Calgary Cycling Paths & Infrastructure

[Cage]

For the Cycle Track "Dutch Auction" idea to work (see the 4 alternatives council will vote on if the main proposal is defeated),the supporters must remain united throughout each option. Therefore each of the four core supporters must be willing to accept that something is better than nothing.

I am willing to venture a bet that at least 2/4 core cycle track supporters (Carra, Farrell, Woolley, and Pincott) would vote against alternatives 3 and 4. Further refinement would be Carra and Woolley that would rather kill the cycle track than approve partial network. Lunch scrums has Carra stating that 5th Street would be worse than 1st Street.

[Fuzz]

I hadn't heard their are other options, do you have info on them?

[UofC.engineer]

Chu's version of common sense is complete nonsense.

"Sean Chu, councillor for Ward 4, tweeted Saturday afternoon that recent cold weather and the fact a ship is stuck in ice near Antarctica seem to have quieted climate change "alarmists." He appeared to suggest cold weather is a sign climate change supporters are blowing the problem out of proportion, and says he is glad it got people talking."
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/calgary-councillor-stands-by-global-warming-alarmist-tweet-1.2484828

That's like saying the sun doesn't exist because it got dark last night.

[Spring2008]

"Sean Chu, councillor for Ward 4, tweeted Saturday afternoon that recent cold weather and the fact a ship is stuck in ice near Antarctica seem to have quieted climate change "alarmists." He appeared to suggest cold weather is a sign climate change supporters are blowing the problem out of proportion, and says he is glad it got people talking."
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/calgary-councillor-stands-by-global-warming-alarmist-tweet-1.2484828

That's like saying the sun doesn't exist because it got dark last night.

He's joking, right??:uhh:

[Fuzz]

So from what I gather, they have approved 8ave, 12 ave, 5 st and 9 ave. The 8th to 9th ave is going to be a bit of a crapshoot. 1st is out. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on any of that.

[UofC.engineer]

So from what I gather, they have approved 8ave, 12 ave, 5 st and 9 ave. The 8th to 9th ave is going to be a bit of a crapshoot. 1st is out. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on any of that.

Too bad about 1st. At least we have a long North/South and East West connection. :cheers:

[5seconds]

Any thoughts on how important the 1st street portion of the original plan was? Will this change lower the ability of the project to be successful when it comes to the evaluation?

[Cage]

I hadn't heard their are other options, do you have info on them?

Reid Fiest twitter account has the screen shot of the list.

Basically goes like this:
- Alternate 1: Exclude 1 St SE cycle track North of 9th Ave.
- Alternate 2: Exclude 1 St SE cycle track south of 9th Ave.
- Alternate 3: No cycle track on 1 St SE.
- Alternate 4: No cycle track on 1 St SE and Stephen Avenue.

Alternate 3 was approved.

[Cage]

Any thoughts on how important the 1st street portion of the original plan was? Will this change lower the ability of the project to be successful when it comes to the evaluation?

Exclusion of 1St SE likely saved 5th Street SW from failing the pilot project.

By the time the cycle track pilot is completed, 8th St SW will also have cycletrack facilities under the CP tracks. with 8th&7th streets plus 5th Street plus 1 Street SE is too much N/S capacity devoted to cycling. In the original plan 5th Street would likely get pulled as it too close to 8th Street. However with 1Street SE gonzo, the cycle traffic gets pushed onto 5th Street.

[fusili]

Exclusion of 1St SE likely saved 5th Street SW from failing the pilot project.

By the time the cycle track pilot is completed, 8th St SW will also have cycletrack facilities under the CP tracks. with 8th&7th streets plus 5th Street plus 1 Street SE is too much N/S capacity devoted to cycling. In the original plan 5th Street would likely get pulled as it too close to 8th Street. However with 1Street SE gonzo, the cycle traffic gets pushed onto 5th Street.

I wasn't too big on the 1st ST SE idea. The connection to the river pathway wasn't great (the underpass is closed due to a high river quite a bit in my experience), and most coming from the Elbow river pathway will be able to use 5th street much easier anyway. Those coming from the SE would likely go through Inglewood and use 9th. I also think 12th will provide a good connection into East Beltline. While 1st ST SE would have been nice, I don't see it as necessary as 5th (which I think will be very well used) or 8th avenue.

[Full Mountain]

I wasn't too big on the 1st ST SE idea. The connection to the river pathway wasn't great (the underpass is closed due to a high river quite a bit in my experience), and most coming from the Elbow river pathway will be able to use 5th street much easier anyway. Those coming from the SE would likely go through Inglewood and use 9th. I also think 12th will provide a good connection into East Beltline. While 1st ST SE would have been nice, I don't see it as necessary as 5th (which I think will be very well used) or 8th avenue.

As long as the connection from 8th and MacLeod to the elbow is decent this shouldn't be an issue (the current paint lines need to be upgraded too)

[lineman]

All 1st Street SE needed was an AI controlled traffic signal system. It would have more than made up for the lost lane. Better drivers would help too. However, I agree that 5th is more critical.

Sean Chu is an idiot. He figured having traffic cones would be a better pilot solution over barricades because they're "cheaper". I stated on twitter that I'm sure they would last a year with a rolleyes. He never replied.

[Fuzz]

I wasn't too big on the 1st ST SE idea. The connection to the river pathway wasn't great (the underpass is closed due to a high river quite a bit in my experience), and most coming from the Elbow river pathway will be able to use 5th street much easier anyway. Those coming from the SE would likely go through Inglewood and use 9th. I also think 12th will provide a good connection into East Beltline. While 1st ST SE would have been nice, I don't see it as necessary as 5th (which I think will be very well used) or 8th avenue.


I kind of liked the 1st ST option from 9th to the river. I think a crucial connection is between 8ht and 9th, and it provides much better coverage to the core. Without it, anywhere east of 5th is a bit of a gong show for cycling. Certainly not safe in any way. So we get good coverage with a lane on 11th, 8th, 7th, 5th, then... nothing. I'll honestly never use it, so I've got no horse in the race, but looking at the map it seams to be a big black hole.

On the plus side, with nothing to connect to in the east, the Stephen Ave experiment should be a resounding success as far as people being worried about to many bikes!

[RyLucky]

Today was a good day for Calgary.

Unlike the writer of this hilarious Sun article (http://www.calgarysun.com/2014/04/27/cycle-fiasco-nears-finish) (note ambiguous references to Santa, Pearl Harbor, squirrels, public water fountains, and psychoactive substances), I believe today was a great example of how democracy can work effectively. Personally, I would have supported the whole network, but I appreciate that other people have other perspectives, and all sides were able to compromise without anybody "losing". The cost is minuscule relative to the value the cycletrack will bring to our image, economy, transportation efficiency and safety. This is vital to our brand.

Eventually, I think a N-S route further east will be good (ie Macleod Tr), because there is still a lot of residential and office development to occur in that area. I hope that folks come to embrace the other lanes, and then 1st st SE gets the go ahead, and maybe even 5th Ave or something. For now this is great news.

One thing is for sure: No $10 million transportation project in Calgary has ever received such attention.

[Cage]

Eventually, I think a N-S route further east will be good (ie Macleod Tr), because there is still a lot of residential and office development to occur in that area. I hope that folks come to embrace the other lanes, and then 1st st SE gets the go ahead, and maybe even 5th Ave or something. For now this is great news.

One thing is for sure: No $10 million transportation project in Calgary has ever received such attention.

I think the next N-S route eastern side of downtown will be 4th street SE. I don't think there will be any appetite for expanding the cycle track during the current council term or immediate next term. Definitely no appetite for any cycle infrastructure on 1street SE.

[Full Mountain]

Today was a good day for Calgary.

Unlike the writer of this hilarious Sun article (http://www.calgarysun.com/2014/04/27/cycle-fiasco-nears-finish) (note ambiguous references to Santa, Pearl Harbor, squirrels, public water fountains, and psychoactive substances), I believe today was a great example of how democracy can work effectively. Personally, I would have supported the whole network, but I appreciate that other people have other perspectives, and all sides were able to compromise without anybody "losing". The cost is minuscule relative to the value the cycletrack will bring to our image, economy, transportation efficiency and safety. This is vital to our brand.

Eventually, I think a N-S route further east will be good (ie Macleod Tr), because there is still a lot of residential and office development to occur in that area. I hope that folks come to embrace the other lanes, and then 1st st SE gets the go ahead, and maybe even 5th Ave or something. For now this is great news.

One thing is for sure: No $10 million transportation project in Calgary has ever received such attention.

I think the next N-S route eastern side of downtown will be 4th street SE. I don't think there will be any appetite for expanding the cycle track during the current council term or immediate next term. Definitely no appetite for any cycle infrastructure on 1street SE.

I was thinking about this last night, there is now a gap between 9th and 8th one that would have been bridged by 1st but will now have people utilizing the sidewalk in front of city hall to get between the two...should be interesting.

4th SE would be a decent alternative, except it has no connection to the rest of 8th Ave, not sure how you mitigate that. And I'm not sure whatever connection occurs through city hall will be bike friendly.

[The Chemist]

Today was a good day for Calgary.

Unlike the writer of this hilarious Sun article (http://www.calgarysun.com/2014/04/27/cycle-fiasco-nears-finish) (note ambiguous references to Santa, Pearl Harbor, squirrels, public water fountains, and psychoactive substances), I believe today was a great example of how democracy can work effectively. Personally, I would have supported the whole network, but I appreciate that other people have other perspectives, and all sides were able to compromise without anybody "losing". The cost is minuscule relative to the value the cycletrack will bring to our image, economy, transportation efficiency and safety. This is vital to our brand.

