Converting One Way Streets to Two Way

[polishavenger]

I know that in the past the Beltline Community Association has looked at the possibility of converting 12th and 11th avenues back to two way streets. Im fully behind such a plan, but think it should be expanded to the entire inner core. After having travelled extensively around the world, and just recently coming back from another trip to Vancouver, I couldnt help but wonder what it would be like if the city got rid of its mini freeways.

The primary opposition would obviously be the reduction in traffic capacity. I dont necessarily think that would be the case if proper traffic signals were put in place, but even it it was, is that reasonable grounds to not do it, given the possible beneifts?

[DizzyEdge]

I know that in the past the Beltline Community Association has looked at the possibility of converting 12th and 11th avenues back to two way streets. Im fully behind such a plan, but think it should be expanded to the entire inner core. After having travelled extensively around the world, and just recently coming back from another trip to Vancouver, I couldnt help but wonder what it would be like if the city got rid of its mini freeways.

The primary opposition would obviously be the reduction in traffic capacity. I dont necessarily think that would be the case if proper traffic signals were put in place, but even it it was, is that reasonable grounds to not do it, given the possible beneifts?

Well, I guess a few things to keep come to mind a) what are the benefits b) are those benefits enough to convince those who benefit from the one-way traffic, which is far more Calgarians than those who might benefit from two way

I'm being a bit of a devil's advocate here.

EDIT: I'm speaking more about downtown streets, vs beltline

[Bassic Lab]

I know that in the past the Beltline Community Association has looked at the possibility of converting 12th and 11th avenues back to two way streets. Im fully behind such a plan, but think it should be expanded to the entire inner core. After having travelled extensively around the world, and just recently coming back from another trip to Vancouver, I couldnt help but wonder what it would be like if the city got rid of its mini freeways.

The primary opposition would obviously be the reduction in traffic capacity. I dont necessarily think that would be the case if proper traffic signals were put in place, but even it it was, is that reasonable grounds to not do it, given the possible beneifts?

The couplet of 11 Ave and 12 Ave seems like the easiest of the three east-west ones to switch back to two way traffic. The 6 Ave and 9 Ave couplet would require the Bow Trail access to be radically reengineered, with 4 Ave and 5 Ave presenting a similar problem with Memorial Drive and Edmonton Trail. I would leave those two alone until it is time to replace the existing infrastructure.

More generally, I agree that it would be a good idea to rethink the one ways in the core. That said, it should probably only happen in conjunction with a significant increase in transit capacity. Even if it means more people driving today, I think we should ensure that it is relatively easy for people to access downtown so that businesses continue to locate there. If we reduced road capacity into the core without increasing transit capacity we could begin to see more office space locate in the suburbs. That should be discouraged at all costs since it will never be as easy to service the suburbs as the core.

[DizzyEdge]

What do you think about reverting 11th and 12th back to two way, but making 10th ave one way West, to complement 9th ave being one way East. (besides, they WERE formerly named after the Oceans those directions would point towards :)

[Bassic Lab]

What do you think about reverting 11th and 12th back to two way, but making 10th ave one way West, to complement 9th ave being one way East. (besides, they WERE formerly named after the Oceans those directions would point towards :)

Well, 6 Ave already compliments 9 Ave and a west flowing 10 Ave would kind of have no where to go. We would have to completely redo the Bow Trail-Crowchild interchange. 10 Ave currently allows southbound Crowchild traffic to then head eastbound on either it or 12 Ave. The construction would seem quite expensive for little to no gain.

[Koolfire]

I'm not a huge fan of reverting the one ways back to two way roads. I would rather see other things done to reduce speeding like red light cams and even losing a lane of traffic to make sidewalks wider and/or patio space for buildings.

The amount of time lost to letting cars turn left on a two way street is significant. Also with one way streets you can make the lights sync'ed to provide a "green wave" in that a car starting from a red light going down the street would keep getting fresh green lights as long as they are doing the speed limit. If they are speeding then they would have to brake as they arrive too early at the next intersection.

[polishavenger]

I'm not a huge fan of reverting the one ways back to two way roads. I would rather see other things done to reduce speeding like red light cams and even losing a lane of traffic to make sidewalks wider and/or patio space for buildings.

The amount of time lost to letting cars turn left on a two way street is significant. Also with one way streets you can make the lights sync'ed to provide a "green wave" in that a car starting from a red light going down the street would keep getting fresh green lights as long as they are doing the speed limit. If they are speeding then they would have to brake as they arrive too early at the next intersection.

The problem of left turns is easy to solve, a left turn arrow. The whole point of converting is because one way streets kill the pedestrian streetscape. I cant think of any one way streets that are of any interest.

[polishavenger]

The couplet of 11 Ave and 12 Ave seems like the easiest of the three east-west ones to switch back to two way traffic. The 6 Ave and 9 Ave couplet would require the Bow Trail access to be radically reengineered, with 4 Ave and 5 Ave presenting a similar problem with Memorial Drive and Edmonton Trail. I would leave those two alone until it is time to replace the existing infrastructure.

More generally, I agree that it would be a good idea to rethink the one ways in the core. That said, it should probably only happen in conjunction with a significant increase in transit capacity. Even if it means more people driving today, I think we should ensure that it is relatively easy for people to access downtown so that businesses continue to locate there. If we reduced road capacity into the core without increasing transit capacity we could begin to see more office space locate in the suburbs. That should be discouraged at all costs since it will never be as easy to service the suburbs as the core.

I dont think any infrastructure needs to be re-aligned or rebuilt, all changes can be accomodated by lane changes. The exit out of downtown to memorial could stay as is, all that needs changing is how the roads feed into the bridge, same goes for bow trail on the west end.

As per the ease of access into downtown, i doubt the one ways make it much easier during rush hour, if anything they make it harder by limiting your options of how to get to where you are going. When I worked downtown, getting out during rush hour was a disaster, and this morning on my way to work, it was hard not to laugh at all the suckers trying to get into downtown on memorial, the damn thing was backed up all the way to deerfoot. With two way roads everywhere, you can disperse traffic over a wider area, so not everyone is trying to jam onto only one of two exits out of the core.

[floobie]

I dont think any infrastructure needs to be re-aligned or rebuilt, all changes can be accomodated by lane changes. The exit out of downtown to memorial could stay as is, all that needs changing is how the roads feed into the bridge, same goes for bow trail on the west end.

As per the ease of access into downtown, i doubt the one ways make it much easier during rush hour, if anything they make it harder by limiting your options of how to get to where you are going. When I worked downtown, getting out during rush hour was a disaster, and this morning on my way to work, it was hard not to laugh at all the suckers trying to get into downtown on memorial, the damn thing was backed up all the way to deerfoot. With two way roads everywhere, you can disperse traffic over a wider area, so not everyone is trying to jam onto only one of two exits out of the core.

The second paragraph makes sense to me. It could theoretically work better, in that people would have way more options on which route to take out of the core.

I like the idea just for ease of navigation. One way streets don't make downtown very easy to navigate by car, unless you're familiar with the system. It definitely took me a while to figure out and feel comfortable driving downtown.

That said, I think an all or none approach is necessary here. Right now, the alternating one way system is reasonably easy to understand once you're used to it. Randomly converting only a few streets to two way would make navigating downtown by car even less intuitive.

[Calgarian]

I'm not sure if I would support this or not. I live on 11 Ave and it is a parking lot from about 4 to 6PM every weekday. Having 11th and 12th serving the west bound rush hour traffic would likely be a lot slower as the lights wouldn't be timed. So as a commuter who uses those roads to get in and out of downtown, I really like the one way. As a pedestrian I can understand having 2 way streets would be better, but I don't think the difference would be that drastic. People generally go to the street for the stores / restaurants that street has, not the speed the adjacent traffic is going, or at least that has been my experience.

[polishavenger]

I'm not sure if I would support this or not. I live on 11 Ave and it is a parking lot from about 4 to 6PM every weekday. Having 11th and 12th serving the west bound rush hour traffic would likely be a lot slower as the lights wouldn't be timed. So as a commuter who uses those roads to get in and out of downtown, I really like the one way. As a pedestrian I can understand having 2 way streets would be better, but I don't think the difference would be that drastic. People generally go to the street for the stores / restaurants that street has, not the speed the adjacent traffic is going, or at least that has been my experience.

its a matter of what came first, chicken or the egg. No one is going to put stores along 1 ways, or at least not many due to the poor vibe and low quality of streetscape for pedestrians. Changing back to two ways might make that start happening.

A lot of comments are about timing of lights, could that not also be done with two way streets?

