who has a job looking for defects and solutions. Yes, I'm long winded here, but it's a discussion forum, not twitter.

There are serious conflicts between bikes and vehicles. And like it or not there are reasons. If you try to understand differing views then you can more clearly plan and understand the reasons for conflicts - and eliminate them. :yes:

Blindly blaming ignorant drivers or ignorant bikers and asking them to play nicely just doesn't work - and will never work, no matter how much we wish it.

[Yahoo]

@Yahoo: Two major gripes:

- Only recently has the city started to put the necessary infrastructure in place for bike riding. Needless to say, it'll take a little while before it takes hold in the culture of the city. Thing is, it is pretty obvious that there is a genuine demand as people definitely like using their bikes for short commutes in the inner city so it'd be pretty foolish for city planners to not incorporate this in their plans. Sure, some lanes are empty now but a gradual increase in usage is likely.

- Your argument about "bike lanes being useless since they are always empty" is not a very convincing one. Most residential streets barely see a car go by for most of the day - does that mean they are useless too? Bikers will come - there is an obvious demand for it.

That said, I do agree that some basic manners in riders will do wonders for everyone. There is nothing more nerve wrecking than a biker that thinks it is okay to constantly switch between the road and the pathway at his/her leisure. Seriously. Drove on Copperfield Blvd today and this imbecile had his earphones plugged in and kept going on and off between the road and the pathway. If that wasn't bad enough, he decided to stop on the road right before the crosswalk and wait for traffic to stop before crossing the street like a pedestrian - all the while blocking me and the other 3 vehicles behind me from turning right. Honestly, get your act together - you don't get to switch between three roles on a busy street.

I do agree with bike lanes, I just think they rarely should be put over roadways. I do support innovation, and it is worth a try in some little used roads. But my observations of the current bike lane is valid - it just isn't being used. If anyone observes otherwise please post details about the bike count, since I suspect you're just "thinking" it's being used without actually making any observations.

I'd use the bike lane myself if it aligned with my commute, but it doesn't. Edit: I should mention that my observations occur as a pedestrian at the height of the morning and afternoon rush hours. And today at noon I crossed the bike path using the +15 and waited 5 minutes. Hundreds of pedestrians and cars. A couple cross traffic bikes. And zero bikes in the bike lane. Sure, most don't use bikes to go for lunch, but it's the same during the rush hours. Instead of spending a fortune of taxpayer money ripping up the road and pouring concrete barriers I think removable flower pots and a little line painting would have been more $ effective. Perhaps it'll eventually get used, but if it doesn't then we don't have to waste more money changing it back to a road.

Honestly, I think allowing bikes to legally use sidewalks is often the better solution. Perhaps some people don't realize that only people 14 years old and under can legally use a sidewalk as a bike path (at least that's what I was taught in my bike safety course years ago). I think that's really much of the problem. People often assume they know the law when they don't. Sure you aren't allowed to hit a bike, but bikes aren't allowed to take up lanes of traffic, drive side by side, go the wrong way on 1 way streets or run red lights! (please correct me if the laws have changed. With facts though, not just opinions of laws). Perhaps a lawyer in the crowd can clarify things for us about what is and isn't allowed.

If a low speed limit was set on sidewalks when pedestrians were present, and bikers had the courtesy to warn people when they pass then sidewalks are the best option. Sure - there would be conflicts too, but many bikers use sidewalks illegally now anyway.

[Yahoo]

I appreciate your responses. I disagree with many of them (some I take as an exaggeration or mean mean spirited joke trying to twist my words, but I understand the intention), and actually agree with a lot of comments (with a further 2 cents I could add, but won't). I think most agree that we need a solution - as the current situation with bikes and vehicles is just causing grief and danger for everyone and will only get worse as the city grows.

[Yahoo]

In other news... CBC is reporting the SE ring road opening.

"After three years of construction, the provincial government says the southeast ring road will open to traffic on Oct. 1.

Ald. Shane Keating says local residents will be happy construction is finally over, but he doesn't expect the opening of Stoney Trail will change the drive for most commuters on traffic-laden Deerfoot Trail. "


http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/story/2013/09/04/calgary-se-ring-road-completion-tr.html

[Allan83]

I largely agree. The solution is dedicated road space for cyclists. Calgary is falling way behind on cycling infrastructure compared to most of North America. 7th street cycletrack is a start, but it is expensive and only is needed in specific cooridors downtown. So much would be accomplished with painted lines throughout the Beltline. Hell, 11th and 12th are wide enough for one each without even losing any auto-lanes. Same goes with 10th ave (both directions).

17th Ave westbound really could fit one too, its too narrow for 2 travel + parking, its really a 2.5 lane road pretending to fit 3 lanes of cars.