Eventually, I think a N-S route further east will be good (ie Macleod Tr), because there is still a lot of residential and office development to occur in that area. I hope that folks come to embrace the other lanes, and then 1st st SE gets the go ahead, and maybe even 5th Ave or something. For now this is great news.

One thing is for sure: No $10 million transportation project in Calgary has ever received such attention.

Wow, reading that article and its associated comments reminds me of exactly what I don't miss about Calgary. God, the Sun and its readers are such embarrassments to this city. :yuck:

[Full Mountain]

One thing that bugs me a bit about the vote yesterday is that the councillors who voted against the proposed network used the excuse that the residents of their wards wouldn't support taking a lane away. I feel like this is a cop out these councillors should recognize that this project is for the best of the city and they should have put their support behind it.

[Full Mountain]

Wow, reading that article and its associated comments reminds me of exactly what I don't miss about Calgary. God, the Sun and its readers are such embarrassments to this city. :yuck:

Lesson 1 of living in Calgary if you see the Sun and or Rick Bell associated with any piece of writing close the tab and run away!

Lesson 2 of living in Calgary if the Sun and or Rick Bell are opposed to something, it's clearly the right thing to do.

[Bigtime]

One thing that bugs me a bit about the vote yesterday is that the councillors who voted against the proposed network used the excuse that the residents of their wards wouldn't support taking a lane away. I feel like this is a cop out these councillors should recognize that this project is for the best of the city and they should have put their support behind it.

I was particularly disappointed to see Stevenson as one of those Councillors. After all in his ward he has the new airport tunnel which benefits them greatly while also being a benefit to the city as a whole (much like the cycle track network).

No surprise to see terrible Councillors like DCU trot that line out.

[Fuzz]

One thing that bugs me a bit about the vote yesterday is that the councillors who voted against the proposed network used the excuse that the residents of their wards wouldn't support taking a lane away. I feel like this is a cop out these councillors should recognize that this project is for the best of the city and they should have put their support behind it.

Ya, I thought that was pretty weak as well. Obviously infrastructure in different wards doesn't benefit most people not in the ward, so on a basic level, their is no reason to support something that isn't helping your citizens. Of course if that were the case, very little would get done. Is their a culture in council of "I'll support your project if you support mine?" I guess the difference with the cycle track is its seen as having a negative effect on their citizens by slowing their commute.

[fusili]

One thing that bugs me a bit about the vote yesterday is that the councillors who voted against the proposed network used the excuse that the residents of their wards wouldn't support taking a lane away. I feel like this is a cop out these councillors should recognize that this project is for the best of the city and they should have put their support behind it.

I am a strong supporter of the cycle tracks, but I do understand the perspective of suburban Councillors. They see traffic lanes in downtown being removed, which will have an impact on their constituents' commuting times. Sure, the impact may not be as pronounced as Sun articles claim, but they will have an impact. And while there are cycling commuters from the outer burbs, they are a slim, slim minority. It is a good decision, IMO, but let's not pretend it wasn't a hard one for many suburban Councillors. With that being said, we should commend Chabot, Keating and Pootmans, who were the real swing votes in this and are the reason the system passed (of course Carra, Pincott, Woolley and Farrell deserve kudos, but their constituents were far more supportive of the network).

[Full Mountain]

I was particularly disappointed to see Stevenson as one of those Councillors. After all in his ward he has the new airport tunnel which benefits them greatly while also being a benefit to the city as a whole (much like the cycle track network).

No surprise to see terrible Councillors like DCU trot that line out.

Unfortunately that attitude will have a negative effect on getting projects approved both in the inner city and further out, as each party is likely to fight the other using this excuse. As much as I want Farrell, Wooley, Carra, etc. to make the suburban councillors to fight for every inch going forward, I also want the city to keep moving forward. I'm excited to live in a city that is willing/is going to be in the first wave of the cycling resurgence and want the city to continue to go down that path and us vs them on council doesn't help us with that.

[5seconds]

DCU's rational for voting the way she did is now on her site.

http://councillordiane.ca/vote-downtown-cycle-track-network/

I find it odd that she starts by saying that she represented her constituents views in voting against the plan (fair enough) but then only raised three specific points; the impact to Chinatown (not her constituents) the impact to 8th ave pedestrians and businesses (generally not her constituents) and the ongoing cost (a fraction of what her ward gets in road improvements).

If she is worried about her constituents losing a lane of traffic in places she isn't mentioning it.

[artvandelay]

Good news! I'm a supporter of the bike lane network but I didn't like the idea of a lane on MacLeod so this is the ideal scenario. Hopefully this stops most of the idiots who ride on Beltline sidewalks! I'm a little bit skeptical of allowing bikes on Stephen Avenue with the amount of pedestrian traffic as well, but we will see how it goes.

As for a possible north-south route, why not use 2 Street SW? Once the Southeast LRT construction starts, a cyclist only tunnel under the tracks could be built concurrently with the LRT tunnel. I think it's a much better option than MacLeod Trail because it would provide better connectivity to the Mission / Erlton area and the Elbow River pathway, and there is much less automotive traffic.

[kw5150]

Cyclists should have always been allowed on stephen ave. Im so happy this is allowed now because cyclists ride down there anyway; I know I do! The trick is that you have to do a more leisurely bike stroll......dont go whipping down the street and get it ruin it for everyone!!

[Cage]

Cyclists should have always been allowed on stephen ave. Im so happy this is allowed now because cyclists ride down there anyway; I know I do! The trick is that you have to do a more leisurely bike stroll......dont go whipping down the street and get it ruin it for everyone!!

Stephen Avenue Mall portion of the cycle track study will be death by 1000 cuts. The Maggie Scofield's of the world now have a compromise that will close Stephen Ave Mall on their discretion. Look for closures during the lunch period, anytime there is an event (and any events will be a reason to close the Mall), Stampede 10 day event, etc.

Also expect the first major pedestrian/cyclist collision will bring out immediate cries to shutter the Stephen Avenue Mall portion of the cycle track.

[Cage]

DCU's rational for voting the way she did is now on her site.

http://councillordiane.ca/vote-downtown-cycle-track-network/

I find it odd that she starts by saying that she represented her constituents views in voting against the plan (fair enough) but then only raised three specific points; the impact to Chinatown (not her constituents) the impact to 8th ave pedestrians and businesses (generally not her constituents) and the ongoing cost (a fraction of what her ward gets in road improvements).

If she is worried about her constituents losing a lane of traffic in places she isn't mentioning it.

DCU raised four specific points, it just that main reason for DCU voting against cycle track was contained in the paragraph. The three other specific points were from TnT committee meeting.

8th avenue pedestrians are her constituents, these are Ward 13 residents who work downtown.

I would be interested to find out the percentage of ethnic Chinese for Ward 13. I suspect that DCU concern for Chinatown is a bit misplaced, but for Ward 2 (which includes Hamptons and Edgemont); Chinatown impact would affect Magliocca's decision.

[Cage]

As for a possible north-south route, why not use 2 Street SW? Once the Southeast LRT construction starts, a cyclist only tunnel under the tracks could be built concurrently with the LRT tunnel. I think it's a much better option than MacLeod Trail because it would provide better connectivity to the Mission / Erlton area and the Elbow River pathway, and there is much less automotive traffic.

2nd Street SW was discounted for the following reasons:
- Negative impact to parking and local residents.
- 2nd Street SW does not have a lot of signal intersections, rather most traffic control is through stop signs. Commuter style cyclists would not like 2nd street cycle track because they would have to slow down or stop at each intersection, causing them to lose a lot of momentum. For recreational cyclists, the slow pace is acceptable to preferred, but the commuter cyclist requires long stretches of high speed.
- No connection to downtown under the tracks.

[artvandelay]

2nd Street SW was discounted for the following reasons:
- Negative impact to parking and local residents.
- 2nd Street SW does not have a lot of signal intersections, rather most traffic control is through stop signs. Commuter style cyclists would not like 2nd street cycle track because they would have to slow down or stop at each intersection, causing them to lose a lot of momentum. For recreational cyclists, the slow pace is acceptable to preferred, but the commuter cyclist requires long stretches of high speed.
- No connection to downtown under the tracks.

All issues that can be addressed. Except the parking one, but loss of parking is going to happen wherever you put a lane in so much much can be done about that.

[RyLucky]

Good news! I'm a supporter of the bike lane network but I didn't like the idea of a lane on MacLeod so this is the ideal scenario. Hopefully this stops most of the idiots who ride on Beltline sidewalks! I'm a little bit skeptical of allowing bikes on Stephen Avenue with the amount of pedestrian traffic as well, but we will see how it goes.

As for a possible north-south route, why not use 2 Street SW? Once the Southeast LRT construction starts, a cyclist only tunnel under the tracks could be built concurrently with the LRT tunnel. I think it's a much better option than MacLeod Trail because it would provide better connectivity to the Mission / Erlton area and the Elbow River pathway, and there is much less automotive traffic.

At first I was skeptical about a cycletrack on 1st st se, but the more I think about it, the more in favour I am. It's one of the only possibilities that you can connect river-to-river (5th st will have to jig a block west on Eau Claire Ave), there is much greater signal priority on 1st st se, and were it on the east side of the road it would not conflict with turn-right-on-red drivers. More and more I find myself cycling on Macleod simply because it's the fastest way (although probably most dangerous without separation).