[MichaelS]

its a matter of what came first, chicken or the egg. No one is going to put stores along 1 ways, or at least not many due to the poor vibe and low quality of streetscape for pedestrians. Changing back to two ways might make that start happening.

A lot of comments are about timing of lights, could that not also be done with two way streets?

Timing the lights would be trickier for 2 way traffic. You could do it to allow the heavier volumes in a certain direction during the peak hours, but that would mean the other direction would be impacted (if you have things like left turn arrows, etc..). It could be done though to a pretty successful standard, probably just not quite as good as if it were a one way road.

I am curious about the reasoning that one way traffic kills the pedestrian environment. If it is because the traffic travels too fast, couldn't other methods be employed to mitigate this, rather than converting to 2 ways? Why is 2 way traffic better for the pedestrian environment?

[Calgarian]

its a matter of what came first, chicken or the egg. No one is going to put stores along 1 ways, or at least not many due to the poor vibe and low quality of streetscape for pedestrians. Changing back to two ways might make that start happening.

A lot of comments are about timing of lights, could that not also be done with two way streets?

Timing 2 directions of traffic would be very difficult.

[mersar]

I am curious about the reasoning that one way traffic kills the pedestrian environment. If it is because the traffic travels too fast, couldn't other methods be employed to mitigate this, rather than converting to 2 ways? Why is 2 way traffic better for the pedestrian environment?

The most commonly touted reason is that people don't like walking beside traffic thats moving fast (and even if both the one way and two way are 50km/h, the one way would average about 10km/h faster then the two way from what I've been told).

Personally I don't buy into this argument completely. Nor do I buy into the no stores will go on one ways argument, go look at 11th avenue between 8th street and 4th street. Tons of stores.

[Calgarian]

The most commonly touted reason is that people don't like walking beside traffic thats moving fast (and even if both the one way and two way are 50km/h, the one way would average about 10km/h faster then the two way from what I've been told).

Personally I don't buy into this argument completely. Nor do I buy into the no stores will go on one ways argument, go look at 11th avenue between 8th street and 4th street. Tons of stores.

Add in the fact that there are usually cars parked on both sides of 11th and 12th (only exception being rush hour), so you don't really notice the speed of traffic that much.

[brentwood]

The speed of the traffic is only one factor I notice. The bigger issue for me is the huge gaps in traffic that are created with one ways, especially downtown. Outside of rush hour, often you can look down 5th or 6th Avenues (or the other one-ways for that matter) and not see a car for three or four blocks. Then all of a sudden a wave of traffic speeds by with invariably a few cars clearly exceeding the speed limit and then nothing again. In my opinion these gaps create uninteresting streets to walk down and are somewhat hostile. It is almost like watching a car race on an oval track... a pack of cars whizzes by and then nothing and then another pack.

[fusili]

I think one argument against one ways is that it makes access and understanding difficult. Unless you fully understand which roads are one ways, it is easy to get detoured and makes accessing businesses by car difficult.

Imagine you had to get to a store on 11th avenue between 5th and 6th streets, say 605 11th Avenue SW (random address) and you want to drop in and out because you are just picking something up. You take 5th Street coming out of the downtown and because of traffic on 5th street you turn onto 10th avenue, thinking you can just take 6th street. So you take 6th street and turn onto 11th avenue. Then you realize the store is actually between 5th and 6th streets by seeing the store addresses although the address starts with a 6 (crazy system). So you now have to turn onto 7th to turn around and take 12th avenue the other direction. But going down 12th, you realize you can't take 6th, because 11th is a one way, and won't get your to the store. You can't take 5th either, because it is a one way. So you have to go all the way to 4th and back onto 11th.

What could have been a simple left hand turn onto 11th becomes a 7 block detour. That is why one ways suck. This is also why transportation engineers models are wrong in many cases because they always assume perfect knowledge. In our world, knowledge is never perfect.

[kw5150]

Brentwood nailed it. I dont like walking along a steet where cars are going 60 - 70 km / hour. All it takes is one road rage'r to jump the curb and take you out.....I have seen it before!

Im am not neccessarily against one ways, but in their current state in Calgary, they dont do much for the pedestrians....

I would, at least, like to see a feasibility study before I jump to any conclusions....

I know for sure that many people avoid our downtown because the one-ways.......one wrong turn and you have to circle 10 blocks to get back to where you were. Downtown is NOT car friendly or people friendly......I guess that is why we have the beltline area....

I am against converting 10th to a one way..... I can see 10th really transforming into a great little area where people can grab their morning coffee etc....

EDIT:

I would really like the west village to change how we see the west side of our city

[DizzyEdge]

Unsure about the circle 10 blocks scenario, generally if you end up on an avenue going in the opposite direction you anticipated, your next turn to get to the adjacent avenue going the other way is 1-2 blocks away. Unless it's rush hour and you need to merge across 3 lanes, but, well rush hour always kind of sucks I suppose.

[Calgarian]

I think one argument against one ways is that it makes access and understanding difficult. Unless you fully understand which roads are one ways, it is easy to get detoured and makes accessing businesses by car difficult.

Imagine you had to get to a store on 11th avenue between 5th and 6th streets, say 605 11th Avenue SW (random address) and you want to drop in and out because you are just picking something up. You take 5th Street coming out of the downtown and because of traffic on 5th street you turn onto 10th avenue, thinking you can just take 6th street. So you take 6th street and turn onto 11th avenue. Then you realize the store is actually between 5th and 6th streets by seeing the store addresses although the address starts with a 6 (crazy system). So you now have to turn onto 7th to turn around and take 12th avenue the other direction. But going down 12th, you realize you can't take 6th, because 11th is a one way, and won't get your to the store. You can't take 5th either, because it is a one way. So you have to go all the way to 4th and back onto 11th.

What could have been a simple left hand turn onto 11th becomes a 7 block detour. That is why one ways suck. This is also why transportation engineers models are wrong in many cases because they always assume perfect knowledge. In our world, knowledge is never perfect.

That's my biggest beef with the one ways, if you can't get to your street or you miss it, you have to take a huge detour to get back to where you wanted to be. I find 9th Ave the worst for this, if you miss your street or there isn't a parking spot, you have to go all the way down to 6th Ave to be able to turn back toward 9th, very frustrating.

[fusili]

Unsure about the circle 10 blocks scenario, generally if you end up on an avenue going in the opposite direction you anticipated, your next turn to get to the adjacent avenue going the other way is 1-2 blocks away. Unless it's rush hour and you need to merge across 3 lanes, but, well rush hour always kind of sucks I suppose.

Remember that the one ways are going both east-west and north south. Nonetheless, the constant detours because of one ways can be a pain and it hurts local retailers. I would imagine any retailer would much rather be on a two-way street than a one way.

[polishavenger]

There also seems to be an intangible negative vibe on a street where all you see is either the back or front of vehicles, and is designed only to move traffic out of the area. It feels like you are on a freeway rather than a cozy urban street.

[polishavenger]

Timing 2 directions of traffic would be very difficult.


Why is that? I cant see it being any different than one way? On busy roads, the west bound traffic goes first with a left turn signal allowing quick uninterupted turns, and pedestrians on the right turn get to go. Then the east bound traffic goes, same idea, and the pattern repeats as it circulates through all directions. Corresponding intersections down the road do the same thing on an appropriate delay. For intersections with lots of pedestrians, you can do what has been done with the eau clair intersections, pedestrians have a dedicated light and can go all directions, then vehicle traffic goes.

[Koolfire]

Why is that? I cant see it being any different than one way? On busy roads, the west bound traffic goes first with a left turn signal allowing quick uninterupted turns, and pedestrians on the right turn get to go. Then the east bound traffic goes, same idea, and the pattern repeats as it circulates through all directions. Corresponding intersections down the road do the same thing on an appropriate delay. For intersections with lots of pedestrians, you can do what has been done with the eau clair intersections, pedestrians have a dedicated light and can go all directions, then vehicle traffic goes.

First lets forget the left arrow downtown as most intersections don't have enough space for 5 lanes to accommodate a left hand turn lane. Also having 5 lanes makes the roadway much larger then it needs to be if it was one way leaving less sidewalk space. I would be more worried about someone trying to turn left on a yellow trying to clear the intersection and run down a pedestrian as the driver is more worried about on coming traffic then the person.

I would rather see 40Km/h speed limit with lights time so you could go more then 50Km/h per block without having to stop for a red light.

I would be willing to make a small wager that two one-way streets with 3 lanes have better capacity then two 2-way street with 4 lanes total.

[Koolfire]

Remember that the one ways are going both east-west and north south. Nonetheless, the constant detours because of one ways can be a pain and it hurts local retailers. I would imagine any retailer would much rather be on a two-way street than a one way.