There really needs to be a whole-hearted effort for the inner city to recieve bike lanes. The numbers are already there to justify lanes throughout, they would only grow once people actually feel safe on a bike.
It seems to me that we’re putting it in quite quickly. How can we be falling behind?

There are always going to be some drivers who are a-holes, and if you’re driving down a busy cruising street like 17th you’re going to run into a higher percentage of them, but my main problem with drivers in Calgary is that they’re actually too polite to cyclists. I don’t know how many times I’ve been stopped at a stop sign where the crossing street had the right of way, and a car on that street came to a full stop to let me cross. This is actually quite dangerous and annoying, but they’re clearly doing it because they think they’re being nice.

[Allan83]

The 7th ave cycle way is a big success imo. Are there any stats on it yet? I’m usually on it outside of peak hours and I’m never alone. It even improves the look and feel of the street. The cycleway seems to make it more pedestrian friendly as well.

[mwalker_mw]

Simple, painted bike-lanes can solve all the problems you listed. A reminder that not all cyclists are the 50km/h carbon fibre types. Some will saunter (i.e. the cool types), some are old, some are young and some are not in a hurry. A typically bike is 15 - 25 km/h and cars have to get used to that until dedicated infrastructure is built like bike lanes. Separated is even better, albeit probably more cost-effective in only tight high-collision areas with lots of traffic and speed (i.e. 7th street).


My fat ass is neither 50km/h or carbon fibre :-)

It's mostly about making an effort. When a cyclist is in a traffic lane (or on roads at all for that matter) I think it is reasonable to expect them to be alert and traveling as fast as they can reasonably go. Much as I am a strong believer in cyclist rights, I'm also a strong believer in cyclist responsibilities. Some people just shouldn't be on the road (whether in a vehicle or on a bike).

As you mention, I probably should have added that much of my commentary is only relevant until there is proper cycling infrastructure in place. That is, of course, the best solution.

[MasterG]

It seems to me that we’re putting it in quite quickly. How can we be falling behind?

There are always going to be some drivers who are a-holes, and if you’re driving down a busy cruising street like 17th you’re going to run into a higher percentage of them, but my main problem with drivers in Calgary is that they’re actually too polite to cyclists. I don’t know how many times I’ve been stopped at a stop sign where the crossing street had the right of way, and a car on that street came to a full stop to let me cross. This is actually quite dangerous and annoying, but they’re clearly doing it because they think they’re being nice.

Anecdotal examples:

LA agreed to add 2,700km of them over 2 years ago at a pace of 320km / year. Sure they started from a weaker base of cycling paths than Calgary but that level of investment is happening across the US. And they are more car-dependent than us by a wide margin.


http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/03/02/la-bike.html (http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/03/02/la-bike.html)

Here is a smaller city, Eugene Oregon.

35 miles ~56 km. for a city of metro population of 350,000.

http://www.eugene-or.gov/bicycles

Here is a Metro article from this year.

26km of on street bike lanes in Calgary. of a city of 1.2 million people


http://metronews.ca/news/calgary/710103/on-street-bike-lanes-remain-largest-gap-in-calgarys-cycling-infrastructure/


Yes I think there is plenty of evidence we are falling behind. The progress we have made is admirable, but it has to continue and expand even faster.

[speedog]

It seems to me that we’re putting it in quite quickly. How can we be falling behind?

There are always going to be some drivers who are a-holes, and if you’re driving down a busy cruising street like 17th you’re going to run into a higher percentage of them, but my main problem with drivers in Calgary is that they’re actually too polite to cyclists. I don’t know how many times I’ve been stopped at a stop sign where the crossing street had the right of way, and a car on that street came to a full stop to let me cross. This is actually quite dangerous and annoying, but they’re clearly doing it because they think they’re being nice.

People need to figure this out - a cyclist who remains on their cycle while trying to cross a road is not a pedestrian. I will not stop to let a mounted cyclist go through an intersection when I have the right of way as a motorist and I expect no less of other motorist when I am a cyclist in the same situation. Dis-mount your cycle and become a pedestrian and the situation changes or at least it does for me as a driver but I do hate it when a pedestrian all of a sudden decides to become a cyclist part-ways through the intersection after I've stopped for them when they were initally representing themselves as a pedestrian.

As far as riding on sidewalks, in some places it makes more sense - 32 Ave in the NE west of 36th Street. Really a dangerous road for any cyclist to be on the road and the sidewalk on one side is even designated as a pathway - even where it's not, the sidewalk is a safer alternative and I'm sure most CPS would turn a blind eye to a cyclist on the sidewalk as opposed to one riding on busy 32nd Ave NE. Certainly know that I was never bothered by CPS when I cycle commuted on the sidewalk (north side) along 32nd Ave NE for 4 years.

Another example - riding on John Laurier Boulevard on the south side of Nose Hill when there is a perfectly good pathway just to the south of John Laurier. Why on earth would a cyclist opt to ride on John Laurier when there's an alternative is beyond me.