As for 8th ave, I would have much prefered a cycletrack on 5th ave or 6th ave. However, the best argument I heard in favour of using 8th ave was by the advisor from the transportation department, saying that bicycle traffic is expected to be heaviest at rush hour when stephen ave is quiet (relative to midday).

Eventually, I think people will come to see cycletracks as more "normal" and the network can/should be extended to these:
-1st st E, river-to-river
-5th ave or 6th ave, river-to-river
-7th st W extended south of the tracks (also for pedestrians) to Royal ave
-Something that connects Sunalta station, 12th ave cycle track, and the Bow river pathways
-2nd St W, river-to-river, built in concert with SELRT (also for pedestrians)

Then we will have a complete network. Estimated total cost = less than a single interchange. In order for this to happen though, people will have to embrace cycling in the city the way they have embraced the Peace Bridge and East Village investments, AND we must increase residential population in the core, which is happening. Cycle tracks are so cheap and add so much value, that I really believe it's only a matter of time before disbelievers in this city wake up and accept them as a realistic, beneficial transportation and recreation amenity.

[Fuzz]

I don't think we will ever see anything on 5th or 6th unless transit has alternatives. Their would just be to much conflict, and the roads are already horrible in rush hour. With 8th, is their a need for anything that close? Perhaps a 2 way on 3rd? 3rd looks fairly wide, you could probably fit a 2 way track and not even loose the parking lanes.

[kw5150]

It would be really hard to get through stephen ave during stampede anyway! Have more hope. Half the people that go downtown on the weekends are cyclists anyway. People DO ride their bikes AND shop Maggie Scofield!!!


Stephen Avenue Mall portion of the cycle track study will be death by 1000 cuts. The Maggie Scofield's of the world now have a compromise that will close Stephen Ave Mall on their discretion. Look for closures during the lunch period, anytime there is an event (and any events will be a reason to close the Mall), Stampede 10 day event, etc.

Also expect the first major pedestrian/cyclist collision will bring out immediate cries to shutter the Stephen Avenue Mall portion of the cycle track.

[lineman]

And my wife and I are two of those people, Maggie!

[5seconds]

DCU raised four specific points, it just that main reason for DCU voting against cycle track was contained in the paragraph. The three other specific points were from TnT committee meeting.

8th avenue pedestrians are her constituents, these are Ward 13 residents who work downtown.

I would be interested to find out the percentage of ethnic Chinese for Ward 13. I suspect that DCU concern for Chinatown is a bit misplaced, but for Ward 2 (which includes Hamptons and Edgemont); Chinatown impact would affect Magliocca's decision.

What was the 4th specific point? That the plan was compromised and not a full plan?

[Cage]

What was the 4th specific point? That the plan was compromised and not a full plan?

I reordered the DCU reasons for clarity:
Ultimately, however, I represent my ward and those who have elected me to office.

Overwhelmingly, I have heard from Ward 13 residents and those who attended the Standing Policy Committee for Transportation & Transit on April 16th, 2014. I believe the cycle track proposal needs work or refinement to address the following:
• Ward 13 resident concerns that are overwhelmingly opposed to an expanded cycle track network.
• Concerns about the Chinese community and the impact the cycle track network would have on both the preservation of their heritage and the safety of their pedestrian populations, specifically, the elderly;
• Disturbing the dynamic of pedestrians on Stephen Avenue and potential impact on the retailers along this walk, as reiterated by Maggie Schofield, Executive Director of Downtown Calgary;
• My concern that more dollars will need to be committed in the future to appropriately implement and maintain this infrastructure, as well as its evolving cost.

[MasterG]

Stephen Avenue Mall portion of the cycle track study will be death by 1000 cuts. The Maggie Scofield's of the world now have a compromise that will close Stephen Ave Mall on their discretion. Look for closures during the lunch period, anytime there is an event (and any events will be a reason to close the Mall), Stampede 10 day event, etc.

Also expect the first major pedestrian/cyclist collision will bring out immediate cries to shutter the Stephen Avenue Mall portion of the cycle track.

The most telling comment was from Mac Logan, GM of transportation. When asked about Stephen Ave safety issues, he said flattly that this is the least challenging of all the routes. He's right.

Cars are allowed in the evening and no one speeds or hits anyone, and a 10km/h car vs. pedestrian is a hell of a lot more likely and damaging than a 10km/h bicycle collision. Not that I would expect any anyways.

Have cyclists avoid the peak time at lunch and give them the right to travel in both directions and the speed will never get high enough to be a concern.

One thing that I find funniest about these debates is that clearly many councillors and opponents to Stephen Ave have never been there or have not had their eyes open or something. People cycle both directions ALL the time there now (as KW mentioned) in blatant disregard to the rules with very limited if any risk to pedestrians. Bicycles naturally manage their speed like cars do.

It already is working, there are hundreds of bicycle racks throughout that are some of the best used in the core. Lets just legitimize it and move on.

[Calgarian]

When Stephen Ave is open to cars, then allow the cyclists there, do not allow them during the day as this is a pedestrian mall! there will be cyclists bombing down that road now, this will not work!

Also, I agree with Councillors representing the views of their constituents, they do want to preserve their political lives afterall.

[sync]

i love riding my bike down stephen avenue.

awesome for people watching and puts you right in the thick of downtown.

also, people need to understand it's not the tour de france peloton ripping down the street...it's an area for cruising through that i assume will have a speed limit that is, i hope, strictly enforced.

[sync]

there will be cyclists bombing down that road now, this will not work!



then they should be ticketed for exceeding the speed limit.

[RyLucky]

I don't think we will ever see anything on 5th or 6th unless transit has alternatives. Their would just be to much conflict, and the roads are already horrible in rush hour. With 8th, is their a need for anything that close? Perhaps a 2 way on 3rd? 3rd looks fairly wide, you could probably fit a 2 way track and not even loose the parking lanes.

You're right, and we need more transit lanes downtown, especially on 5th and 6th Aves. However, both 5th and 6th have excess capacity where they enter Downtown. The way to build an east-west bike lane through the core is on 5th Ave west of 4th St and 6th ave east of 4th st. You'll get something like this:

5th ave______________4th St W
................................|____________________6th ave

This only works because both roads are poorly connected to feeders (veins?), but well connected to arteries. 5th ave has very low traffic west of 9th st, and moderately low traffic west of 4th st. Traffic only gets really bad on 5th Ave as you approach Centre street. 6th ave has very low traffic east of Macleod and moderately low traffic east of 1st st W. Traffic only gets really congested on 6th ave as you approach 8th st. This route avoids both of these pinch points and would have great connections with existing pathways (5th ave terminating at river, and 6th ave terminating at foot of St Patrick's Bridge).

Build the bike lane on the south sides of both avenues, and on the west side of 4th St for minimum interference. That mean that transit stops on 5th Ave west of 4th street (relatively low-use transit stops compared to most of the core) would let commuters out on small islands, so bus commuters would have to cross the bike lane to go south or the road to go north (from those stops, most people go north - across the road - so the best place for stops would be at the ends of blocks). On 6th ave (east of 4th st), you'd have transit on the right and a cycletrack on the left. During certain times of day, you could still allow parking adjacent to the cycle track and possibly in the transit lane too.

[Calgarian]

It's going to be a separated bike lane correct?

[RyLucky]

When Stephen Ave is open to cars, then allow the cyclists there, do not allow them during the day as this is a pedestrian mall! there will be cyclists bombing down that road now, this will not work!


Maybe only let people <18 and those travelling with children through at all times---hardcore cyclist not allowed 11-1? Crowded days at Eau Claire seem to be no problem when there are hoards of people and cyclists sharing the space... Also, I agree with KW that most cyclists probably aren't the "barreling though" type, and they just want to shop and eat like everybody else.

[RyLucky]

Re: my plan above.

I just wanted to add that 5th ave doesn't even have very many bus stops west of 8th St. It's only when the 2, the 1, the 13 and a few other begin to converge does transit stop usage increase.

[Elbownian]

2nd Street SW was discounted for the following reasons:
- Negative impact to parking and local residents.
- 2nd Street SW does not have a lot of signal intersections, rather most traffic control is through stop signs. Commuter style cyclists would not like 2nd street cycle track because they would have to slow down or stop at each intersection, causing them to lose a lot of momentum. For recreational cyclists, the slow pace is acceptable to preferred, but the commuter cyclist requires long stretches of high speed.
- No connection to downtown under the tracks.

While I have to grant the lack of a connection under the tracks is a significant issue, I'm very confused by the rest of this rationale. 2nd Street W already has a painted northbound bike "lane" extending from 26th Ave to 10th Ave, and no parking permitted in the northbound lane from 24th Ave to 12th Ave. Factoring in turning lanes and loading zones along the route, the net parking loss would amount to less than four block's worth. Also, the only stop sign is at 26th Ave, where 2nd terminates - at all other intersections, either there's a traffic light (25th, 17th, 12th, 11th, 10th) or 2nd has right-of-way.

[Calgarian]

Maybe only let people <18 and those travelling with children through at all times---hardcore cyclist not allowed 11-1? Crowded days at Eau Claire seem to be no problem when there are hoards of people and cyclists sharing the space... Also, I agree with KW that most cyclists probably aren't the "barreling though" type, and they just want to shop and eat like everybody else.

People who want to shop or eat are already accommodated I think, a separated cycle track would obviously be for commuting east-west.

[5seconds]

I reordered the DCU reasons for clarity:

Ultimately, however, I represent my ward and those who have elected me to office.