I don't know about the retailers preference but my thoughts are that one way street would have a better chance to have parking on both sides and more through traffic so there is more people seeing my store.

The constant detours also means more people pass by too, more chance they might stop by in the future.

[Koolfire]

There also seems to be an intangible negative vibe on a street where all you see is either the back or front of vehicles, and is designed only to move traffic out of the area. It feels like you are on a freeway rather than a cozy urban street.

Okay, I can reverse that and say it doesn't feel like downtown if there isn't one way streets. Most major city's have one way streets in their downtown's.

I don't see it as a negative. But I don't find downtown's cozy as the tall building shadows give it a cold and dark feel outside of midday afternoon.

[Calgarian]

Why is that? I cant see it being any different than one way? On busy roads, the west bound traffic goes first with a left turn signal allowing quick uninterupted turns, and pedestrians on the right turn get to go. Then the east bound traffic goes, same idea, and the pattern repeats as it circulates through all directions. Corresponding intersections down the road do the same thing on an appropriate delay. For intersections with lots of pedestrians, you can do what has been done with the eau clair intersections, pedestrians have a dedicated light and can go all directions, then vehicle traffic goes.

Of course it's different for two way traffic. One way streets work very well because every light is timed to turn green about 30 seconds after the previous one, this can't work with 2 way streets. You can't have the light red in both directions then turning green as the cars approach, the timing just doesn't work. If you have 2 cars, one going east and one going west, one direction will be timed and the other not. For example, when the west bound car gets to the next light, it turns green just as the car approaches, that means that the cars that were waiting at that light going east are going to catch a red light at the intersection the westbound car just came from, and if they make it through that one, they will definitely catch the next one. There would be ways to time the lights to be as efficient as possible, but they will never be as efficient as the one way was.

As for the scramble intersections, they are proven to be very inefficient at moving traffic quickly, the city even admits this. The reason they use them is to improve safety for pedestrians at high traffic intersections.

[polishavenger]

Okay, I can reverse that and say it doesn't feel like downtown if there isn't one way streets. Most major city's have one way streets in their downtown's.

I don't see it as a negative. But I don't find downtown's cozy as the tall building shadows give it a cold and dark feel outside of midday afternoon.

The argument can be reversed, but then you are essentially arguing for an empty unpleasant streetscape. If thats what you want, then all the power to you. I would like to see a downtown that has more of a first street vibe than an 5th ave vibe. I know it will take more than converting the streets to two way, but its a start.

Tall buildings are far more inviting when the streetscape and first few floors are designed for people, which unfortunately is not the case in calgary.

[polishavenger]

Of course it's different for two way traffic. One way streets work very well because every light is timed to turn green about 30 seconds after the previous one, this can't work with 2 way streets. You can't have the light red in both directions then turning green as the cars approach, the timing just doesn't work. If you have 2 cars, one going east and one going west, one direction will be timed and the other not. For example, when the west bound car gets to the next light, it turns green just as the car approaches, that means that the cars that were waiting at that light going east are going to catch a red light at the intersection the westbound car just came from, and if they make it through that one, they will definitely catch the next one. There would be ways to time the lights to be as efficient as possible, but they will never be as efficient as the one way was.


Timing lights doesnt mean you can avoid reds all the time, its just makes flow better on the primary routes at the expense of the secondary routes. Timing with east and west shouldnt be any different, because as the west bound is moving the east is stopped, so the westbound timing can be on a green wave while the east is on a red wave, and vice versa.

[polishavenger]

First lets forget the left arrow downtown as most intersections don't have enough space for 5 lanes to accommodate a left hand turn lane. Also having 5 lanes makes the roadway much larger then it needs to be if it was one way leaving less sidewalk space. I would be more worried about someone trying to turn left on a yellow trying to clear the intersection and run down a pedestrian as the driver is more worried about on coming traffic then the person.



No additional space is necessary. All you need to add is the light to the overhead signal. The inner lane can either go straight or turn left, no additional turning bay is needed since the left turn arrow would go for as long as the green is on for people going straight. This eliminates the problem of one car holding up everyone behind them when they are trying to turn left across on coming traffic, and the problem of trying to clear a yellow light and hitting a pedestrian.

The parking capacity would stay the same as it currently is, all that would change is you would paint a yellow line down the middle of the road, put in some green arrow lights, and change the timing/order of the lights. The biggest change would be at the entry points into down town where one ways would meet with two ways. I will try to put together a diagram for how I would solve this.

[Calgarian]

Timing lights doesnt mean you can avoid reds all the time, its just makes flow better on the primary routes at the expense of the secondary routes. Timing with east and west shouldnt be any different, because as the west bound is moving the east is stopped, so the westbound timing can be on a green wave while the east is on a red wave, and vice versa.

That's exactly my point, while one direction is moving, the other is stopped, and then you have to factor in that both will be stopped at times while the other street has the green. I'm not against the 2-way idea, I'm just saying the one ways are far more efficient at moving traffic.

[MichaelS]

No additional space is necessary. All you need to add is the light to the overhead signal. The inner lane can either go straight or turn left, no additional turning bay is needed since the left turn arrow would go for as long as the green is on for people going straight. This eliminates the problem of one car holding up everyone behind them when they are trying to turn left across on coming traffic, and the problem of trying to clear a yellow light and hitting a pedestrian.

The parking capacity would stay the same as it currently is, all that would change is you would paint a yellow line down the middle of the road, put in some green arrow lights, and change the timing/order of the lights. The biggest change would be at the entry points into down town where one ways would meet with two ways. I will try to put together a diagram for how I would solve this.

You would also need to install lights that are facing the other direction. Example, right now on 11th Ave there is only lights for west bound traffic, not for east bound since there is no east bound traffic.

Also, the east bound would not be stopped while the west bound is moving, both need to move at the same time at some point (might be slight phase shift to allow for turn arrows, hence where the inefficiencies start). They both have to run at the same time, because when they are stopped, the N-S traffic will run. If you run each direction one at a time, you get huge inefficiencies, and at the volumes those roads will experience gridlock all the time.

[polishavenger]

You would also need to install lights that are facing the other direction. Example, right now on 11th Ave there is only lights for west bound traffic, not for east bound since there is no east bound traffic.

Also, the east bound would not be stopped while the west bound is moving, both need to move at the same time at some point (might be slight phase shift to allow for turn arrows, hence where the inefficiencies start). They both have to run at the same time, because when they are stopped, the N-S traffic will run. If you run each direction one at a time, you get huge inefficiencies, and at the volumes those roads will experience gridlock all the time.

Im not sure I understand how running each direction at a time is less efficient that having an entire lane blocked because some has to turn left and has to deal with oncoming traffic? For intersections that have enough traffic to warrant it, I would think this would make a lot more sense, it only seems to make more sense to have both directions moving only if left hand turns are minimal, or opposing traffic is light enough to have lots of gaps to make the left turn.

[kw5150]

Unsure about the circle 10 blocks scenario, generally if you end up on an avenue going in the opposite direction you anticipated, your next turn to get to the adjacent avenue going the other way is 1-2 blocks away. Unless it's rush hour and you need to merge across 3 lanes, but, well rush hour always kind of sucks I suppose.

Dizzy, Im eggagerrating, I think it is closer to fusili's 7 block estimate......but the area around stephen ave and the train line make it quite difficult to maneuver downtown with all of the one ways.

[kw5150]

I don't know about the retailers preference but my thoughts are that one way street would have a better chance to have parking on both sides and more through traffic so there is more people seeing my store.

The constant detours also means more people pass by too, more chance they might stop by in the future.

Oh yay, stuck in a car circling round and round........how fun!

sarcasm

[kw5150]

The argument can be reversed, but then you are essentially arguing for an empty unpleasant streetscape. If thats what you want, then all the power to you. I would like to see a downtown that has more of a first street vibe than an 5th ave vibe. I know it will take more than converting the streets to two way, but its a start.

Tall buildings are far more inviting when the streetscape and first few floors are designed for people, which unfortunately is not the case in calgary.

Yes, and before we make our minds up maybe we can look at how other cities handle downtown traffic. Serely there has to be a more attractic option than our 5 one-way lane freeways (with no bike lanes).

[Koolfire]

No additional space is necessary. All you need to add is the light to the overhead signal. The inner lane can either go straight or turn left, no additional turning bay is needed since the left turn arrow would go for as long as the green is on for people going straight. This eliminates the problem of one car holding up everyone behind them when they are trying to turn left across on coming traffic, and the problem of trying to clear a yellow light and hitting a pedestrian.