[sim]

I know. :-) But when someone asks a question it's only polite to respond. Especially when only one side of the story is being told.

You see - lots of people have different viewpoints. I like to hear all viewpoints, as do others. Even if I don't agree with them, it helps you understand the world.

I'm a detail oriented person who has a job looking for defects and solutions. Yes, I'm long winded here, but it's a discussion forum, not twitter.

There are serious conflicts between bikes and vehicles. And like it or not there are reasons. If you try to understand differing views then you can more clearly plan and understand the reasons for conflicts - and eliminate them. :yes:

Blindly blaming ignorant drivers or ignorant bikers and asking them to play nicely just doesn't work - and will never work, no matter how much we wish it.

A viewpoint is only as good as the point of viewing it is, which is of course difficult because that can only be known once read; and hence, the earlier comment: Not every viewpoint is in fact helpful, as there isn't always enough time to entertain each person's whimsical notions. Quite frankly, even in what may be a rather inconsequential forum, it more or less derails any meaningful discussion. At least target your arguement a bit in your post.

I mean no disrespect, and while your job may be looking for solutions to problems, you can be assured that many people have come before you in this case and have a much, much better idea of how to do so. These are the realities of life.

The amount of time it would take for someone to even begin to try and address what you've posted and to do so in a manner that may even start, as it would seem, to convince you otherwise lends itself to Fusili's post where one wouldn't "even know where to start." To me it begs the question of if you are even being genuine in your desire to find solutions or if your solution is simply that cycling should be accomodated as an afterthought; i.e. not at all.

If this isn't the case, then I can recommend a book (http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/city-cycling-0) that can at least keep the discussion in a prudent frame.


But to address just one of your points:


As for taking over traffic lanes and giving them to bikes - that's just wrong too. I walk by one of these downtown every day and it's a huge flop. I've counted 3 bikes, 2 skateboarders and 2 joggers since it opened. (Lol, I can't wait for bikers to start protesting people jogging and skateboarding in their lanes! It works both ways hahaha). I cross the lane as a pedestrian every day - 4 times a day, and it's crazy how no bikes use it!


I'd use the bike lane myself if it aligned with my commute, but it doesn't.

So just for how many people's commute's do you think the 7th st cycle track aligns? Tell me, does 7th st itself align with your commute? How many drivers do you think you would see on a road isolated out in a field? If my point isn't overly clear here, and perhaps excuse my pretentiousness, then please see my second paragraph above or alternatively, think about the value of an actual network.

[Allan83]

People need to figure this out - a cyclist who remains on their cycle while trying to cross a road is not a pedestrian. I will not stop to let a mounted cyclist go through an intersection when I have the right of way as a motorist and I expect no less of other motorist when I am a cyclist in the same situation. Dis-mount your cycle and become a pedestrian and the situation changes or at least it does for me as a driver but I do hate it when a pedestrian all of a sudden decides to become a cyclist part-ways through the intersection after I've stopped for them when they were initally representing themselves as a pedestrian.

As far as riding on sidewalks, in some places it makes more sense - 32 Ave in the NE west of 36th Street. Really a dangerous road for any cyclist to be on the road and the sidewalk on one side is even designated as a pathway - even where it's not, the sidewalk is a safer alternative and I'm sure most CPS would turn a blind eye to a cyclist on the sidewalk as opposed to one riding on busy 32nd Ave NE. Certainly know that I was never bothered by CPS when I cycle commuted on the sidewalk (north side) along 32nd Ave NE for 4 years.

Another example - riding on John Laurier Boulevard on the south side of Nose Hill when there is a perfectly good pathway just to the south of John Laurier. Why on earth would a cyclist opt to ride on John Laurier when there's an alternative is beyond me.
I think you’re probably right. I think that’s it. For whatever reason there seems to be a large number of drivers in Calgary who think cyclists on their bikes, on the road, have the same rights as pedestrians. This is not the case, and Mr. Driver you’re not doing me as a cyclist any favour by stopping for me this way. You’re only greatly increasing the chances that I’ll have a front row seat to a horrific rear end collision.

On the issue of riding on sidewalks, I have no problem with people riding on sidewalks as long as there are no pedestrians. As others have said, it’s often much safer for both the cyclist and the divers. If the cyclist encounters a pedestrian, however, then he needs to slow down and get off his bike well ahead of said pedestrian, and become a pedestrian himself. Don’t try to ride around the pedestrian. Don’t stop just in front of the pedestrian and make them worry about whether you were going to stop. Stop well in front of them so you don’t disturb them in any way. But if the sidewalk is clear and the road is busy and dangerous, then the sidewalk is a better option for both the cyclist and the drivers, imo. Just use common sense and common courtesy.