Overwhelmingly, I have heard from Ward 13 residents and those who attended the Standing Policy Committee for Transportation & Transit on April 16th, 2014. I believe the cycle track proposal needs work or refinement to address the following:
• Ward 13 resident concerns that are overwhelmingly opposed to an expanded cycle track network.
• Concerns about the Chinese community and the impact the cycle track network would have on both the preservation of their heritage and the safety of their pedestrian populations, specifically, the elderly;
• Disturbing the dynamic of pedestrians on Stephen Avenue and potential impact on the retailers along this walk, as reiterated by Maggie Schofield, Executive Director of Downtown Calgary;
• My concern that more dollars will need to be committed in the future to appropriately implement and maintain this infrastructure, as well as its evolving cost.

Right, three more specific concerns plus an overarching 'no' from her ward. I just wanted to make sure I was reading it right.

[Fuzz]

You're right, and we need more transit lanes downtown, especially on 5th and 6th Aves. However, both 5th and 6th have excess capacity where they enter Downtown. The way to build an east-west bike lane through the core is on 5th Ave west of 4th St and 6th ave east of 4th st. You'll get something like this:

5th ave______________4th St W
................................|____________________6th ave

This only works because both roads are poorly connected to feeders (veins?), but well connected to arteries. 5th ave has very low traffic west of 9th st, and moderately low traffic west of 4th st. Traffic only gets really bad on 5th Ave as you approach Centre street. 6th ave has very low traffic east of Macleod and moderately low traffic east of 1st st W. Traffic only gets really congested on 6th ave as you approach 8th st. This route avoids both of these pinch points and would have great connections with existing pathways (5th ave terminating at river, and 6th ave terminating at foot of St Patrick's Bridge).

Build the bike lane on the south sides of both avenues, and on the west side of 4th St for minimum interference. That mean that transit stops on 5th Ave west of 4th street (relatively low-use transit stops compared to most of the core) would let commuters out on small islands, so bus commuters would have to cross the bike lane to go south or the road to go north (from those stops, most people go north - across the road - so the best place for stops would be at the ends of blocks). On 6th ave (east of 4th st), you'd have transit on the right and a cycletrack on the left. During certain times of day, you could still allow parking adjacent to the cycle track and possibly in the transit lane too.
Interesting, hadn't thought of using both streets like that, though is it better than just using 3rd? Not sure. Also, I'd suspect you would want the jog south on 5th st as that is where the cycle track will already be, and the block on 5th ave between 4th and 5th st is fairly congested with buses. Lots of people board there, I could see some nasty interactions.

I'm also not convinced you would want the bike lane on the same side of the street as the buses anyway. Why not put them on the north side of 5th, and the south of 6th? Obviously not quite as convenient as cyclists would have to use a bike box, but it would be far cheaper to implement and prevent bus/cyclist/passenger interactions.

[DavidKuitunen]

Rick Bell has been writing some real gems for the Sun about the cycle track. Super funny comments attached to his articles. I don't live in Calgary anymore, but am looking forward to visiting when the track is complete. As far as the businesses on 1st Street not wanting the track it's too bad for them. Why a business would object to 30+ free parking stalls as opposed to maybe half a dozen at their doorstep doesn't make sense to me.
For Example (https://www.google.ca/maps/@49.283147,-123.115671,3a,75y,22.71h,63.1t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sam25F6zGG8KnN1YXb7EwUw!2e0)

[Spring2008]

Great news! This is huge for Beltline residents esp. Will make inner-city living that much more attractive, and of course good for the environment:tup:

[Calgarian]

Rick Bell should run head first into a brick wall, what a tool!

[RyLucky]

Interesting, hadn't thought of using both streets like that, though is it better than just using 3rd? Not sure.
The point is to get downtown safely by bike. Most of 3rd ave is probably close enough to the river pathway to be redundant.

Also, I'd suspect you would want the jog south on 5th st as that is where the cycle track will already be, and the block on 5th ave between 4th and 5th st is fairly congested with buses. Lots of people board there, I could see some nasty interactions.
That's a great idea. Zig down on 5th st where the cycletrack is going instead of 4th; I like it.

I'm also not convinced you would want the bike lane on the same side of the street as the buses anyway. Why not put them on the north side of 5th, and the south of 6th? Obviously not quite as convenient as cyclists would have to use a bike box, but it would be far cheaper to implement and prevent bus/cyclist/passenger interactions.
Now that I think of it, this is a good idea too.

[RyLucky]

Rick Bell should run head first into a brick wall, what a tool!

I just realized that Mike Bell of the Calgary Herald and Rick Bell of the Calgary Sun are pretty well polar opposites. I wonder if they are related.

[Cage]

Rick Bell should run head first into a brick wall, what a tool!

Someone should buy Rick Bell a bike, He is close enough to the Cycle Track that he could easily use it to get to every City Council meeting.

He would have a little trouble getting from 12 Ave to Big Blue shed; would have been real nice to have 1 Street SE with a safe cycle track lane. hahahaha!

[RyLucky]

Getting some attention from US cycle advocates: http://www.peopleforbikes.org/blog/entry/three-lessons-from-calgarys-sudden-leap-to-become-a-protected-lane-leader

[kw5150]

Yep, I too take the leisurely approach to cycling down there. I hope others do as well (if they are smart).

i love riding my bike down stephen avenue.

awesome for people watching and puts you right in the thick of downtown.

also, people need to understand it's not the tour de france peloton ripping down the street...it's an area for cruising through that i assume will have a speed limit that is, i hope, strictly enforced.

[Fuzz]

Yep, I too take the leisurely approach to cycling down there. I hope others do as well (if they are smart).
Its also up to a $300 fine. Just be warned.

[Ramsayfarian]

Rick Bell should run head first into a brick wall, what a tool!

Speaking of tools. Just saw a guy standing on 12th and 5st SW with a sign protesting the bike track. Looked like one of Rick's minions as he was definitely breathing out of his mouth.

[Full Mountain]

Speaking of tools. Just saw a guy standing on 12th and 5st SW with a sign protesting the bike track. Looked like one of Rick's minions as he was definitely breathing out of his mouth.

Was it this monkey?

http://metronews.ca/news/calgary/927855/calgary-mayoral-candidate-milan-papez-charged-with-hate-related-crimes/

[MasterG]

Was it this monkey?

http://metronews.ca/news/calgary/927855/calgary-mayoral-candidate-milan-papez-charged-with-hate-related-crimes/

No it was Larry Heather, I saw him at lunch too. What a dummy.

[Ramsayfarian]

No it was Larry Heather, I saw him at lunch too. What a dummy.

I think you're right. He was wearing a hat, so I couldn't tell if he parted his hair in a circle. I tried taking a photo, but I was driving.

It definitely wasn't Milan nor was it his meathead son, Mongo. Speaking of Milan, I saw him about a week ago handing out the latest Silver Bullet. He's so much fun to troll.

[sim]

From the Construction thread, because off-topic and such:

While it goes without saying I think the cycletracks are ridiculous... what do they have to do with the fact most commuters about to either jam themselves onto Calgary Transit or embark on Deerfoot Trail at rush hour probably aren't thinking to themselves "I am about to have a positive experience"

They might not like driving to whatever suburban location, but did they actually like using transit downtown in the first place?

The starting assumption here seems to be that people working downtown are 110% satisfied with status quo, love Calgary Transit and hate driving. While those in suburban locations start every morning by contemplating just not opening the garage door and letting the fumes do their thing.

In reality most everyone's starting point is going to somewhere closer to the middle.

Meanwhile, going days without showering, eating out of gas stations and sitting in gridlock traffic in the middle of nowhere is apparently pleasurable to an enormous number of people. But that, that is completely different.

I'm not sure if you've ever had a more rambling post than this one, or I just misunderstood your original one. You said most people aren't that "hot and bothered by it." Presumably you meant traffic. In fact, I really wouldn't know what else you could have meant there, but in all honesty if that wasn't the case do correct.

If it was the case, you really should stop bringing in anecdotes and some analogy that, best I can tell from that picture, has absolutely nothing to do with urban transportation to try substantiate your contention(s).

Furthermore, if it was the case, then what I'm clearly pointing out is that people are rather bothered by traffic if a potential 30 sec to 1 min increase in their commute is enough to be hell-bent against said infrastructure likely to cause it. We make multi-million, if not billion dollar decisions based on saving people a few minutes in traffic. So... just what are you trying to say and why are you leading off your point (first paragraph) with something so patently obvious and that actually agrees with what I just said??

I'm quite confused.

[Policy Wonk]

It seems rather cowardly of you to take your reply to another topic. Presumably it was your intention I wouldn't reply at all to your little sermon and you could have a little Bill O'Reilly moment.

People will sit in cars for hours or days, it isn't going to drive people to suicide. There is a difference between people accepting that whatever form their commute happens to take it is probably going to be lousy and just not getting worked up about it and seeing a specific action of policy that can be directly correlated to diminishing their quality of life. If you took away green space so that it could be used full-time for Frisbee Golf or LARPing people might be similarly upset.

[sim]

It seems rather cowardly of you to take your reply to another topic. Presumably it was your intention I wouldn't reply at all to your little sermon and you could have a little Bill O'Reilly moment.

People will sit in cars for hours or days, it isn't going to drive people to suicide. There is a difference between people accepting that whatever form their commute happens to take it is probably going to be lousy and just not getting worked up about it and seeing a specific action of policy that can be directly correlated to diminishing their quality of life. If you took away green space so that it could be used full-time for Frisbee Golf or LARPing people might be similarly upset.