So your saying only one direction can go at a time? Either west or east. Your system can not give a left arrow to traffic in both directions at the same time and therefore only one direction can go at a time.

This would half if not more reduce road capacity.

I can't support the idea that we need to create a traffic jam so that it's pedestrian friendly and make it seem like a popular place because there is people there. The this isn't a win-win or even a win-somewhat neutral proposal. This could completely backfire and make people avoid downtown completely outside of work adding to the problem.

Think of it this way, how many people enjoy driving 17th ave (Red Mile) on a Saturday night. A few, they like to see whats going on and people watch but most will steer clear of that area as it's ridiculously more dangerous to drive down then alternatives. Those few I know agree that it's "white knuckle driving" as anything from some one running in front of you or another car sideswiping you is fairly possible.

As for parking, I doubt that your 4 lanes could accommodate 24 hour parking but instead have to be vacated during the rush. With only 3 traffic lanes in one direction, it will depend completely on how wide the sidewalk is and how the curb extensions at each intersection is. With 4 lanes curb extensions would likely be out of the question.

[Koolfire]

The argument can be reversed, but then you are essentially arguing for an empty unpleasant streetscape. If thats what you want, then all the power to you. I would like to see a downtown that has more of a first street vibe than an 5th ave vibe. I know it will take more than converting the streets to two way, but its a start.

Tall buildings are far more inviting when the streetscape and first few floors are designed for people, which unfortunately is not the case in calgary.

Who said I was arguing for an empty or unpleasant streetscape. I don't find downtown unpleasant at all. Everyone has different views of what they like and dislike. That's why we don't all live in skyscrapers, or out in suburbia.

Painting a yellow line down the middle of the street isn't going to make the streetscape better. It will take more then that. The two things that come to mind is more walking space and a denser downtown. Yes denser. Calgary has a nice downtown but relatively the density (SQ not people density) of downtown is smaller. You look at New York, Toronto, and Chicago. Their buildings are significantly taller.

Changing roads to two way I think is the wrong approach. I'd be happier with the roads being 2 lanes wide for traffic one way and parking on the side then to have 4 lanes with 2 way traffic.

[polishavenger]

Who said I was arguing for an empty or unpleasant streetscape. I don't find downtown unpleasant at all. Everyone has different views of what they like and dislike. That's why we don't all live in skyscrapers, or out in suburbia.

Painting a yellow line down the middle of the street isn't going to make the streetscape better. It will take more then that. The two things that come to mind is more walking space and a denser downtown. Yes denser. Calgary has a nice downtown but relatively the density (SQ not people density) of downtown is smaller. You look at New York, Toronto, and Chicago. Their buildings are significantly taller.

Changing roads to two way I think is the wrong approach. I'd be happier with the roads being 2 lanes wide for traffic one way and parking on the side then to have 4 lanes with 2 way traffic.

Arguing for the status quo in downtown is arguing for an unpleasant streetscape. I do however agree that conversion of the one ways to two ways would only be a starting point, a lot more needs to be done.

Density is not the most important factor, usage and design are. You can go to any major city in the world where you have 100 story skyscrapers in the CBD, and you will find them dead after working hours. I've been to Hong Kong, Shanghai, New York, London, Beijing, Manila and its the same everywhere. If you have only a single use in any given area, it will have extended times when no one is around. Mixing up the uses keeps a place vibrant for longer periods of time during the day, and building structures that are welcoming and easily repurposed allow for an active streetscape.

[polishavenger]

So your saying only one direction can go at a time? Either west or east. Your system can not give a left arrow to traffic in both directions at the same time and therefore only one direction can go at a time.

This would half if not more reduce road capacity.

I can't support the idea that we need to create a traffic jam so that it's pedestrian friendly and make it seem like a popular place because there is people there. The this isn't a win-win or even a win-somewhat neutral proposal. This could completely backfire and make people avoid downtown completely outside of work adding to the problem.

Think of it this way, how many people enjoy driving 17th ave (Red Mile) on a Saturday night. A few, they like to see whats going on and people watch but most will steer clear of that area as it's ridiculously more dangerous to drive down then alternatives. Those few I know agree that it's "white knuckle driving" as anything from some one running in front of you or another car sideswiping you is fairly possible.

As for parking, I doubt that your 4 lanes could accommodate 24 hour parking but instead have to be vacated during the rush. With only 3 traffic lanes in one direction, it will depend completely on how wide the sidewalk is and how the curb extensions at each intersection is. With 4 lanes curb extensions would likely be out of the question.

I cant see how that would halve the capacity, or create traffic Jams, but only a traffic study/model would put that questions to rest.

17th Ave is a slow route because it has only 1 through lane in each direction (outside lanes taken up by parking) and because all the intersections except for 14th street dont have turning arrows.

[kw5150]

Can we get a traffic expert to comment? I dont think we should convert ALL of the one ways to two ways, but a few changes may help.

maybe the forumers can start by flagging a couple areas that they think should be changed....?

Here are mine:

I am concerned about the skinny little sidewalks along 9th ave sw and the cares whizzing by pedestrains..... and the one ways around stephen ave and the LRT line.

[fusili]

Can we get a traffic expert to comment? I dont think we should convert ALL of the one ways to two ways, but a few changes may help.

maybe the forumers can start by flagging a couple areas that they think should be changed....?

Here are mine:

I am concerned about the skinny little sidewalks along 9th ave sw and the cares whizzing by pedestrains..... and the one ways around stephen ave and the LRT line.

My issue isn't so much one way streets, but just horrible, narrow sidewalks. Widening sidewalks and planting trees will go a long way to improving pedestrian infrastructure in our city.

[Stang]

My issue isn't so much one way streets, but just horrible, narrow sidewalks. Widening sidewalks and planting trees will go a long way to improving pedestrian infrastructure in our city.

Along the same lines, what about keeping one ways but changing them to have two through lanes only (instead of the 3 or 4 we currently have). The far left and the far right would be turning lanes as you approach an intersection, and in the mid-block range, could be used to facilitate wider sidewalks, trees, parking, etc. depending on the needs or design of a particular block. The two central lanes would be consistently for through traffic.

I could see that improving the streetscape and also maintaining the best part of the one-way system: left-turning vehicles don't hold up the entire road and/or create situations where people are weaving around idle vehicles in the intersection.

I'm not convinced that the downtown pedestrian experience can solely be blamed on the one-ways. Converting to two-ways might help a little, but we're still going to have a relatively sterile CBD area due to the lack of retail, restaurants, etc. 9th Avenue as a two-way will be pretty much as boring/ugly/uninviting as 9th Avenue is as a one way.

[kw5150]

Is there an proven alternate to intersection pedestrian bump-outs? Those things can really cause havoc on busy streets.

Did I see someone above suggest mid block bumpouts? That sounds interesting......something that keeps the drivers just as happy as the pedestrians?

With end of the block bump out, right turning drivers sometimes keep the entire lane waiting if pedestrians are blocking the road they are turning onto...

[freeweed]

My issue isn't so much one way streets, but just horrible, narrow sidewalks. Widening sidewalks and planting trees will go a long way to improving pedestrian infrastructure in our city.

Bingo. Personally as someone who walks an awful lot in downtown centres, I'm floored that anyone thinks idling polluting traffic is more "pedestrian friendly". Calgary's "freeways" are so much better - cars aren't a constant presence next to you outside of rush hour.

Calgary's one ways are only really a problem for navigation because 2 adjacent main avenues do not allow traffic, plus we have the CPR line only a block past that with not enough underpasses. In a proper grid where every road is one way, missing your turn isn't exactly a panic situation - you go exactly 2 blocks further, then turn. Oh the nightmare!

As to light timing/traffic volumes... I can't believe this conversation is even happening. One ways are long since proven to move much more traffic, much more quickly than the equivalent number of 2-way lanes - that's why they were introduced in the first place! You don't need to be a traffic engineer to see the difference between 4th Ave and a similarly sized 2-way street.

Make the core a 40km/h zone if speeding cars is such a concern. Don't make everyone sit waiting at lights idling all the time needlessly. And let's get some proper damn sidewalks in this city.

[Radley77]

I would love to see a handful of appropriately placed pedestrian islands or pedestrian refuges around where pedestrians could cross safely in two stages when it is safe to do so instead of using a light controlled intersection to cross a wide lane.

Especially for use during offpeak hours when there is little traffic. I was thinking a good pilot project could be done at 3rd St SW between 3 & 4 Ave SW.