Nope, actually I did so so as to spare the others' what inevitably becomes you grumbling about something on some wayward path to make a point that only you then seem to understand. We dance this dance all too often, and it was made clear in the last couple days that not everyone wants to read it, and I don't blame them.

And so here we are again, and again you are completely rambling on about something that no one contended to begin with. If you want to talk in hyperbole and anecdotes that's fine, but don't purport to be an expert on a topic where said expertise is dubious at best.

You said that people don't seem all hot and bothered by it, and I reminded through a recent event (the cycle tracks, hence this thread) that they rather explicitly are. So you've basically admitted that and extended it to all modes. Yup, hence why it's a derived demand, but if you feel the need to yet again state something that is so patently obvious and the foundation of transportation economics then go ahead and do so. Now if you want to get into generalized values of time (or disutility) typically associated with some of the main modes, let's have at it. You seem to know this stuff so I'm waiting...

Not sure why you wanted to elevate the whole thing to begin with as my intention was only a reminder that car drivers do indeed dislike traffic (which, to reiterate, you seemed to have acknowledged). Is it that it was done so via the cycle tracks, which you have already admitted to not being in favour of and are showing your discontent for in this manner? Now go ahead and reply, but do me a favour and try and be succinct about it and actually say what you want to say, because I still haven't gotten your underlying point. Do people get worked up about traffic or do they not and if they do or do not, why is the fact the some people going on trips to the mountains or wherever relevant to urban transportation?

[Policy Wonk]

Nope, actually I did so so as to spare the others' what inevitably becomes you grumbling about something on some wayward path to make a point that only you then seem to understand. We dance this dance all too often, and it was made clear in the last couple days that not everyone wants to read it, and I don't blame them.

And so here we are again, and again you are completely rambling on about something that no one contended to begin with. If you want to talk in hyperbole and anecdotes that's fine, but don't purport to be an expert on a topic where said expertise is dubious at best.

You said that people don't seem all hot and bothered by it, and I reminded through a recent event (the cycle tracks, hence this thread) that they rather explicitly are. So you've basically admitted that and extended it to all modes. Yup, hence why it's a derived demand, but if you feel the need to yet again state something that is so patently obvious and the foundation of transportation economics then go ahead and do so. Now if you want to get into generalized values of time (or disutility) typically associated with some of the main modes, let's have at it. You seem to know this stuff so I'm waiting...

Not sure why you wanted to elevate the whole thing to begin with as my intention was only a reminder that car drivers do indeed dislike traffic (which, to reiterate, you seemed to have acknowledged). Is it that it was done so via the cycle tracks, which you have already admitted to not being in favour of and are showing your discontent for in this manner? Now go ahead and reply, but do me a favour and try and be succinct about it and actually say what you want to say, because I still haven't gotten your underlying point. Do people get worked up about traffic or do they not and if they do or do not, why is the fact the some people going on trips to the mountains or wherever relevant to urban transportation?

The point is very succinct, traffic sucks and people deal with it. Whether it is Deerfoot or somewhere west of Golden. That doesn't mean that stupid schemes to make it worse will go unopposed. People can recognize the difference between growth putting a strain on any system and a policy that creates one out of thin air.

The attitude being presented here, not specifically by you, is that businesses relocating to suburban or industrial locations will be unsalable to their current and perspective employees. That is starting from the flawed assumption that those working downtown and either dealing with downtown traffic or overburdened transit are satisfied with status quo to begin with. People will sit in cars for days, that is a germane point because if someone is willing to plug in their iPod, drink coffee and inch along Interstate whatever or Highway 93 they will probably do it on Deerfoot Trail too.

With no 8th Ave Subway, SELRT or NCLRT on the horizon in any useful timeframe it will be interesting to see how Calgary's commuting patterns change as the core succumbs to total gridlock.

[sim]

The point is very succinct, traffic sucks and people deal with it. Whether it is Deerfoot or somewhere west of Golden. That doesn't mean that stupid schemes to make it worse will go unopposed. People can recognize the difference between growth putting a strain on any system and a policy that creates one out of thin air.

The attitude being presented here, not specifically by you, is that businesses relocating to suburban or industrial locations will be unsalable to their current and perspective employees. That is starting from the flawed assumption that those working downtown and either dealing with downtown traffic or overburdened transit are satisfied with status quo to begin with. People will sit in cars for days, that is a germane point because if someone is willing to plug in their iPod, drink coffee and inch along Interstate whatever or Highway 93 they will probably do it on Deerfoot Trail too.

With no 8th Ave Subway, SELRT or NCLRT on the horizon in any useful timeframe it will be interesting to see how Calgary's commuting patterns change as the core succumbs to total gridlock.


Thanks.

I can't speak for others, but I'm not sure that the assumption was that people are satisfied with the status quo, which the cycle tracks are obviously changing and to the slight detriment of car drivers. It is a rational response that they are exhibiting and it's also one that is more characteristic of car drivers than users of other modes.

That being said, people don't "recognize the difference between growth putting a strain on any system and a policy that creates one out of thin air" or at least only do so if it's disrupt. Case in point would be you (seemingly?) not realizing that complete decentralization of employment will do nothing but strain the transportation system further unless many more resources are thrown at it. This has to happen sooner or later regardless and I'm all for polycentricity if the planning around it is comprehensive and integrated - Quarry Park as an example, is not such an example. But more so the case in point would be that most of these policies cause much more incremental strains or incremental changes in travel demand and patterns and are therefore imperceptible to the general public, i.e. parking minimums, turn radii increases, setbacks, zoning, macro energy policies, helmet mandating, etc., etc.

Since this isn't currently happening and probably won't in the near future, keeping employment relatively centralized is the next best solution as the most efficient modes of transport already serve that area and those trip types relatively well. If and when this complete gridlock ensues, which, as long as alternatives are provided (and they are even if not those mentioned above) it won't, then land-use patterns and home location choice will also shift accordingly*. I believe this is what other forumers are more so contending, albeit through their own lens.

I do agree with you that suburban employment locations are preferred for a lot of people. I'd wager, the majority. We've built a transpo - landuse system (city) that makes this a rather rational choice. Free parking, and increasing/"improving" lanes, links or junctions whenever it's more or less "needed" among other things (see above) will naturally lead to that.

Whether all this is good or bad is somewhat subjective, especially if the users are willing to pay for it and can accept the cost to the environment as well.

What, and as a final point, isn't subjective is that recreational trips have a lower value of time and this is well documented. Almost necessarily. So I do have to say, how long people are willing to sit in traffic for a recreational trip unfortunately has little relevancy to urban commute or strictly utilitarian trips.



* Yes, or employer location choice will change given we don't change any policies on how easy it is for them to do so (building interchanges to accommodate their needs on the public dollar, etc, etc.) but I'm holding that constant or this becomes a very circular, iterative point and you have to reapply everything that's said about the downtown now to each employment centre over time..

[MasterG]

With no 8th Ave Subway, SELRT or NCLRT on the horizon in any useful timeframe it will be interesting to see how Calgary's commuting patterns change as the core succumbs to total gridlock.

You are already seeing it. The inner-city housing/condo/infill boom, higher densities and growth in active transporatation (walking / cycling) mode-share of the downtown area are all indicators that citizens are all adapting to the challenges of congestion and an increasing commute.

It is not just congestion downtown, but overall trip length. Example being I wouldn't be happy, but probably wouldn't fundamentally change my lifestyle sitting in gridlock for 5 minutes downtown when my drive to my home in the burbs was only another 15 or 20 minutes past that. This was the Calgary of pre-1995.

Since then that commute to downtown has changed. To have the same lifestyle (new house in the burbs) I may still be stuck downtown for 5 or 10 minutes now, but my overall commute has changed because my house is now farther away. 5-10 downtown + 20, 30 or 40 extra minutes? all of a sudden this isn't working for me anymore and more people would change their lifestyle.

This means a few things at first: minimize the stress of an increasingly harrowing drive + other pressures like parking costs (transit use increases) and change commute times to earlier or later to avoid it (rush hours get longer).

This is also the time when you will see the people that were right on the edge of finding the 20 minute commute unacceptable pushed into lifestyle changes: for some this means downsizing and moving closer (inner city housing boom) for some this means changing employment location (Quarry Park).

I don't expect Calgary-born, truck-driving burb-loving people to hop on a fixie and cruise to work. But for everyone that says "I have had enough of Downtown" another younger person that wants the inner city life and short commute is more likely to fill it than another suburban person at their wit's end commuting by car.

[Policy Wonk]

That being said, people don't "recognize the difference between growth putting a strain on any system and a policy that creates one out of thin air" or at least only do so if it's disrupt.

The person stuck in traffic gazing out their window at a bike lane can probably figure out how it came to be there and who is at fault.

Case in point would be you (seemingly?) not realizing that complete decentralization of employment will do nothing but strain the transportation system further unless many more resources are thrown at it.

Nobody including me is suggesting that "complete decentralization" i.e. Detroit is going to happen here. You can squeeze a balloon however you like, it is going to bulge somewhere. But we are rapidly reaching the point that the core just can't accommodate that many more comings and goings by transit or private vehicle.

This has to happen sooner or later regardless and I'm all for polycentricity if the planning around it is comprehensive and integrated - Quarry Park as an example, is not such an example.

There is plenty of blame to go around for that. Although I am eagerly waiting to see just how they do with their Google Buses.

Since this isn't currently happening and probably won't in the near future, keeping employment relatively centralized is the next best solution as the most efficient modes of transport already serve that area and those trip types relatively well.

Theoretically I agree with you, but this isn't a question of short-term pain with an obvious end date. We can't just say, "Yeah, this sucks but the SELRT will open next June, so it's gonna get better." There is no solution in sight and it will only get worse. And the latest data we got this past week from our petroleum economists would keep anyone who was banking on oil sands royalties gushing over us awake at night.

I do agree with you that suburban employment locations are preferred for a lot of people. I'd wager, the majority. We've built a transpo - landuse system (city) that makes this a rather rational choice. Free parking, and increasing/"improving" lanes, links or junctions whenever it's more or less "needed" among other things (see above) will naturally lead to that.

And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

What, and as a final point, isn't subjective is that recreational trips have a lower value of time and this is well documented. Almost necessarily. So I do have to say, how long people are willing to sit in traffic for a recreational trip unfortunately has little relevancy to urban commute or strictly utilitarian trips.

You miss the point. It isn't the purpose or duration of the trip. It's that people seem to be relatively comfortable sitting in their car, in traffic.

Why is it inherent that sitting in a traffic on Deerfoot is assumed to be intolerable while spending a similar amount of time standing on a packed C-Train in July isn't?

[Fuzz]

-snip-
There is plenty of blame to go around for that. Although I am eagerly waiting to see just how they do with their Google Buses.
-snip-

That's actually an interesting point. If they are going to run their own buses, it isn't going to be much batter than driving yourself through traffic, UNLESS IOL realizes transit lanes would improve it drastically. We may be in a funny situation where IOL pushes for transit lanes on roads like 16th ave!

[MasterG]

That's actually an interesting point. If they are going to run their own buses, it isn't going to be much batter than driving yourself through traffic, UNLESS IOL realizes transit lanes would improve it drastically. We may be in a funny situation where IOL pushes for transit lanes on roads like 16th ave!

Private buses are ridiculous and inefficient; the whole idea behind paying for public infrastructure (roads, transit etc.) is that there are huge cost efficiencies by doing this together. I don't care if IOL get's 10,000 employees in Quarry Park, they are still a drop (a rather large one) in the employment bucket of the SE and even smaller in the city as a whole.

Oil companies are good at drilling and producing oil. They should never believe they are good at running a pseudo transit agency better than a city.

If they are concerned about access for their employees, chip in: give transit passes as a perk, lobby for better routes, perhaps even design their campus to be better for transit accessibility.

Or just take advantage of existing transit infrastructure and save the cost of ... wait. nevermind, they already traded that card in.

[MasterG]

That's actually an interesting point. If they are going to run their own buses, it isn't going to be much batter than driving yourself through traffic, UNLESS IOL realizes transit lanes would improve it drastically. We may be in a funny situation where IOL pushes for transit lanes on roads like 16th ave!

Although I totally would welcome some corporate pressure to get some serious transit improvements moving :tup:

[Fuzz]

Private buses are ridiculous and inefficient; the whole idea behind paying for public infrastructure (roads, transit etc.) is that there are huge cost efficiencies by doing this together. I don't care if IOL get's 10,000 employees in Quarry Park, they are still a drop (a rather large one) in the employment bucket of the SE and even smaller in the city as a whole.

Oil companies are good at drilling and producing oil. They should never believe they are good at running a pseudo transit agency better than a city.

If they are concerned about access for their employees, chip in: give transit passes as a perk, lobby for better routes, perhaps even design their campus to be better for transit accessibility.

Or just take advantage of existing transit infrastructure and save the cost of ... wait. nevermind, they already traded that card in.

Funny thing, a few weeks ago I was talking online with a guy in Windsor. I think he works for Chrysler, anyway he says the company has its own vans an employees drive them like buses picking up other employees on their way to work. He called Calgary's transit situation ridiculous, and thought it could all be solved (and not use tax dollars) by every company providing their own shuttle service similar to his. When I pointed out the inefficiencies, he said maybe buildings full of companies could pool together for a common service. I think the irony was lost on him that he was describing public transit, paid for by employers.

Oh, this all came out of a discussion about Toronto transit and how he was tired of the middle class in Ontario getting bilked for tax dollars to pay for it, while robbing from the auto industry because cars drive economies through gas purchases, maintenance, new purchases etc. etc. Ya, I think he may have been slightly deluded given his job making cars...

[Policy Wonk]

Private buses are ridiculous and inefficient; the whole idea behind paying for public infrastructure (roads, transit etc.) is that there are huge cost efficiencies by doing this together. I don't care if IOL get's 10,000 employees in Quarry Park, they are still a drop (a rather large one) in the employment bucket of the SE and even smaller in the city as a whole.

Seriously? Do you also object to the yellow school bus?

You believe there are no potential efficiencies when a transit operator knows the exact address and exact schedule of all their passengers who happen to be going to the same destination?

The company shuttles on the west coast have been a massive success and are absolutely something to be emulated.

[McMurph]

The company shuttles on the west coast have been a massive success and are absolutely something to be emulated.

The company shuttles are a success and should be emulated when needed. But the urban form that necessitated them really ought to be avoided when possible. The "cities" of the South Bay are hideous spaces in an otherwise spectacular spot.

[sim]

The person stuck in traffic gazing out their window at a bike lane can probably figure out how it came to be there and who is at fault.

Yup, that's precisely what I meant be something that is disrupt, so we are in agreement there and to some extent the rest of your points except:


You miss the point. It isn't the purpose or duration of the trip. It's that people seem to be relatively comfortable sitting in their car, in traffic.

I haven't missed the point and this is entirely what matters. I'm not stating this out of opinion, it's effectively fact. I can point you to the literature if you'd like. Simplified, why it matters is that a minute of extra travel time in an urban driving trip has a higher disutility than were that extra minute for a rec trip. This means that a car driver in such a trip would be willing to pay more to avoid it. To an extent, this is how some infrastructure decisions are made (and more should be) and the basis for congestion pricing schemes.


Why is it inherent that sitting in a traffic on Deerfoot is assumed to be intolerable while spending a similar amount of time standing on a packed C-Train in July isn't?

I have never contended this. I'd personally prefer to do neither and take my bicycle, but to go along with what I just stated above, it has been found in instances that once time and cost are controlled for, people actually prefer public transit - traffic is stress inducing for many. This is likely not universally true, because it depends on local conditions and precisely what you are saying - on how crowded your PT system might be for a particular trip, among other things.

The main difference is that from a societal standpoint crowding of one makes it more efficient and crowding of the other vastly reduces its efficiency. You are probably saying we're at this point, and that brings us back to everything already said above so that's fine.

[Policy Wonk]

I haven't missed the point and this is entirely what matters. I'm not stating this out of opinion, it's effectively fact. I can point you to the literature if you'd like. Simplified, why it matters is that a minute of extra travel time in an urban driving trip has a higher disutility than were that extra minute for a rec trip. This means that a car driver in such a trip would be willing to pay more to avoid it. To an extent, this is how some infrastructure decisions are made (and more should be) and the basis for congestion pricing schemes.


If you haven't missed the point then you're deliberately ignoring it or don't entirely follow the argument you have inserted yourself into.

You are taking for granted that in a given situation that the transit commute or drive to a central location is both faster and for the sake of argument more comfortable than an alternative suburban location and therefore driving to that location would have to be irrational. Trip type doesn't matter, people are willing to drive. If neither alternative is really spectacular why assume preference will default to transit?

The argument that has been made around here since Imperial and CP Rail announced their looming departures was that people just wouldn't be willing to work in these locations either because the drive is too aggravating or the lack of amenities found downtown. To believe this you first have to assume that all the affected people like working downtown and like using transit to get there.

[MasterG]

Funny thing, a few weeks ago I was talking online with a guy in Windsor. I think he works for Chrysler, anyway he says the company has its own vans an employees drive them like buses picking up other employees on their way to work. He called Calgary's transit situation ridiculous, and thought it could all be solved (and not use tax dollars) by every company providing their own shuttle service similar to his. When I pointed out the inefficiencies, he said maybe buildings full of companies could pool together for a common service. I think the irony was lost on him that he was describing public transit, paid for by employers.



This is it exactly. If your company is not in the business of public transit and doesn't take a broad enough view of the transportation system (why would you, you are not a transit agency) there are too many risks of creating all sorts of weird incentives and inefficiencies.

If they are so concerned with traffic, chip in for the SE Green Line or pay for Calgary Transit to do this for you (isn't the Chinook Station shuttle paid for by Chinook Centre?).

[fusili]

If you haven't missed the point then you're deliberately ignoring it or don't entirely follow the argument you have inserted yourself into.

You are taking for granted that in a given situation that the transit commute or drive to a central location is both faster and for the sake of argument more comfortable than an alternative suburban location and therefore driving to that location would have to be irrational. Trip type doesn't matter, people are willing to drive. If neither alternative is really spectacular why assume preference will default to transit?

The argument that has been made around here since Imperial and CP Rail announced their looming departures was that people just wouldn't be willing to work in these locations either because the drive is too aggravating or the lack of amenities found downtown. To believe this you first have to assume that all the affected people like working downtown and like using transit to get there.

Or maybe he is saying that in terms of discomfort, driving downtown and driving to a suburban location are pretty much a wash, but transit is far, far superior for downtown.

[Policy Wonk]

But that's just it. Driving isn't usually a discomfort. Or at least not compared to a jammed packed bus or train. The last time I found transit "comfortable" was when I was working in the Beltline in the late 90's, taking the 3 and getting on before it hit the Eaton's Centre and Bow Valley Square crush of people.

[DizzyEdge]

But that's just it. Driving isn't usually a discomfort. Or at least not compared to a jammed packed bus or train. The last time I found transit "comfortable" was when I was working in the Beltline in the late 90's, taking the 3 and getting on before it hit the Eaton's Centre and Bow Valley Square crush of people.