I agree with freeweeds comments that the oneways are so much more efficient at moving people. I noticed walking eastbound on I think 5 Avenue after work that the lights are almost perfectly in sync with not only vehichle traffic but seem to be timed for pedestrians as well at walking pace. It would be kind of cool to know what parameters and streets the CBD has been optimized for.

[kw5150]

Bingo. Personally as someone who walks an awful lot in downtown centres, I'm floored that anyone thinks idling polluting traffic is more "pedestrian friendly". Calgary's "freeways" are so much better - cars aren't a constant presence next to you outside of rush hour.

Calgary's one ways are only really a problem for navigation because 2 adjacent main avenues do not allow traffic, plus we have the CPR line only a block past that with not enough underpasses. In a proper grid where every road is one way, missing your turn isn't exactly a panic situation - you go exactly 2 blocks further, then turn. Oh the nightmare!

As to light timing/traffic volumes... I can't believe this conversation is even happening. One ways are long since proven to move much more traffic, much more quickly than the equivalent number of 2-way lanes - that's why they were introduced in the first place! You don't need to be a traffic engineer to see the difference between 4th Ave and a similarly sized 2-way street.

Make the core a 40km/h zone if speeding cars is such a concern. Don't make everyone sit waiting at lights idling all the time needlessly. And let's get some proper damn sidewalks in this city.

Sounds good. I think they should still investigate converting part of 9th ave SW into a two way. They should probably leave 4th 5th and 6th alone.

[freeweed]

Sounds good. I think they should still investigate converting part of 9th ave SW into a two way. They should probably leave 4th 5th and 6th alone.

Yeah, 9th I could be convinced about. It's highly annoying that we have 3 streets in a row, followed by tracks, where you cannot travel west. Not sure what this would do to traffic patterns; I'm never around 9th when it's busy. Does it really need to be one way?

[kw5150]

Yeah, 9th I could be convinced about. It's highly annoying that we have 3 streets in a row, followed by tracks, where you cannot travel west. Not sure what this would do to traffic patterns; I'm never around 9th when it's busy. Does it really need to be one way?

9th is quite busy. They could have maybe just 2 lanes heading west and it would create opportunities to redevelop some of that spaghetti west of the downtown. The roads are only 50km anyway.....we may as well get some streetscapes, sidewalks and condos going......ahem....west village! It would be a great drive form the east village to the west village, by the palliser, tower, and through the core.

[DizzyEdge]

Why not just have lane reversals on 9th, 3 lanes east at rush hour.

[93JC]

Without completely redoing Bow Trail the only stretch of 9th Ave I foresee ever being changed to two-way traffic is between 1st St SE and 3rd St SE. Maybe. Too much traffic uses 4th, 5th, 6th and 9th Avenues to get into and out of downtown to switch them to two-way traffic. That's why they're one-ways to begin with.

The only roads downtown I could see being switched to two-way traffic are 2nd, 3rd, 6th and 7th Streets.

[Bassic Lab]

Sounds good. I think they should still investigate converting part of 9th ave SW into a two way. They should probably leave 4th 5th and 6th alone.

The thing is 9 Ave functions with 6 Ave as half of Bow Trail in the downtown core. I don't know if there is a point to having only half of a couplet functioning. I think that it would create a situation where there is excessive west bound capacity but limited east bound. If something was to be done with 9 Ave, the only thing that makes sense to me would be to introduce two way traffic to both 6 Ave and 9 Ave on the east side of downtown and then move it progressively further west until we feel like changing the Bow Trail access into downtown.

Generally I think we could revert all of the one ways to two way traffic with minimal work or disruption except for three of the couplets. Those would be 6 Ave and 9 Ave as part of Bow Trail, 4 Ave and 5 Ave as part of Memorial Drive and Edmonton Trail, and 1 St SE and 2 St SE as part of Macleod Trail.

[Calgarian]

Bingo. Personally as someone who walks an awful lot in downtown centres, I'm floored that anyone thinks idling polluting traffic is more "pedestrian friendly". Calgary's "freeways" are so much better - cars aren't a constant presence next to you outside of rush hour.

Calgary's one ways are only really a problem for navigation because 2 adjacent main avenues do not allow traffic, plus we have the CPR line only a block past that with not enough underpasses. In a proper grid where every road is one way, missing your turn isn't exactly a panic situation - you go exactly 2 blocks further, then turn. Oh the nightmare!

As to light timing/traffic volumes... I can't believe this conversation is even happening. One ways are long since proven to move much more traffic, much more quickly than the equivalent number of 2-way lanes - that's why they were introduced in the first place! You don't need to be a traffic engineer to see the difference between 4th Ave and a similarly sized 2-way street.

Make the core a 40km/h zone if speeding cars is such a concern. Don't make everyone sit waiting at lights idling all the time needlessly. And let's get some proper damn sidewalks in this city.

Very well said, one streets were created to improve traffic flow, and I think they do a great job. The bigger issue is definitely narrow and inconsistent sidewalks (11 Ave between 2nd and 4th SW is a good example). We have too many narrow sidewalks with sign boards and stupid people walking on them, I would support widening and standardizing sidewalks over getting rid of one ways.

9th should stay as a 1 way until you get to the east village (pretty much the way it is now). 4th, 6th, and 11th are all west bound, therefore we should maintain the same number of eastbound one ways (5th, 9th and 12th), otherwise eastbound traffic will be very bad as drivers have less options to move in that direction.

[kw5150]

The thing is 9 Ave functions with 6 Ave as half of Bow Trail in the downtown core. I don't know if there is a point to having only half of a couplet functioning. I think that it would create a situation where there is excessive west bound capacity but limited east bound. If something was to be done with 9 Ave, the only thing that makes sense to me would be to introduce two way traffic to both 6 Ave and 9 Ave on the east side of downtown and then move it progressively further west until we feel like changing the Bow Trail access into downtown.

Generally I think we could revert all of the one ways to two way traffic with minimal work or disruption except for three of the couplets. Those would be 6 Ave and 9 Ave as part of Bow Trail, 4 Ave and 5 Ave as part of Memorial Drive and Edmonton Trail, and 1 St SE and 2 St SE as part of Macleod Trail.

Yes, but maybe we can reconfigure the west village bow trail area so that it works differently. Ahhhhh screw it, to hard to think about and explain. maybe our core is just screwed and we will leave it at that?

Edmonton will have a much more active / intersting core in the future. Our will just be empty and scuzzy.

[DizzyEdge]

Thing is, Edmonton's CBD is much smaller that Calgary's, Edmonton's takes up maybe 1/3 of it's central downtown area, whereas Calgary's takes up about 90% of ours. That has a big effect unfortunately.

[DizzyEdge]

Is there an proven alternate to intersection pedestrian bump-outs? Those things can really cause havoc on busy streets.

Did I see someone above suggest mid block bumpouts? That sounds interesting......something that keeps the drivers just as happy as the pedestrians?

With end of the block bump out, right turning drivers sometimes keep the entire lane waiting if pedestrians are blocking the road they are turning onto...

This I agree with 100%, and I too have been pondering this.

[DizzyEdge]

found this interesting:


But what about the ability of curb extensions to actually facilitate traffic flow? It seems counter-intuitive, as bulb-outs purposefully slow down cars and often eliminate right-turn lanes.........However, the shorter distance that results from curb extensions on each side of a street means the average pedestrian spends at least four seconds less time when crossing the street....The irony is that the reduced time necessary for walkers to cross the street can provide more time for cars to pass, partially compensating for the loss of a right-turn lane...

http://www.planetizen.com/node/44645

[kw5150]

found this interesting:


http://www.planetizen.com/node/44645

:previous::previous:

I think it depends on the situation. I can think of a couple places where an intersection bump out would destroy the traffic pattern regardless.

[DizzyEdge]

:previous::previous:

I think it depends on the situation. I can think of a couple places where an intersection bump out would destroy the traffic pattern regardless.

Yeah I have to say I wasn't completely convinced by that article. I can see it working in many cases, but perhaps not at an intersection where a decent percentage of traffic tends to turn right.

[Radley77]

I would prefer a mix of "green waves" for autos, cyclists and pedestrians so that whatever mode is chosen it is as efficient as possible to travel to a destination.

Right now there are no cycling routes in the CBD. What are peoples thoughts about converting 10 Ave to a one way, and keeping 9 Ave as a one way but having it set up as a "green wave" that is timed for cyclists with signage and marking? This would provide a central backbone to a cycling route through that people could divert from.

[fusili]

found this interesting:


http://www.planetizen.com/node/44645

:previous::previous:

I think it depends on the situation. I can think of a couple places where an intersection bump out would destroy the traffic pattern regardless.