I have to agree in the sense that during rush hour transit is preferable due to a) you can zone out b) you don't have to pay for parking, and that's about it. Even if you really hate sitting in rush hour traffic, people likely take transit because they hate it less than rush hour traffic, not that they like taking a jam packed train.

Going downtown at 2pm on the LRT vs driving, I'd argue is actually a pleasant experience, but during rush hour it's mostly a 'lesser of two evils' and as Policy Wonk points out, not necessarily the lesser for everyone. Unfortunately with transit constantly in catch up mode due to the ever expanding population, I'm not sure if that will get rectified for a long time.

I'm very pro transit, but I do recognize that a portion of the population looks as transit as 'that thing you've forced us into by artificially restricting parking' and not something pleasant at all.

[MasterG]

Speaking of Cycling Paths and Infrastructure, these past few warm days have exploded the number of cyclists out there. There is actually a significant congestion issue during rush-hours on the south-side of the river pathway leading from 10th Street to 14th Street W. Many, many near misses as the constant stream of varying speeds of cyclists are all passing walkers, joggers, dogs etc. into a similar mixture of people heading the other direction.

Pathway expansion would be a good idea here, although tough given the tight dimensions between Bow Trail and the river. I wouldn't be surprised if the very public cycletrack discussions helped promote cycling mode share :haha:

I haven't seen the pathways and Beltline with this many bicycles this early in the summer before.

[RyLucky]

Speaking of Cycling Paths and Infrastructure, these past few warm days have exploded the number of cyclists out there. There is actually a significant congestion issue during rush-hours on the south-side of the river pathway leading from 10th Street to 14th Street W. Many, many near misses as the constant stream of varying speeds of cyclists are all passing walkers, joggers, dogs etc. into a similar mixture of people heading the other direction.

Pathway expansion would be a good idea here, although tough given the tight dimensions between Bow Trail and the river. I wouldn't be surprised if the very public cycletrack discussions helped promote cycling mode share :haha:

I haven't seen the pathways and Beltline with this many bicycles this early in the summer before.

It's awesome, but I think there are a few places that actually need a wider path. For starters, through the West Village. Also, I heard the river pathway east of Edworthy is suppose to open late June.

[fusili]

But that's just it. Driving isn't usually a discomfort. Or at least not compared to a jammed packed bus or train. The last time I found transit "comfortable" was when I was working in the Beltline in the late 90's, taking the 3 and getting on before it hit the Eaton's Centre and Bow Valley Square crush of people.

Different opinions I guess. I find transit relaxing. I generally read a book, check twitter or play iphone games while not getting absolutely livid at the three-year olds who drive 60% of the cars in this city, who have no idea what a proper merge is, have no patience and block intersections because they wanted to be the next car through, don't signal when they change lanes, follow to close, don't accelerate properly at a green and have no concept that there are other cars around them.

Driving is an inherently frustrating activity. You have to undertake fairly complicated maneuvers (left turns and merges especially) which create stress and anxiety, but you have to do so while being stationary, so you don't get the dopamine boost from your brain. Plus you cannot see the faces of the people you are interacting with, which is important in facilitating empathy, and therefore releasing stress-relieving hormones in your body. Humans react better when they can see another human face. So yeah, I don't think driving is a comfort. It is mostly an uncomfortable and stressful activity.

PS- I probably mixed up all my hormones in this post, but the point is that exercise releases stress-relieving hormones, while being stationary does not. Facial recognition patterns in the brain also do the same.

[Full Mountain]

Different opinions I guess. I find transit relaxing. I generally read a book, check twitter or play iphone games while not getting absolutely livid at the three-year olds who drive 60% of the cars in this city, who have no idea what a proper merge is, have no patience and block intersections because they wanted to be the next car through, don't signal when they change lanes, follow to close, don't accelerate properly at a green and have no concept that there are other cars around them.

Driving is an inherently frustrating activity. You have to undertake fairly complicated maneuvers (left turns and merges especially) which create stress and anxiety, but you have to do so while being stationary, so you don't get the dopamine boost from your brain. Plus you cannot see the faces of the people you are interacting with, which is important in facilitating empathy, and therefore releasing stress-relieving hormones in your body. Humans react better when they can see another human face. So yeah, I don't think driving is a comfort. It is mostly an uncomfortable and stressful activity.

PS- I probably mixed up all my hormones in this post, but the point is that exercise releases stress-relieving hormones, while being stationary does not. Facial recognition patterns in the brain also do the same.

Agreed!

[MasterG]

It's awesome, but I think there are a few places that actually need a wider path. For starters, through the West Village. Also, I heard the river pathway east of Edworthy is suppose to open late June.

Nice, that area was decimated in the flood last year. It will help with some of the crowding on the North bank by Edworthy to Crowchild.

It would be good to see the impact of 12th Ave cycle-track route on the overall pathway traffic coming from the West. My understanding is that it will plug into an existing connection under the Bow Trail flyovers, essentially creating a completely separately W-E cycl-route from Bow River near Crowchild through the Beltline to Stampede and Elbow, Inglewood and beyond.

This would be a huge network boost, perhaps would relieve some pathway congestion of people heading down 11th Street lanes now, or crossing through the core to areas in the Beltline.

[Fuzz]

Nice, that area was decimated in the flood last year. It will help with some of the crowding on the North bank by Edworthy to Crowchild.

It would be good to see the impact of 12th Ave cycle-track route on the overall pathway traffic coming from the West. My understanding is that it will plug into an existing connection under the Bow Trail flyovers, essentially creating a completely separately W-E cycl-route from Bow River near Crowchild through the Beltline to Stampede and Elbow, Inglewood and beyond.

This would be a huge network boost, perhaps would relieve some pathway congestion of people heading down 11th Street lanes now, or crossing through the core to areas in the Beltline.
I'm not sure how many would use it as an alternative. The benefit of the river pathway is no traffic lights! If you could ride a green wave at a reasonable speed, that may change things.

[MasterG]

I'm not sure how many would use it as an alternative. The benefit of the river pathway is no traffic lights! If you could ride a green wave at a reasonable speed, that may change things.

True, depends on where you are trying to go. The good thing about 12th is that its super green-wave biased, and likely won't change after installation. It won't be like 7th Street where the cycletrack has no green-priority compared to the big E-W avenues.

At the end of the day, River traffic congestion is really driven by other groups than just the commuter ones; pedestrians and general strollers (both those out for a stroll and those with strollers), joggers and people watchers. All are good things, just a bit more space would help keep things more organized and safe when it's really busy out there.

[Fuzz]

Yes, it will be a nice alternative, though if its a 2 way clycle track, won't the green wave only be good one direction? The other way, its gonna be hell.

As for 7th, southbound it is a fairly good green wave. You have to slow up at 5th, then give 'er to cross 6th. Northbound sucks hard though. Wish they could adjust it a bit. I don't mind stopping at a couple lights, but to have every one red sucks.

[MasterG]

Yes, it will be a nice alternative, though if its a 2 way clycle track, won't the green wave only be good one direction? The other way, its gonna be hell.

As for 7th, southbound it is a fairly good green wave. You have to slow up at 5th, then give 'er to cross 6th. Northbound sucks hard though. Wish they could adjust it a bit. I don't mind stopping at a couple lights, but to have every one red sucks.

Why would a W-E trip take much longer than a E-W trip? turning movements might be delayed so to cross the auto lanes (and similarily dedicated car turning lights), but all the bi-directional traffic would have the nearly the same amount of time in both directions.

Maybe I am thinking about this problem wrong, I have noticed what you talk about on 7th, but I always figured it was a perception than an actual unbalance in the timing. Everytime in the light cycle you are aloud to proceed south on a green, you are also allowed to proceed north. Not sure how that could add up to North-bound taking longer.

[Fuzz]

For W-E, if you are riding a Green wave" the lights turn green as you approach the intersection, so you just sail through. Because the road is one way, traveling E-W means you will be going against this, and will hit plenty of red lights.

For the current cycle track, its absolutely not perception. Every morning I can ride clear through from 4th the 8th. Every evening I stop at every light. It makes perfect sense if you consider northbound, the light goes green to cross 7th as the light on 6th turns red. Traveling south, you have just made it through 6th as it turns red, and 7th is still green. If you don't believe me, go try it!

[MasterG]

For W-E, if you are riding a Green wave" the lights turn green as you approach the intersection, so you just sail through. Because the road is one way, traveling E-W means you will be going against this, and will hit plenty of red lights.

For the current cycle track, its absolutely not perception. Every morning I can ride clear through from 4th the 8th. Every evening I stop at every light. It makes perfect sense if you consider northbound, the light goes green to cross 7th as the light on 6th turns red. Traveling south, you have just made it through 6th as it turns red, and 7th is still green. If you don't believe me, go try it!

Ah gotcha, that makes sense, I had trouble conceptualizing it. I know what you are talking about, that is an issue on 7th.

At least 12th has much longer green lights and longer blocks so you can time your arrival with some coasting to maximize your speed, even against the lights.

[RyLucky]

I'm not sure how many would use it as an alternative. The benefit of the river pathway is no traffic lights! If you could ride a green wave at a reasonable speed, that may change things.

True, depends on where you are trying to go. The good thing about 12th is that its super green-wave biased, and likely won't change after installation. It won't be like 7th Street where the cycletrack has no green-priority compared to the big E-W avenues.