Yeah I have to say I wasn't completely convinced by that article. I can see it working in many cases, but perhaps not at an intersection where a decent percentage of traffic tends to turn right.

Living on 8th street in the Beltline is a good example of this. Most cars crossing 8th have a hard time crossing because there are no lights. But there are pedestrian crosswalks. When a pedestrian crosses 8th, the north/south traffic stops and east/west cars typically take advantage of this to cross 8th. Perhaps the same goes for curb bulbs?

[DizzyEdge]

Living on 8th street in the Beltline is a good example of this. Most cars crossing 8th have a hard time crossing because there are no lights. But there are pedestrian crosswalks. When a pedestrian crosses 8th, the north/south traffic stops and east/west cars typically take advantage of this to cross 8th. Perhaps the same goes for curb bulbs?

Sorry I didn't quite follow this, how pedestrian crosswalks on 8th allowing cars to make their move relates to curb bulbs.

[fusili]

Sorry I didn't quite follow this, how pedestrian crosswalks on 8th allowing cars to make their move relates to curb bulbs.

Sorry, I was really rambling and indirect there. Lets take a street like 7th. Most traffic is North/South, and it doesn't have stop lights, so East/West traffic has to wait a while for a bit to cross. Curb bulbs would eliminate the right hand turn lane, so any right turning vehicles would have to slow down to turn, giving the east/west traffic enough time to cross before other vehicles going north/south get to the intersection, because they are slowed by the right turning vehicle. Did that make any sense? Basically, an impediment to the higher traffic direction provides time for the other direction to cross. It is just a much softer measure than a signal or stop sign. Plus curb bulbs increase visibility, because cars parked in the curb lane near the intersection reduce visibility of oncoming traffic considerably. I for one, would love curb bulbs in my part of the Beltline if nothing else but to make it easier to see traffic coming.

[DizzyEdge]

Sorry, I was really rambling and indirect there. Lets take a street like 7th. Most traffic is North/South, and it doesn't have stop lights, so East/West traffic has to wait a while for a bit to cross. Curb bulbs would eliminate the right hand turn lane, so any right turning vehicles would have to slow down to turn, giving the east/west traffic enough time to cross before other vehicles going north/south get to the intersection, because they are slowed by the right turning vehicle. Did that make any sense? Basically, an impediment to the higher traffic direction provides time for the other direction to cross. It is just a much softer measure than a signal or stop sign. Plus curb bulbs increase visibility, because cars parked in the curb lane near the intersection reduce visibility of oncoming traffic considerably. I for one, would love curb bulbs in my part of the Beltline if nothing else but to make it easier to see traffic coming.

Yep that made sense. Curb bulbs cause regular pauses to traffic that wouldn't otherwise exist.

[freeweed]

All this talk about intersection bump outs just reminds me of the farce that the NIMBYs in Varsity were allowed to push for. The clear intention was to make the road such a pain in the ass that traffic avoids it entirely. Not sure that's a good idea on our major central routes.

Maybe you guys are talking about something that works completely different.

[Calgarian]

Yeah I have to say I wasn't completely convinced by that article. I can see it working in many cases, but perhaps not at an intersection where a decent percentage of traffic tends to turn right.

I think it would depend on the volume of pedestrian traffic crossing the street. Is it just a single group of people, or a steady stream.

[Calgarian]

Bump outs are a good idea as long as they don't go too far back into what will be the parking lane. On 11th Ave and 5 St, the bump out goes back 100' or so from the intersection and that creates a situation where cabs dropping people off at the bars there stop and block one of the 2 lanes of moving traffic, then they just sit there and wait for another fare. This drives me crazy! it happens every Thursday, Friday and Saturday night and no one seems to care enough to do something about it, I've called the cab companies, 311 and the police and nothing has changed.

[fusili]

All this talk about intersection bump outs just reminds me of the farce that the NIMBYs in Varsity were allowed to push for. The clear intention was to make the road such a pain in the ass that traffic avoids it entirely. Not sure that's a good idea on our major central routes.

Maybe you guys are talking about something that works completely different.

I would be talking about the Beltline. In the residential areas (not 10th, 11th, 12th avenues or Macleod, 1st, 1st, 4th, 8th or 11th streets) curb bulbs could work. In this particular place it makes sense because the volume of pedestrian traffic far exceeds vehicle traffic on these streets and because street parking is so prevalent, visibility at intersections actually is an issue because almost always you will have cars parked as close to the intersection as possible, reducing visibility.

[fusili]

Bump outs are a good idea as long as they don't go too far back into what will be the parking lane. On 11th Ave and 5 St, the bump out goes back 100' or so from the intersection and that creates a situation where cabs dropping people off at the bars there stop and block one of the 2 lanes of moving traffic, then they just sit there and wait for another fare. This drives me crazy! it happens every Thursday, Friday and Saturday night and no one seems to care enough to do something about it, I've called the cab companies, 311 and the police and nothing has changed.

Who cares? It is late at night and traffic isn't that heavy. Its not like it is rush hour. Are you driving westbound on 11th every night at 12:30 or something? Anyways, I believe there is a late night taxi stand just outside the Keg, which should help the situation a bit.

[kw5150]

Sorry, I was really rambling and indirect there. Lets take a street like 7th. Most traffic is North/South, and it doesn't have stop lights, so East/West traffic has to wait a while for a bit to cross. Curb bulbs would eliminate the right hand turn lane, so any right turning vehicles would have to slow down to turn, giving the east/west traffic enough time to cross before other vehicles going north/south get to the intersection, because they are slowed by the right turning vehicle. Did that make any sense? Basically, an impediment to the higher traffic direction provides time for the other direction to cross. It is just a much softer measure than a signal or stop sign. Plus curb bulbs increase visibility, because cars parked in the curb lane near the intersection reduce visibility of oncoming traffic considerably. I for one, would love curb bulbs in my part of the Beltline if nothing else but to make it easier to see traffic coming.

Curb bulbs sound fine, but they dont work in some areas where hundreds of people turn right everyday.

Also, I have noticed that maybe there is a rift forming even further between pedestrian and cars these days......Sometimes, there are tones of cars waiting to cross an intersection and just as there is a space apening for the car to cross..........a pedestrian saunters across the road in front of the car and the car cannot go.......then another pedestrian saunters after and then another and the people in the cars are going bat shit crazy.

Only every now and then do yo see a pedestrian letting a car go by. I am not advocating for cars to have the right of way but I think you know what I mean about sauntering pedestrians......like they are punishing every person that is in a car.

[kw5150]

Also, downtown, we need more advance turning signals for cars. maybe not as long as some of them, but a quick advance turn (one way to one way) so that at least 5 - 10 cars can turn before being blocked by pedestrian flow. It always seems that as soon as you get a chance to turn, some pedestrian non-chalontly saunters across the road and holds up 10 cars...... this does not make people happy....... If i am walking and notice a whole bunch of cars wating, I wave them by, let 5 go and then cross.

There are some seriously easy ways to fight the rush hour pedestrian vs car rage we are experiencing lately.

[kw5150]

All this talk about intersection bump outs just reminds me of the farce that the NIMBYs in Varsity were allowed to push for. The clear intention was to make the road such a pain in the ass that traffic avoids it entirely. Not sure that's a good idea on our major central routes.

Maybe you guys are talking about something that works completely different.

I was actually bringing up some of the negative impacts a curb bump out can have at some intersections....... some places it works very well.....others, it creates a traffic nightmare. Sadly, we also have to accomodate motorists in the inner city!! ;) If we dont allow for better traffic flow, all the ol' grey hairs will just vote to push a freeway though the inner city......

[fusili]

Curb bulbs sound fine, but they dont work in some areas where hundreds of people turn right everyday.

Also, I have noticed that maybe there is a rift forming even further between pedestrian and cars these days......Sometimes, there are tones of cars waiting to cross an intersection and just as there is a space apening for the car to cross..........a pedestrian saunters across the road in front of the car and the car cannot go.......then another pedestrian saunters after and then another and the people in the cars are going bat shit crazy.

Only every now and then do yo see a pedestrian letting a car go by. I am not advocating for cars to have the right of way but I think you know what I mean about sauntering pedestrians......like they are punishing every person that is in a car.

That is simply a function of what happens in a downtown with a lot of pedestrian traffic. Pedestrians are slow and can't go very far compared to cars, but you can move a crap load of them in a small space. Part of driving downtown is just accepting the fact that there are a lot of pedestrians there. And some of them will walk slowly. But I would much, much rather have those thousands of pedestrians walking or taking the train then driving. If they drove, traffic would be a chaotic mess. Just because the system isn't perfect, doesn't mean it isn't good.

[kw5150]

That is simply a function of what happens in a downtown with a lot of pedestrian traffic. Pedestrians are slow and can't go very far compared to cars, but you can move a crap load of them in a small space. Part of driving downtown is just accepting the fact that there are a lot of pedestrians there. And some of them will walk slowly. But I would much, much rather have those thousands of pedestrians walking or taking the train then driving. If they drove, traffic would be a chaotic mess. Just because the system isn't perfect, doesn't mean it isn't good.

I actually disagree with you for once. Motorists exist. We cant just make them suffer and become more bitter than they already are. We now have motorists trying to speed throught these gaps in the slow pedestrians and almost running them over. This system creates road rage and anger and the system is not working very well. How many times do you see a car angrily waiting for pedestrians, and then speeding off in anger when he FINALLY gets the chance to turn after all of the sauntering pedestrians clear the intersections? Pedestrians need to be aware as well and courteous.

I think we need a couple more advanced green lights (short ones).......OH and some education that YES, you can turn left on a red light from a one-way to a one-way!!

[Calgarian]

Who cares? It is late at night and traffic isn't that heavy. Its not like it is rush hour. Are you driving westbound on 11th every night at 12:30 or something? Anyways, I believe there is a late night taxi stand just outside the Keg, which should help the situation a bit.

It actually screws it up pretty good, I've seen traffic backed up a whole block at 1AM. One time it took me 5 minutes to get around the stupid cab, and the guy behind me looked like he was about ready to pull the cabbie out of his van and start kicking the crap out of him. I absolutely do not condone cabs using a traffic lane as a cab stand no matter what time it is, especially on a street like 11th that's pretty busy until about 3AM. The thing is, there is a cab stand where the bump out ends, but it's always full of cabs, so the others just stop on the street.

[Calgarian]

Curb bulbs sound fine, but they dont work in some areas where hundreds of people turn right everyday.

Also, I have noticed that maybe there is a rift forming even further between pedestrian and cars these days......Sometimes, there are tones of cars waiting to cross an intersection and just as there is a space apening for the car to cross..........a pedestrian saunters across the road in front of the car and the car cannot go.......then another pedestrian saunters after and then another and the people in the cars are going bat shit crazy.

Only every now and then do yo see a pedestrian letting a car go by. I am not advocating for cars to have the right of way but I think you know what I mean about sauntering pedestrians......like they are punishing every person that is in a car.

That's what I was getting at when I mentioned the volume of pedestrian traffic, I see things like this pretty much daily.

[kw5150]

It actually screws it up pretty good, I've seen traffic backed up a whole block at 1AM. One time it took me 5 minutes to get around the stupid cab, and the guy behind me looked like he was about ready to pull the cabbie out of his van and start kicking the crap out of him. I absolutely do not condone cabs using a traffic lane as a cab stand no matter what time it is, especially on a street like 11th that's pretty busy until about 3AM. The thing is, there is a cab stand where the bump out ends, but it's always full of cabs, so the others just stop on the street.

Yes, cabbies are shitheads these days. They are just bitter that they cant sit at the airport everyday.....combine that with the high price of gas...... and it comes out in the form of road rage... ;)

[Calgarian]

That is simply a function of what happens in a downtown with a lot of pedestrian traffic. Pedestrians are slow and can't go very far compared to cars, but you can move a crap load of them in a small space. Part of driving downtown is just accepting the fact that there are a lot of pedestrians there. And some of them will walk slowly. But I would much, much rather have those thousands of pedestrians walking or taking the train then driving. If they drove, traffic would be a chaotic mess. Just because the system isn't perfect, doesn't mean it isn't good.

I agree, downtown should be encouraged as a pedestrian environment first, and a driving environment second. If you don't like waiting in your car, park it and walk, or better yet, leave it in the 'burbs and take the train.

[Calgarian]

Yes, cabbies are shitheads these days. They are just bitter that they cant sit at the airport everyday.....combine that with the high price of gas...... and it comes out in the form of road rage... ;)

That airport thing is really dumb if you ask me, not sure why they did it, but there are definitely more cabs downtown waiting at cab stands. Calgary really needs to get a handle on cabs and give them a place to wait.

[freeweed]

If we dont allow for better traffic flow, all the ol' grey hairs will just vote to push a freeway though the inner city......

This is something a lot of people seem to forget. The majority of the city (and hence, the majority of voters) will quite happily do the stupid thing and vote for inner city freeways if we make driving through downtown really bad. Which leads back to the original thread topic.

[fusili]

I actually disagree with you for once. Motorists exist. We cant just make them suffer and become more bitter than they already are. We now have motorists trying to speed throught these gaps in the slow pedestrians and almost running them over. This system creates road rage and anger and the system is not working very well. How many times do you see a car angrily waiting for pedestrians, and then speeding off in anger when he FINALLY gets the chance to turn after all of the sauntering pedestrians clear the intersections? Pedestrians need to be aware as well and courteous.

I think we need a couple more advanced green lights (short ones).......OH and some education that YES, you can turn left on a red light from a one-way to a one-way!!

Not saying I like this behavior, just saying it is nearly impossible to stop it. What are you going to do, tell people to walk faster?

[DizzyEdge]

Also, downtown, we need more advance turning signals for cars. maybe not as long as some of them, but a quick advance turn (one way to one way) so that at least 5 - 10 cars can turn before being blocked by pedestrian flow. It always seems that as soon as you get a chance to turn, some pedestrian non-chalontly saunters across the road and holds up 10 cars...... this does not make people happy....... If i am walking and notice a whole bunch of cars wating, I wave them by, let 5 go and then cross.

There are some seriously easy ways to fight the rush hour pedestrian vs car rage we are experiencing lately.

Totally agree with this, put these in any intersection that has the pedestrian volume to warrant it.

Also slightly offtopic, anyone have a good idea how to deal with cyclists who are rollin down the sidewalk at 10-20 km/hr who I almost hit as I turn right because I didn't check my rearview mirror to look a block backwards to look for cyclists racing down the sidewalk? grrrrrrr

[kw5150]

This is something a lot of people seem to forget. The majority of the city (and hence, the majority of voters) will quite happily do the stupid thing and vote for inner city freeways if we make driving through downtown really bad. Which leads back to the original thread topic.

Yes, and having a shitty downtown where no one wants to live will also let freeways run through because no one will give a shit......its a balance.

I still think 9th would be an amazing 2 way street!

Ok here is an example. They are announcing: "To increase the flow of traffic in Calgary, all streets will be changed to one ways."

What would the reaction be? I just think that there needs to be a balance and the quality has to be good. All of the one ways I know are very car centric and rerely have high levels of pedestrain traffic. Pedestrians avoid busy one-ways.

[fusili]

Totally agree with this, put these in any intersection that has the pedestrian volume to warrant it.

Also slightly offtopic, anyone have a good idea how to deal with cyclists who are rollin down the sidewalk at 10-20 km/hr who I almost hit as I turn right because I didn't check my rearview mirror to look a block backwards to look for cyclists racing down the sidewalk? grrrrrrr

Umm, watch for pedestrians and cyclists when you turn right.

[kw5150]

Totally agree with this, put these in any intersection that has the pedestrian volume to warrant it.

Also slightly offtopic, anyone have a good idea how to deal with cyclists who are rollin down the sidewalk at 10-20 km/hr who I almost hit as I turn right because I didn't check my rearview mirror to look a block backwards to look for cyclists racing down the sidewalk? grrrrrrr

GRRRRRRRrrrrr, I cant stand those bastards and I share your anger. Cyclists should NOT be on the sidewalks; there are too many blind corners. If they are, they should be yeilding to ALL cars and pedestrians or be at fault. When I ride on the sidewalk which is rarely, I go VERY slow and watch for everything.

The other day, I saw a cylcist speeding down a sidewalk and a car was driving out of an alley. The car in the alley almost hit the cyclist (there was a fence blcoking the car's view) and then the cyclist had the audacity to yell at the car. They were both CLEARLY at fault.

[kw5150]

Umm, watch for pedestrians and cyclists when you turn right.

Are you having a bad day or something? Dizzy was not at fault. The speeding cyclist came out of nowhere and cyclists have to be responsible as well. I would never cycle at 20 km per hour by a right turning car....the awareness is not out there yet for cars and cyclists and our infrastrcuture is not up to par yet.

[kw5150]

Not saying I like this behavior, just saying it is nearly impossible to stop it. What are you going to do, tell people to walk faster?

No, Im going to add an advanced green......just like I said. And, actually maybe they could walk a little faster......YES. Why is such a problem to ask people to be more courteous? Everyone, is too caught up in thier "angst" these days to consider anyone else around them.