At the end of the day, River traffic congestion is really driven by other groups than just the commuter ones; pedestrians and general strollers (both those out for a stroll and those with strollers), joggers and people watchers. All are good things, just a bit more space would help keep things more organized and safe when it's really busy out there.

12th Ave cycletrack is great, but it will be incomplete unless it somehow connects to the Bow River pathways in the west (current connection is insufficient and hardly safe for less-than-experienced cyclists) and the Riverwalk in the east - hopefully Riverwalk is making accommodations in their plans). The west connection is especially crucial because (a) car traffic is especially high, fast-moving, and disoriented between Crowchild and 11/12th, and (b) this would be the obvious catchment route for anyone travelling between the Beltline and anywhere in the west between 17th ave and Crowchild, an area that includes the cycle-positive communities of UofC, Foothills, Bowness, and others:

http://bikecalgary.org/files/mode-share-2011-census.jpg
^the dark red in those communities is no accident, the Bow River pathways are some of the most beautiful commuter bikeways on the continent. I would bet that cycling mode share is 10% higher than it was in 2011, despite catastrophic damage to some pathways.

[sim]

If you haven't missed the point then you're deliberately ignoring it or don't entirely follow the argument you have inserted yourself into.

You are taking for granted that in a given situation that the transit commute or drive to a central location is both faster and for the sake of argument more comfortable than an alternative suburban location and therefore driving to that location would have to be irrational. Trip type doesn't matter, people are willing to drive. If neither alternative is really spectacular why assume preference will default to transit?

The argument that has been made around here since Imperial and CP Rail announced their looming departures was that people just wouldn't be willing to work in these locations either because the drive is too aggravating or the lack of amenities found downtown. To believe this you first have to assume that all the affected people like working downtown and like using transit to get there.

None of the above. I'm just laying out the facts for you, because, well and if I do have to restate it, I do kind of know this stuff for whatever reason that may be.

I'm trying to tell you that you may be right but you may not. I can't make it any more clear than saying it depends on a myriad of factors and that sometimes (if not often), once accounting for time and cost, transit has a lower disutility than does driving. Where and when that is, is entirely subject to things that you say, such as how crowded a given transit vehicle is. This is not to say that transit has a lower disutility overall, but that given equivalent generalized costs (time + money) transit is can be more comfortable/less stressful/preferred/whatever subjective way you want to describe it.

What I am saying is definitive, without any if and or buts about it, is that you simply can not use a recreational trip (regardless of mode in fact) and compare it to an urban commute trip. You did as such and you're welcome to do so, but I'm pointing out that it has no direct relevance in dictating employer or employee location choice. These trip types are well known to be associated with a lower value of time on average - and that should be intuitively if not empirically clear, given that it is a rec trip. Of course there are always examples of the powder hound or what have you that would be willing to pay more to save a minute of travel time to the mountains than he/she might be to save a minute of commute time.

But that's just it. Driving isn't usually a discomfort. Or at least not compared to a jammed packed bus or train. The last time I found transit "comfortable" was when I was working in the Beltline in the late 90's, taking the 3 and getting on before it hit the Eaton's Centre and Bow Valley Square crush of people.

Yes, but what you found and what others find are not necessarily the same.


I should add that I picked a poor example of a rec trip as driving to ski resort for skiing is still rather purposeful, albeit still not in an urban commuting environment.

[Spring2008]

Speaking of Cycling Paths and Infrastructure, these past few warm days have exploded the number of cyclists out there. There is actually a significant congestion issue during rush-hours on the south-side of the river pathway leading from 10th Street to 14th Street W. Many, many near misses as the constant stream of varying speeds of cyclists are all passing walkers, joggers, dogs etc. into a similar mixture of people heading the other direction.

Pathway expansion would be a good idea here, although tough given the tight dimensions between Bow Trail and the river. I wouldn't be surprised if the very public cycletrack discussions helped promote cycling mode share :haha:

I haven't seen the pathways and Beltline with this many bicycles this early in the summer before.

Just wait until the separated bike lane network is built. Going to capture a large demographic that's sitting on the fence waiting for a safe way to get around. Together with all these new condo projects, could be huge success.

[Policy Wonk]

None of the above. I'm just laying out the facts for you, because, well and if I do have to restate it, I do kind of know this stuff for whatever reason that may be.

I'm trying to tell you that you may be right but you may not. I can't make it any more clear than saying it depends on a myriad of factors and that sometimes (if not often), once accounting for time and cost, transit has a lower disutility than does driving. Where and when that is, is entirely subject to things that you say, such as how crowded a given transit vehicle is. This is not to say that transit has a lower disutility overall, but that given equivalent generalized costs (time + money) transit is can be more comfortable/less stressful/preferred/whatever subjective way you want to describe it.

What I am saying is definitive, without any if and or buts about it, is that you simply can not use a recreational trip (regardless of mode in fact) and compare it to an urban commute trip. You did as such and you're welcome to do so, but I'm pointing out that it has no direct relevance in dictating employer or employee location choice. These trip types are well known to be associated with a lower value of time on average - and that should be intuitively if not empirically clear, given that it is a rec trip. Of course there are always examples of the powder hound or what have you that would be willing to pay more to save a minute of travel time to the mountains than he/she might be to save a minute of commute time.



Yes, but what you found and what others find are not necessarily the same.


I should add that I picked a poor example of a rec trip as driving to ski resort for skiing is still rather purposeful, albeit still not in an urban commuting environment.

You are overshooting the issue by a mile and still going. It is not about the purpose of a trip. It is about the willingness to sit ones ass in a car and drive and whether or not that experience is perceived to be better or worse than whatever alternative transit might offer, that becomes a personal analysis of cost, time and comfort. I raise the archetypal road trip because people will tolerate something that is just all-round miserable. It doesn't matter if you're in stop and go traffic for half an hour or several days. It sucks, as does the C-Train in July.

For what you extrapolate further (value of time etc) to even be relevant you would have to take for granted that the transit alternative will be superior such that driving is irrational. And when you step back from the core where the parking situation is itself more rational the whole cost, time and comfort calculation is completely different.

Since you are unquestionably the world's leading authority I'm sure you have the current modal share breakdown at your fingertips.

[MasterG]

Just wait until the separated bike lane network is built. Going to capture a large demographic that's sitting on the fence waiting for a safe way to get around. Together with all these new condo projects, could be huge success.

Yeah I am excited, I have a good handful of friends in the Beltline area that are pro-cycling but aren't cyclists; "too dangerous', "how are you supposed to get there?", or "would be cool but I can't get there on a bike, I wish this was Montreal".

This network will change everything

[Spring2008]

Lush greenway brings Calgarians together across 55 communities

Pathway project will be the largest of its kind in the world upon completion


The second phase of a pathway and park system set to link 55 communities across Calgary has almost been developed.

The Rotary/Mattamy Greenway is a three-phase project developed by Parks Foundation Calgary. When complete, it will stretch 138 kilometres around the city, making it the largest network of parks and pathways in an urban setting in the world.

Parks Foundation Calgary has raised more than $40 million of the project’s $65-million price tag.

“Calgary is world class and the Rotary/Mattamy Greenway is world class,” says Parks Foundation CEO Myrna Dube in a news release. “I have no doubt we will continue finding the partners to make this project one other cities look at with envy.”

The Greenway’s second phase reaches from the Western Irrigation District Canal on Highway 22X’s east side and extends across at 52nd Street S.E. It moves into new communities including Mahogany, developed by Hopewell, and the new communities of Auburn Bay, Cranston and Seton, all developed by Brookfield Residential.

The Greenway’s fundraising and development achievements were marked by a celebration featuring a pancake breakfast and family entertainment in Cranston last weekend.

“The greenway will enhance so many Calgarians’ lives and connect residents to the natural beauty of this area,” says David Allen, Brookfield’s president of Calgary Communities.

He calls the project "so unique."

“At Brookfield, we know Calgarians believe that providing paths and public spaces for all to enjoy is essential to building community,” adds Allen.

The southeast Calgary leg of the project also enters Fish Creek Provincial Park.

Its third phase moves through the northeast end from Airport Trail through three master-planned communities. They include SkyView Ranch by Walton Development and Management, Qualico’s Redstone community and Cityscape by Mattamy Homes. It also touches 12-Mile Coulee, Bowmont Park, Baker Park and Edworthy Park.

The Greenway’s first phase connects from Airport Trail, east on the Stoney Trail utility corridor and the 17th Ave S.E’s east side.

“This is truly a remarkable example of the collaborative community spirit of Calgary,” says Mayor Naheed Nenshi.

“Calgarians are exactly the kind of people who can bring together all levels of government, corporations, charitable organizations and individual citizens to create an amazing, unparalleled space to be enjoyed by everyone.”
http://www.calgaryherald.com/homes/Lush+greenway+brings+Calgarians+together+across+communities/9889677/story.html

[Fuzz]

I saw that, and was trying to find more information(like a map!) about what sections are complete, and where o park to access it. Any ideas where to find that?

[Full Mountain]

I saw that, and was trying to find more information(like a map!) about what sections are complete, and where o park to access it. Any ideas where to find that?

This newsletter (http://us4.campaign-archive2.com/?u=3e6c862bd5d6ced00a10276db&id=8c23aa19ad&e=19e15cbd29) is the closest I could find...the city maps haven't been updated. You might be able to access it from Ralph Klein Park, but I can't find that out for sure.

[Calgarian]

How did Rick Bell even get a job? this guy has to be the worst writer I've read...
http://www.calgarysun.com/2014/05/29/calgary-city-council-clueless-over-price-tag-for-bike-lanes