Gimme a break man. I am simply pointing out a problem that seems to be causing a lot of chaos. We need to make our downtown good for everyone one.....and yes, even motorists.

Now I am going to ask you a stupid question.

Do you think every motorist should be driven crazy so that they may one-day decide to take the train instead?

[s211]

I think we need a couple more advanced green lights (short ones).......OH and some education that YES, you can turn left on a red light from a one-way to a one-way!!

I imagine fewer people know that than the number of Vancouverites I've seen turn left off a two-way onto a one-way... almost a daily occurence downtown...

[kw5150]

I imagine fewer people know that than the number of Vancouverites I've seen turn left off a two-way onto a one-way... almost a daily occurence downtown...

Maybe, we just need a big driver, pedestrian cyclist, education day, followed by beer gardens and music??

[DizzyEdge]

Are you having a bad day or something? Dizzy was not at fault. The speeding cyclist came out of nowhere and cyclists have to be responsible as well. I would never cycle at 20 km per hour by a right turning car....the awareness is not out there yet for cars and cyclists and our infrastrcuture is not up to par yet.

yeah, 90% of the time cyclists on the sidewalk are no problem, it's those who are riding at similar speeds to those on the road. That said, if they were on the road between me and the sidewalk I'd have to do break-my-neck shoulder check to check for them too, so maybe I just need to suck it up :)

[fusili]

No, Im going to add an advanced green......just like I said. And, actually maybe they could walk a little faster......YES. Why is such a problem to ask people to be more courteous? Everyone, is too caught up in thier "angst" these days to consider anyone else around them.

Gimme a break man. I am simply pointing out a problem that seems to be causing a lot of chaos. We need to make our downtown good for everyone one.....and yes, even motorists.

Now I am going to ask you a stupid question.

Do you think every motorist should be driven crazy so that they may one-day decide to take the train instead?

No, I don't think motorists should be driven crazy. I know I am every time I drive. So I avoid it like the plague. All I know is while it is ok to complain about pedestrians crossing crosswalks, that is just a fact of life that you have to accept. 8th street right now is a complete mess because it is reduced to one lane at 8th avenue. Right turning vehicles block traffic waiting for pedestrians to cross 8th avenue (and there are a lot of them) so really only 2 or 3 vehicles cross at each light. It is infuriating. But it is also mostly inevitable. So, I just accept it.

[93JC]

All of the one ways I know are very car centric and rerely have high levels of pedestrain traffic. Pedestrians avoid busy one-ways.

Do you, as a pedestrian, avoid 4th, 5th or 6th Ave SW? I don't! But I do tend to avoid 9th Ave.

"Why," you ask? Pedestrians, just as motorists, require two things before they will take a particular route: the means and a destination. I don't walk down 9th because the sidewalks are narrow or non-existent (the means to walk down 9th aren't there), and there is nothing but parking lots west of 4th St (I have no destination on 9th Ave).

Macleod Tr is two-way but I don't particularly enjoy walking down it either, for the same reasons as I avoid 9th: crappy sidewalks and nothing to walk to. It has nothing to do with the directions of traffic.

[kw5150]

Do you, as a pedestrian, avoid 4th, 5th or 6th Ave SW? I don't! But I do tend to avoid 9th Ave.

"Why," you ask? Pedestrians, just as motorists, require two things before they will take a particular route: the means and a destination. I don't walk down 9th because the sidewalks are narrow or non-existent (the means to walk down 9th aren't there), and there is nothing but parking lots west of 4th St (I have no destination on 9th Ave).

Macleod Tr is two-way but I don't particularly enjoy walking down it either, for the same reasons as I avoid 9th: crappy sidewalks and nothing to walk to. It has nothing to do with the directions of traffic.


Yes, thank you for making me realize that, yes! I do avoid 4th 5th and 6th. I would rather walk in certain areas and there is a reason for it for sure.....I dont really like having hundred of cars speeding at 70km per hour kicking up dust. I would rather walk along 8th ave anyday than any of the one ways.

And Mcleaod trail south is a bad example for you to pull in at this moment. It is nothing like the inner city 2 ways I am talking about. It is more like an expressway.............but yes, it is completely terrible.

[DizzyEdge]

Yes, thank you for making me realize that, yes! I do avoid 4th 5th and 6th. I would rather walk in certain areas and there is a reason for it for sure.....I dont really like having hundred of cars speeding at 70km per hour kicking up dust. I would rather walk along 8th ave anyday than any of the one ways.

And Mcleaod trail south is a bad example for you to pull in at this moment. It is nothing like the inner city 2 ways I am talking about. It is more like an expressway.............but yes, it is completely terrible.

Walking down such streets would probably be less discomforting if there was on-street parking between you and the road. Of course if there's no reason to walk there that doesn't help much in the desire department (in the case of much of 9th).

[Calgarian]

I imagine fewer people know that than the number of Vancouverites I've seen turn left off a two-way onto a one-way... almost a daily occurence downtown...

I see that daily and it drives me nuts, you can only turn left onto a one way street if you are currently on a one way street. I almost got into a fight with a guy who was honking at me to turn left onto a one way off a 2 way and I wouldn't do it because it's illegal. I've almost been hit by cars (when I'm walking) as I cross the 2way street while they are watching right on the one way to turn left. Calgary drivers really are something else. As a pedestrian the number one thing to do is make eye contact with the driver before you start crossing as you are a secondary consideration to them.

[Calgarian]

No, I don't think motorists should be driven crazy. I know I am every time I drive. So I avoid it like the plague. All I know is while it is ok to complain about pedestrians crossing crosswalks, that is just a fact of life that you have to accept.

Exactly, as long as pedestrians and vehicles are both on the same signal, drivers are going to have to wait for pedestrians, and lots of those pedestrians are as oblivious to those around them as the drivers in this city so they dawdle.

[Bassic Lab]

yeah, 90% of the time cyclists on the sidewalk are no problem, it's those who are riding at similar speeds to those on the road. That said, if they were on the road between me and the sidewalk I'd have to do break-my-neck shoulder check to check for them too, so maybe I just need to suck it up :)

Well even then any accident would be the cyclist's fault. They are supposed to be acting as a vehicle. No motorcyclist, who is not attempting to commit suicide, would attempt to pass a right turning car on the right. Then again, motorcyclists actually require a special licence to prove that they know what they are doing.

On the other hand, automobile drivers must give special attention to ensure that they do not endanger the livers of pedestrians and cyclists. This is simply because they have a great deal more power at their disposal. They can seriously injure, or kill, others in a way that pedestrians and cyclists cannot.

So I guess it depends on the situation . As long as all due care and more is taken then what happens will happen. If a cyclist wants to illegally speed along a sidewalk with parked cars making them invisible to drivers and continue across streets without stopping... Well, I would feel bad if I hit them but if I had done every thing possible to ensure their safety and they had decided to risk their life by breaking traffic laws then it is really on them. There is a reason we ban all cyclists, with the exemption of small children, from the sidewalk. It is both for the safety of pedestrians and to make it clear that the sidewalk is not just another lane of traffic that turning vehicles have to cross, thus defeating the purpose of banning right turns from left lanes.

[Radley77]

whoops... wrong thread.

[nick.flood]

I see that daily and it drives me nuts, you can only turn left onto a one way street if you are currently on a one way street. I almost got into a fight with a guy who was honking at me to turn left onto a one way off a 2 way and I wouldn't do it because it's illegal. I've almost been hit by cars (when I'm walking) as I cross the 2way street while they are watching right on the one way to turn left. Calgary drivers really are something else. As a pedestrian the number one thing to do is make eye contact with the driver before you start crossing as you are a secondary consideration to them.

I third this. Since moving to 12th Avenue I've been amazed at how many times I see this, either while driving or crossing as a pedestrian.

[fusili]

I imagine fewer people know that than the number of Vancouverites I've seen turn left off a two-way onto a one-way... almost a daily occurence downtown...

I see that daily and it drives me nuts, you can only turn left onto a one way street if you are currently on a one way street. I almost got into a fight with a guy who was honking at me to turn left onto a one way off a 2 way and I wouldn't do it because it's illegal. I've almost been hit by cars (when I'm walking) as I cross the 2way street while they are watching right on the one way to turn left. Calgary drivers really are something else. As a pedestrian the number one thing to do is make eye contact with the driver before you start crossing as you are a secondary consideration to them.

I third this. Since moving to 12th Avenue I've been amazed at how many times I see this, either while driving or crossing as a pedestrian.

You can definitely turn from a two-way onto a one way.

http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/2020.htm